Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.special.20150601 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING June 01, 2015 4:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Notice of HPC Call Up a) Notice of HPC approval: 223 E. Hallam Street IV. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #21, Series of 2015 - Gibson Matchless Subdivision - Continue to June 8, 2015 b) Ordinance #20, Series of 2015 - Charter Amendment Implementation c) Ordinance #1, Series of 2015 - 232 E. Main St,. Base 2 Lodge, Planned Development, Design Reviews, Demolition, and Growth Management d) Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 - 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Tree Removal Permit Appeal V. Action Items a) Executive Session - C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) purchase, acquisiton, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal or other property interest; and (b) conference with an attorney. VI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting June 08, 2015 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Invite the Community to Participate with Us in Solution-Making • Tone and Tenor Matter • Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, On-site relocation, and Variances for 223 E. Hallam Street, HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015 DATE: June 1, 2015 BACKGROUND: On May 13, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Conceptual Major Development Review, On-site Relocation and Variances for the property located at 223 E. Hallam Street. 223 E. Hallam is a 6,000 square foot lot that contains a Victorian era home. This property was recently the subject of a subdivision, which separated the 19 th century resource from the Berko photography studio to the west. HPC was asked to conduct Conceptual design review of a project that involves demolishing non-historic construction on the site (including the one story form, seen at right, that was added in the early 1900s and destroyed the original front porch), moving the Victorian to the front of the property and expanding it. The project included setback variances and a floor area bonus request, which were granted. Drawings representing the Conceptual approval are attached as Exhibit A. Conceptual review is mass, scale and site plan only. HPC Final design review of materials, windows, landscape and lighting will follow. The HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. The board approved the project by a 4-3 vote. There were two members who were interested in the possibility of an eastward shift of the historic home, and one who had reservations about the floor area bonus because the exact appearance of the front porch that will be reconstructed is not known. PROCEDURE : This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the June 1st Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Amy Simon, 429-2758 or amy.simon@cityofaspen.com. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda. For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their June 1 st or June 8 th meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand. ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A: Conceptual Design Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution #16, Series of 2015 Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from May 13, 2015 P1 III.a Z-CVR Z-001 Z-002 COVER LAND USE APPROVALS LAND USE APPROVALS PLAT Z-004 Z-005 Z-006 Z-007 SURVEY ZONING SUMMARY RDS COMPLIANCE SITE PLAN SITE COVERAGE Z-011X Z-012X Z-013X Z-011 Z-012 Z-013 Z-014 Z-101 Z-102 Z-103 Z-104 Z-201 Z-202 Z-203 Z-204 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS TEMPORARY RELOCATION FLOOR PLANS FLOOR PLANS FLOOR PLANS FLOOR PLANS HEIGHTS HEIGHTS HEIGHTS HEIGHTS Z-009 Z-010 ROOF DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS Z-206 Z-207 Z-208 HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY MATERIALS STREETSCAPE SHEET INDEX PROJECT SITE 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam StSCOPE OF WORK The remodel of a landmarked historic residence - removing two non- historic additions, removing a non-historic detatched garage, moving the entire remaining structure to the North West corner of the Lot, building an addition to the rear of the house, and the addition of a subgrade level.HPC MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-CVR COVER 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 I I I . a Deed Deed INDEX OF LAND USE APPROVALS: Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - (Z-002) Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - (Z-002) Book 104, page 38 Sept 2013 - Final Plat STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-001 LAND USE APPROVALS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 3 I I I . a Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - Remodel to the West Elevation Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - Remodel to the West Elevation Resolution 29 Series of 2012 - Remodel to the West Elevation Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split Ordinance No 5 Series of 2013 - Lot Split STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-002 LAND USE APPROVALS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 4 I I I . a P 5 I I I . a P 6 I I I . a Allowable Floor Area 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Allowable Floor Area Reference Per R-6 26.710.040.D.11 Unique Approvals Reference Variances Reference Exemptions Reference Garage Exemption First 250 sq ft exempt; Next 250 sq ft to exclude 50% of area 26.575.020.D.7. Deck Exemption 486 sq ft exempt (Allowable floor area 3,240 sq ft x 15%)26.575.020.D.5. Floor Area Summary Existing Gross (Sq Ft) Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft) Proposed Gross (Sq Ft) Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft) Reference Lower Level 257.75 17.55 3,709.75 144.15 Main Level 2,037.50 1,550.25 2,480.50 2,105.50 Upper Level 1,015.50 1,015.50 1,458.75 1,458.75 Deck Area (including covered front porch)40.00 371.50 TOTAL 3,350.75 2,583.30 8,020.50 3,708.40 Lot is 6,000 sq ft therefore, per R-6 code, this Lot has an allowable FAR of 3,240 (will apply for a 500 sq ft bonus from HPC, which would allow for 3,740) Zoning Allowance & Project Summary Proposed Development Single Family | Remodel/Addition Parcel #273-707-316-008 Zone District R-6 Setbacks Existing Reference Front 3'-0 1/2”10'15'10'N/A 26.710.040.D.2 Rear 10'10'5'10'5'26.710.040.D.3 West Side 5'5'N/A 5'N/A 26.710.040.D.4 East Side 1'-7”5'N/A 5'N/A 26.710.040.D.4 Combined Side 10'15'N/A 10'N/A 26.710.040.D.4 Distance between Buildings N/A 5'N/A N/A 26.710.040.D.9 Corner Lot no no Plat Supplemental Breakdown Info Existing Required Proposed Reference Open Space %N/A Not Required for R-6 N/A 26.710.040.D.10 Site Coverage 33.90%50%42.30%26.710.040.D.7 On-Site Parking 2 (garage)2 2 Land Value Summary Actual Value Reference Land $3,000,000 Improvements $99,500 Total $3,099,500 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Allowed (Principal) Allowed (Accessory) Proposed (Principal) Proposed (Accessory) Pitkin County Assessor Pitkin County Assessor Pitkin County Assessor Net Lot Area Zone District Requirements Reference Min. Gross Lot Area (per R-6)6,000 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.1 Min. Net Lot Area (per R-6)4,500 Sq Ft; 3,000 Sq Ft for Historic Landmark Properties 26.710.040.D.2 Lot Size Per Survey Reference N/A N/A N/A Total Area Reductions Net Lot Area 6,000 Sq Ft Per Plat 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Reductions for area with slopes 0%-20% (100% of parcel area to be included in Net Lot Area) Survey 26.575.020-1 Reductions for area with slopes 20%-30% (50% of parcel area to be included in Net Lot Area) Survey 26.575.020-1 Reductions for area with slopes greater than 30% (0% of parcel area to be included in Net Lot Area) Survey 26.575.020-1 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-004 ZONING SUMMARY 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 7 I I I . a Residential Design Standards Compliance Project Name RDS Section Code Description Compliance Description Referenced Z Sheets A. Site Design 1. Building orientation.The front facades of all principal structures are parallel to the street. This is not a corner lot. Z-006 2. Build-to lines. Z-006 3. Fences.Z-006 B. Building Form 1. Secondary mass.Z-006 a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road.The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-101 Z-203 The garage doors are visible from the alley. Z-203 The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203 The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203 The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203 The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203 The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203 The garage is accessed from the alley.Z-203 D. Building Elements Z-201 Z-101 Z-101 There is a significant group of windows in the historic resource that face the street.Z-201 2. First story element.Z-101 3. Windows.The proposed street facing windows do not span between 9' and 12'.Z-201 There are no non-orthogonal windows existing to remain or proposed.Z-201 – Z-205 All light-wells are recessed behind the front-most wall of the building.Z-101 E. Context 1. Materials.Z-201 – Z-205 Proposed materials will be used in ways that are true to their characteristics.Z-201 – Z-205 c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials.There are no proposed highly reflective exterior materials.Z-201 – Z-205 2. Inflection. Z-201 Z-102 The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. Due to the relocation of the historic resource, more than 60% of the front facade will be within 5 feet of the front yard setback. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. The historic fence that is proposed to be located at the front of the house is no more than 42”. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. More than 10% of the total above grade square footage is located in a secondary mass that is connected to the primary structure by a subordinate linking element that is 10' in length, 10' in width and has a plate height of less than 9'. C. Parking, Garages and Carports 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. The garage doors are visible from the alley and are double stall doors that appear like single stall doors. c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single-stall or normal double-stall garage doors. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be apply: a) On the street facing facade(s), the width of the living area on the first floor shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport. b) The front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. c) On lots of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in size, the garage or carport may be forward of the front facade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded). d) When the floor of a garage or carport is above or below the street level, the driveway cut within the front yard setback shall not exceed two (2) feet in depth, measured from natural grade. e) The vehicular entrance width of a garage or carport shall not be greater than twenty-four (24) feet. f) If the garage doors are visible from a public street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: The historic resource that is proposed to be relocated at the front of the lot has a street oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front- most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. The entry door of the historic resource is no more than 10' back from the front most wall of the building. The entry door is not taller than 8'. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. The entry porch of the historic resource is being restored. It is more than 6' in depth and not more than 1 story in height. It is more that 50 square feet. c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. The historic resource does not have a first story street facing element and therefore this is not applicable. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. b) No more than one (1) non-orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) non-orthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. 4. Lightwells.All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. The quality of the exterior materials and their application is consistent on all sides of the building. b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or non-bearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to Inflect. There is a 1 story building on the lot to the east of our property and we are inflecting in the proposed addition to that lot with a 1 story garage. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. The proposed addition is located behind the historic resource and therefore the inflection is not visible from the street. It is more than 12' wide on the alley/south side of the lot and has only one floor of fully usable space. Residential Design Standards Unique Approvals & Variances See Land Use Approvals for complete list of approved resolutions and/or admin approvals. This project does not include any unique approvals related specifically to RDS. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-005 RDS COMPLIANCE 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 8 I I I . a 8'-10" 1 0 ' - 0 " 6'-2" 1 0 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " LINE OF EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING TREE ON NEIGHBORS LOT [LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM LOT SPLIT] TO BE REMOVED BY NEIGHBOR LEGAL ADDRESS: LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT : R-6 LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT SQFT PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6" P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E F R O N T Y A R D SE T B A C K SIDE YARD SETBACK RE A R Y A R D SE T B A C K [P R I N C I P L E ST R U C T U R E ] R E A R YA R D SE T - BA C K [G A R A G E ] SIDE YARD SET- BACK E HALLAM STREET LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT 225 E HALLAM STREET ALLEY BLOCK 72 7895 7896 7897 1 0 ' - 0 " 5'-0" 5'-0" 1 0 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 1'-4" 7'-01/2" 7'-37/8" LINE OF EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING HISTORIC FENCE TO BE RELOCATED TO PROPERTY LINE 6' PRIVACY FENCE TO BE LOCATED BEHIND FRONT FACADE OF ADDITION PER 26.575.020.E.5.p LIGHTWELL TO EXTEND INTO SETBACK PER 26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET Z-101 FOR DIMS LIGHTWELL TO EXTEND INTO SETBACK PER 26.575.020.E.5.i; SEE LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SHEET Z-101 FOR DIMS P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 7895 7896 7897 FR O N T Y A R D SE T B A C K SIDE YARD SET- BACK SIDE YARD SET- BACK SIDE YARD SET- BACK R E A R Y A R D S E T B A C K [P R I N C I P L E ST R U C T U R E ] R E A R YA R D S E T - B A C K [G A R A G E ] E HALLAM STREET LOT 1 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT 225 E HALLAM STREET ALLEY BLOCK 72 LEGAL ADDRESS: LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT : R-6 LOT SIZE: 6,000 SQFT SQFT PROJECT ZERO: 7896'-6" TREE TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED TREE TREE LEGEND N 1X EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-006 SITE PLAN 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 9 I I I . a 6,000.00 sq ft 1,550.25 sq ft 487.25 sq ft P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E EXISTING SITE COVERAGE: 33.9% 6,000.00 sq ft 2,507.25 sq ft P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E ALLOWABLE SITE COVERAGE: 50% PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE: 41.7% N EXISTING SITE COVERAGE 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE 1/8" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-007 SITE COVERAGE 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 0 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 21 3 456 7 8 9 10 11 12 1513 14 16 17 18 19 157.25 sq ft 155.25 sq ft 301.25 sq ft 301.25 sq ft 124.25 sq ft19.75 sq ft 143.25 sq ft 264.50 sq ft194.25 sq ft 5.00 sq ft 31.50 sq ft 198.50 sq ft 104.00 sq ft 277.25 sq ft 204.00 sq ft 19.50 sq ft 19.50 sq ft 177.00 sq ft 227.50 sq ft 21.50 sq ft 2.75 sq ft 1918 1 2 3 4 3 56 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 Demolition Calculations Roof Demolition Roof Label Individual Roof Area (Sq Ft) 1157.25157.25 2155.25155.25 3144.00144.00 4143.25143.25 5264.50 6194.25 75.00 831.502.75 9198.50 10 104.00 11 277.25 12 204.00 13 19.50 19.50 14 19.50 19.50 15 177.00 16 227.50 227.50 17 21.50 21.50 18 301.25 301.25 19 301.25 301.25 Roof Surface Total (Sq Ft)2,946.25 Roof Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)1,493.00 Demolition Totals Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00 Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75 Total 53.93% 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Area of Roof to be Removed (Sq Ft) EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED ROOF DEMO LEGEND N ROOF DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF DEMO FILLS - FLAT PLANE METHOD 1/8" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-009 ROOF DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 1 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E A B C D EF G H I J K LM N O P Q R S T U V S W X Y Z AA HISTORIC 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G P H M S R BB CC DDEE FF P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E HISTORIC 54.00 sq ft 163.50 sq ft 181.25 sq ft 135.00 sq ft 153.25 sq ft 171.00 sq ft 41.25 sq ft 38.25 sq ft 12.50 sq ft12.50 sq ft 25.25 sq ft 19.00 sq ft 14.50 sq ft10.00 sq ft 88.75 sq ft 112.75 sq ft 166.25 sq ft 32.50 sq ft 72.25 sq ft30.25 sq ft 30.25 sq ft 202.25 sq ft 13.75 sq ft 30.00 sq ft 34.75 sq ft 49.25 sq ft15.25 sq ft 208.25 sq ft 161.50 sq ft 197.00 sq ft 164.50 sq ft A B C D E F HG I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W BB CCDD EE FF X Y Z AA 387.75 sq ft 300.00 sq ft 10.75 sq ft 13.75 sq ft 3.75 sq ft3.75 sq ft 126.00 sq ft 9.25 sq ft 3.50 sq ft 49.75 sq ft 18.25 sq ft 44.50 sq ft 18.25 sq ft 226.25 sq ft 26.50 sq ft 8.50 sq ft 232.50 sq ft 8.00 sq ft 5.75 sq ft 226.25 sq ft 29.00 sq ft 33.00 sq ft8.75 sq ft 8.75 sq ft Demolition Calculations Wall Demolition Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft) A163.50 163.50 B181.25 181.25 C135.00 135.00 D153.25 153.25 E171.00 171.00 F41.2510.00 G38.2514.50 H387.7569.25 I88.75 88.75 J112.75 112.75 K166.25 166.25 L32.50 32.50 M300.0032.00 N126.0012.75 O49.7518.25 P226.2535.00 Q44.5018.25 R232.5013.75 S226.2529.00 T30.258.75 U75.2533.00 V30.258.75 W202.25 202.25 X208.25 208.25 Y161.50 161.50 Z197.00 197.00 AA 164.50 164.50 BB 13.75 CC 30.00 DD 34.75 EE 49.25 FF 15.25 Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00 Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25 Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75 Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,137.75 Demolition Totals Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00 Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75 Total 53.93% 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft) Area of Wall to be Removed (Sq Ft) Demolition CalculationsWall Demolition Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft)A163.50 163.50B181.25 181.25C135.00 135.00D153.25 153.25E171.00 171.00F41.2510.00G38.2514.50H387.7569.25I88.75 88.75J112.75 112.75K166.25 166.25L32.50 32.50 M300.0032.00 N126.0012.75 O49.7518.25 P226.2535.00 Q44.5018.25 R232.5013.75 S226.2529.00 T30.258.75 U75.2533.00 V30.258.75 W202.25 202.25 X208.25 208.25 Y161.50 161.50 Z197.00 197.00 AA 164.50 164.50 BB 13.75 CC 30.00 DD 34.75 EE 49.25 FF 15.25 Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00 Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25 Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75 Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,137.75 Demolition Totals Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00 Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75 Total 53.93% 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Area Reduced for Fenestration(Sq Ft)Area of Wall to be Removed(Sq Ft) Demolition Calculations Wall Demolition Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq Ft) A163.50 163.50 B181.25 181.25 C135.00 135.00 D153.25 153.25 E171.00 171.00 F41.2510.00 G38.2514.50 H387.7569.25 I88.75 88.75 J112.75 112.75 K166.25 166.25 L32.50 32.50 M300.0032.00 N126.0012.75 O49.7518.25 P226.2535.00 Q44.5018.25 R232.5013.75 S226.2529.00 T30.258.75 U75.2533.00 V30.258.75 W202.25 202.25 X208.25 208.25 Y161.50 161.50 Z197.00 197.00 AA 164.50 164.50 BB 13.75 CC 30.00 DD 34.75 EE 49.25 FF 15.25 Wall Surface Area Total (Sq Ft)4,089.00 Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft)303.25 Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)3,785.75 Wall Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)2,137.75 Demolition Totals Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation (Sq Ft)6,732.00 Surface Area to be Removed (Sq Ft)3,630.75 Total 53.93% 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq Ft) Area of Wall to be Removed (Sq Ft) EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED WALL DEMO LEGEND N MAIN LEVEL DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"UPPER LEVEL DEMO PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"WALL DEMO FILLS 1/8" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-010 WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 2 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G 12 ' - 3 1/ 2 " 16'-03/8" 16'-03/8" 12 ' - 3 1/ 2 " 4. 3. 2. 1. P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E CRAWL CRAWL CRAWL 257.75 sq ft 16'-03/8"12'-31/2"16'-03/8"12'-31/2" 7' - 0 " 112.25 sq ft 86.00 sq ft 112.25 sq ft 86.00 sq ft 15.00 sq ft 12.00 sq ft 1.2.3.4. EXPOSED WALL AREA WALL BELOW GRADE Floor Area Calculations Existing Lower Level Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1112.25 286.00 3112.2515.00 486.0012.00 Overall Total Wall Areas (Sq Ft)396.50 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)27.00 % of Exposed Wall (Exposed / Total)6.8% Existing Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)257.75 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55 Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50 Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA GARAGE DECK EXEMPT AREA N EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" SUGBRADE CALC LEGEND FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-011X FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 3 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G 40.00 sq ft P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 1,550.25 sq ft 487.25 sq ft Floor Area Calculations Existing Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25 Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)487.25 Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)112.25 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)112.25 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25 Existing Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft) Deck Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)40.00 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%) Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50 Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA GARAGE DECK EXEMPT AREA EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-012X FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 4 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G OPEN TO BELOW P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 771.75 sq ft 243.75 sq ft Floor Area Calculations Existing Upper Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)771.75 Upper Level Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)243.75 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.50 Total Existing Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)17.55 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1550.25 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1015.5 Total Existing Floor Area (Sq Ft)2,583.30 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA GARAGE DECK EXEMPT AREA EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-013X FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 5 I I I . a 43'-0" 34 ' - 0 1/ 2 " 4'-0" 16 ' - 3 1/ 8 " 3' - 0 " 12 ' - 3 3/ 8 " 3' - 0 " 8' - 5 " 42 ' - 1 1 1/ 2 " 45'-81/8" 16 ' - 3 1/ 8 " 3' - 0 " 19 ' - 1 7/ 8 " 3' - 0 " 7' - 1 1/ 2 " 48 ' - 6 1/ 2 " 1'-37/8" 28 ' - 5 1/ 2 " 9.00 sq ft 9.00 sq ft 9.00 sq ft 9.00 sq ft S E T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 3,709.75 sq ft 1 1 D D E E F F 2 2 4 4 5 5 G G A A B B C C 3 3 Floor Area Calculations 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Proposed Lower Level Exposed Wall Calculations Lower Level Wall Label Total Wall Area (Sq Ft) Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft) 1473.00 2374.50 344.00 4537.0057.00 5571.00 6606.7557.00 714.50 8313.00 Overall Total Wall Area (Sq Ft)2,933.75 Exposed Wall Area (Sq Ft)114.00 % of Exposed Wall (Sq Ft) (Exposed / Total)3.89% Proposed Lower Level Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,709.75 Lower Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15 Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,708.40 43'-0"34'-01/2"4'-0" 42'-111/2" 16'-31/8"3'-0"19'-17/8"3'-0"1'-61/2" 45'-81/8" 48'-61/2" 7'-11/2"3'-0"19'-17/8"3'-0"16'-31/8" 1'-37/8"28'-51/2" 11 ' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 12 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 0 " 374.50 sq ft473.00 sq ft 313.00 sq ft14.50 sq ft 44.00 sq ft 537.00 sq ft 28.50 sq ft28.50 sq ft 571.00 sq ft 606.75 sq ft 28.50 sq ft 28.50 sq ft 1.2.3.4. 5.6.7.8. EXPOSED WALL AREA WALL BELOW GRADE LIVABLE FLOOR AREA GARAGE DECK EXEMPT AREA N PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" LOWER LEVEL SUBGRADE FILLS 1/8" = 1'-0" SUGBRADE CALC LEGEND FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-011 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 6 I I I . a P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E D W D W 1 1 D D E E F F 2 2 4 4 5 5 G G A A B B C C 3 3 500.00 sq ft 71.50 sq ft 48.00 sq ft 1,980.50 sq ft ATTIC FRONT PORCH PER 26.575 020.D.5 Floor Area Calculations 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Proposed Main Level Floor Area Calculations Main Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1980.50 Garage Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)500.00 Garage Floor Area (Sq Ft)125.00 Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1980.50 Garage Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)125.00 Total Main Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)48.00 Main Level – Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main Level)71.50 Main Level Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Upper Level)252.00 Upper Level Total Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)323.50 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%) Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,708.40 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA GARAGE DECK EXEMPT AREA N PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-012 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 7 I I I . a P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 1 1 D D E E F F 2 2 4 4 5 5 G G A A B B C C 3 3 970.00 sq ft 108.50 sq ft 488.75 sq ft 143.50 sq ft ATTIC EXEMPT PER 26.575 020.D.3 Floor Area Calculations 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Proposed Upper Level Floor Area Calculations Upper Level Gross Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75 488.75 + 944.75 Upper Level Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75 Proposed Deck/Porch Floor Area Calculations Front Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft)42.00 Main Level – Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Main Level)71.50 Main Level Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft) (Upper Level)252.00 Upper Level Total Deck Floor Area 323.50 Exempt Deck Floor Area (Sq Ft)486.00 (3,240 sq ft x 15%) Deck/Porch Countable Floor Area (Sq Ft) Total Proposed Floor Area Calculations Lower Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)144.15 Main Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)2105.50 Upper Level Floor Area (Sq Ft)1458.75 Deck/Porch Floor Area (Sq Ft) Total Proposed Floor Area (Sq Ft)3,708.40 LIVABLE FLOOR AREA GARAGE DECK EXEMPT AREA NN PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" FAR LEGEND STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-013 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 8 I I I . a CURRENT LOCATION OF HOUSE PROPOSED LOCATION OF HOUSE POTENTIAL LOCATION OF HOUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 7895 7896 7897 N 1 TEMPORARY RELOCATION PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-014 TEMPORARY RELOCATION 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 1 9 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E CRAWL 000 2X Z-202 4X Z-204 1X Z-201 3X Z-203 W CD W CD 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 G G S E T B A C K L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E REC ROOM 001 STAIR 002 MECH 004 BEDROOM 1 006 LAUNDRY 005 BEDROOM 2 009 BATH 1 007 CLOSET 1 008 BATH 2 010CLOSET 2 011 BEDROOM 4 015 BATH 4 017 CLOSET 4 016 BEDROOM 3 012 BATH 3 014 CLOSET 3 013 PWDR 003 BAR 2 Z-2024 Z-204 1 Z-201 3 Z-203 N 1X EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-101 FLOOR PLANS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 0 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 G G 1.1 Z-201 2 Z-2024 Z-204 1 Z-201 3 Z-203 2.1 Z-202 P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E ENTRY 101 STAIR 102 LIVING ROOM 103 BAR 104 HALL 105 KITCHEN 108 DINING ROOM 110 PANTRY 109 FRONT PORCH D W D W PWDR 106 MUDROOM 107 FAMILY ROOM 111 GARAGE 112 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G CD W CD W F F RG RG 2X Z-202 4X Z-204 1X Z-201 3X Z-203 P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E HISTORIC LIVING ROOM 101 BEDROOM 102 BATH 104KITCHEN 103 DINING ROOM 105 LIVING ROOM 106 KITCHEN 107 ENTRY 108 BATH 111 STORAGE 109 CLOSET 110 GARAGE 112 N 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"2X EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-102 FLOOR PLANS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 1 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G 2X Z-202 4X Z-204 1X Z-201 3X Z-203 P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E HISTORIC BEDROOM 203 CLOSET 202 BEDROOM 207HALL 201 BATH 204 BEDROOM 205 BEDROOM 206 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 G G 2 Z-2024 Z-204 1 Z-201 3 Z-203 P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E ATTIC 206 STAIR 202 HALL 202 HALL 208 MASTER BEDROOM 209 CLOSET 204 GUEST MASTER BEDROOM 203GUEST MASTER BATH 205 WC 203 SHOWER 203 MASTER BATH 210 SHOWER 210 WC 1 210 WC 2 210 MASTER CLOSET 211 N 3X EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-103 FLOOR PLANS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 2 I I I . a 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 C C G G 2X Z-202 4X Z-204 1X Z-201 3X Z-203 P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 1 1 A A B B C C D D E E F F 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 G G 2 Z-2024 Z-204 1 Z-201 3 Z-203 P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E N 4X EXISTING ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-104 FLOOR PLANS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 3 I I I . a 5 4 3 2 1 LINE OF SETBACK @ NORTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ NORTH ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ NORTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ NORTH ELEVATION 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT 25' 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 0" = 7896'-6" HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2" 17 ' - 9 1/ 2 " 22 ' - 7 1/ 8 " 22 ' - 1 0 3/ 8 " 23 ' - 1 7/ 8 " 12 ' - 3 1/ 8 " 12 ' - 3 1/ 8 " 12 ' - 2 1/ 2 " UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 0" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 01/2" PROPOSED RIDGE 128' - 11/4" LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB 86'- 0" 1. 2. 12 12 12 12 6.12 12 7. 12 12 4.3.5. 345 2 1 LINE OF SETBACK @ NORTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ NORTH ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ NORTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ NORTH ELEVATION 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT 25' INTERPOLATED SLOPE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE TOP OF STRUCTURE MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 0" = 7896'-6" HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2" 22 ' - 8 3/ 8 " 23 ' - 7 3/ 4 " UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 0" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 01/2" LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB 86'- 0" 18. 8 12 12 8 18. 4 12 13. PROPOSED RIDGE 125' - 61/4" 19. 5 4 3 2 1 TO BE REMOVED LINE OF SETBACK @ NORTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ NORTH ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ NORTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ NORTH ELEVATION HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 101'- 2" = 7897'-8" HIST. CRAWL LEVEL T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2" HIST. UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 8" 1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"1.1 PROPOSED NORTH EAST ELEVATION 1X EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-201 HEIGHTS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 4 I I I . a A B C D E F G 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE LINE OF SETBACK @ EAST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ EAST ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ EAST ELEVATION R-6 ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT 25' TOP-MOST PORTION TOP-MOST PORTION MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 0" = 7896'-6" HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2" 23 ' - 3 1/ 2 " 23 ' - 3 1/ 2 " 11 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 1 0 3/ 8 " LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB 86'- 0" UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 0" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 01/2"17. 12 12 17. 12 12 18. PROPOSED RIDGE 128' - 11/4" 12 2 19. 20. 12 1 C D E F G 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE TOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURE TOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURE 17 ' - 1 0 7/ 8 " 22 ' - 1 0 3/ 8 " 17 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 4 3/ 8 " 11 ' - 5 " 1.12 12 12 12 6. 12 12 6. 9.12 12 11.12 1 10.12 1 A B C D E F G TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED LINE OF SETBACK @ EAST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ EAST ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ EAST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ EAST ELEVATION HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 101'- 2" = 7897'-8" HIST. CRAWL LEVEL T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2" HIST. UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 8" 2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"2.1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 2X EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-202 HEIGHTS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 5 I I I . a 1 2 3 4 5 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE SEE PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION DRAWING 1.1 SHEET Z-201 FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT LINE OF SETBACK @ SOUTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ SOUTH ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ SOUTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ SOUTH ELEVATION R-6 ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT 25' MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 0" = 7896'-6" HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2" UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 0" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 01/2" LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB 86'- 0" 12 12 18.18. 12 12 PROPOSED RIDGE 128' - 11/4" 1 2 3 4 5 TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED LINE OF SETBACK @ SOUTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ SOUTH ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ SOUTH ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ SOUTH ELEVATION HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 101'- 2" = 7897'-8" HIST. CRAWL LEVEL T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2" HIST. UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 8" 3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 3X EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-203 HEIGHTS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 6 I I I . a G F E D C B A 12 ' - 3 1/ 8 " 1/2 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE TOP OF TRELLIS 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE TOP MOST PORTION OF STRUCTURE1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE LINE OF SETBACK @ WEST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ WEST ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ WEST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ WEST ELEVATION R-6 ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT 25' 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 0" = 7896'-6" HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 100'- 61/2" 20 ' - 1 1 7/ 8 " 2 4 ' - 6 1/ 2 " 2 4 ' - 0 1/ 4 " 23 ' - 1 7/ 8 " 2 3 ' - 3 1/ 2 " 14 ' - 1 1/ 4 " 11 ' - 1 1/ 8 " 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 POINT FROM EAVE TO RIDGE UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 0" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 01/2" PROPOSED RIDGE 128' - 11/4" LOWER LEVEL T.O. SLAB 86'- 0" 6 12 12 8 12 12 13. 14. 15. 12. 16. 7.12 12 8. 14.12 12 G F E D C B A TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED LINE OF SETBACK @ WEST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ WEST ELEVATION LINE OF SETBACK @ WEST ELEVATION PROPERTY LINE @ WEST ELEVATION HIST. MAIN LEVEL T.O. PLY 101'- 2" = 7897'-8" HIST. CRAWL LEVEL T.O. SLAB 93'- 21/2" HIST. UPPER LEVEL T.O. PLY 111'- 31/2" EXISTING RIDGE 127' - 8" 4 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 4X EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-204 HEIGHTS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 7 I I I . a 2 Z-2024 Z-204 1 Z-201 3 Z-203 23'-31/2"23'-31/2" 23'-31/2" 23'-31/2" 23'-31/2"23'-31/2" 24'-61/2" 11'-11/8" 11'-6" 10'-103/8" P R O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K L I N E 7895 7896 7897 1 1 D D E E F F 2 2 4 4 5 5 G G A A B B C C 3 3 23'-31/2" 24-01/4" 20'-117/8" 10'-43/8" 23'-17/8" 17'-91/2"22'-71/8" 22'-103/8" 22'-103/8" 14'-11/4"17'-4" 12'-31/8" 12'-31/8"12'-21/2" 11'-5" 23'-31/2" 23'-31/2" 1.2. 5. 4. 3. 6.7. 8.9.10. 11. 18. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1212 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 1 12 1 12 1 12 6 12 8 12 18.12 12 12 12 14.12 12 12 12 19.2 12 20. 1 12 Height Over Topography 223 E Hallam St, Lot 2 Elevation Label Most Restrictive 1 7895'-2 ¼”7895'-2 ¼”Natural 7912'-11 ¾”17'-9 ½” 2 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural 3 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural 4 7895'-0”7895'-0”Natural 5 7895'-1”7895'-1”Natural 7907'-3 ½”12'-2 ½” 6 7895'-5 ¼”7895'-5 ¼”Natural 7 7895'1 ¼”7895'1 ¼”Natural 8 7895'-4”7895'-4”Natural 7909'-5 ¼”14'-1 ¼” 9 7895'-5 ¾”7895'-5 ¾”Natural 7912'-9 ¾”17'-4” 10 7895'-5 ¾”7895'-5 ¾”Natural 7907'-0 ¼”11'-6 ½” 11 7895'-10 ¼”7895'-10 ¼”Natural 12 7895'-10 ¼”7895'-10 ¼”Natural 13 7895'-10 ¼”7895'-10 ¼”Natural 7919'-3”23'-4 ¾” 14 7896'-1 ¾”7896'-1 ¾”Natural 7918'-10”22'-8 ¼” 15 7896'-1 ¾”7896'-1 ¾”Natural 16 7896'-0”7895'-0”Natural 7907'-6”11'-6” 17 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural 18 7896'-0”7896'-0”Natural 19 7895'-8 ½”7895'-8 ½”Natural 7907'-2 ½”11'-6” Elevation of Natural Grade Elevation of Proposed Grade Roof Height over Topography Actual Roof Height over Most Restrictive 7917'-71/8”22'-7 1/8” 7907'-31/8”12'-31/8” 7907'-31/8”12'-31/8” 7918'-35/8”22'-103/8” 7918'-31/8”23'-1 7/8” 7906'-25/8”10'-4 3/8” 7916'-101/8”20'-11 7/8” 7919'-103/8”23'-8 5/8” 7918'-5 5/8”22'-5 5/8” 7918'-8 3/8”22'-8 3/8”N 1 PROPOSED ROOF TOPOGRAPHY 3/16" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-206 HEIGHT OVER TOPOGRAPHY 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 8 I I I . a EXISTING ROUND SAWN SHINGLE TO BE PAINTED PROPOSED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING TO BE PAINTED WHITE PROPOSED HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING EXISTING ASPHALT ROOF MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED FAUX SLATE ROOF MATERIAL PROPOSED MACHINE SAWN CEDAR SHINGLE PROPOSED MATERIALS: ADDITION PROPOSED MATERIALS: HISTORIC RESOURCE EXISTING HORIZONTAL SIDING TO BE PAINTED WHITE EXISTING FOUNDATION MATERIAL TO BE PAINTED PROPOSED FOUNDATION VENEER MATERIAL STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-207 MATERIALS 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 2 9 I I I . a E HALLAM STREET - LOOKING SOUTH E HALLAM STREET - LOOKING NORTH ALLEY BLOCK 72 - LOOKING NORTH ALLEY BLOCK 72 - LOOKING SOUTH PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SURVEYOR MECHANICAL COPYRIGHT CONTRACTOR CIVIL SHEET TITLE 5/7/15 PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:KPT 1422 FORUM PHI, LLC Tuttle Surveying Services 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 P: 970.928.9708 F: 970.947.9007 jeff@tss-us.com TBD TBD TBD TBD DATE OF PUBLICATION Z-208 STREETSCAPE 223 E Hallam Street, Aspen, CO, 81611, USA 223 E Hallam St 715 West Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P: 970.279.4157 F: 866.770.5585 PARCEL ID # 273-707-316-008 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 OF 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT ZONE DISTRICT R-6 12/31/14SD HPC REVIEW HPC CON. REVISED3/24/15SD SD 5/7/15 HPC CON. REVISED 2 P 3 0 I I I . a A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 223 E. HALLAM, LOT 2, 223 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #16, SERIES OF 2015 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, 223 LLC, represented by Forum Phi Architects, has requested approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation and Variances; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. For review of benefits, such as a floor area bonus and setback variances, HPC must determine conformance with Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances according to Section 26.415.110; and WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated May 13, 2015, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. Staff recommended in favor of the Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation and Variances; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 13, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review criteria, with conditions, by a vote of 4 to 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variance approval with the following conditions: P31 III.a 1. The final design for the restored porches on the northeast and southeast of the Victorian will be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor after these areas are exposed to view during the construction process. 2. HPC hereby grants a 10’ combined sideyard and a 5’ rear yard setback. HPC grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 3. For Final Review, restudy the interior staircase proposed to be adjacent to the front bay window and consider moving it. 4. A report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the house can be moved must be submitted with the building permit application in addition to a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 to ensure the safe relocation. 5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property : 223 E. Hallam, Lot 2, 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. P32 III.a The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of May 13, 2015, 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. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of May, 2015. ________________________________ Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: ___________________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: ___________________________ Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk P33 III.a 1 Historic Preservation - 223 E. Hallam Street, May 13, 2015 Willis Pember, Gretchen Greenwood, John Whipple, Bob Blaich, Patrick Sagal, Eric Sechrist, Sallie Golden Amy said the proposed construction shifts to the rear and has a one story connector that is more quiet from the street. The scale and roof forms are appropriate and staff supports conceptual approval. There are two setback variances being requested. On the rear they are requesting a five foot setback. The bonus is warranted because of the amount of restoration work that they are doing. Conditions of approval: Porch restorations to be looked at during construction. The staircase on the interior will be visible through the bay window. Staff would like discussion on this. Amy said the Berko studio will be back six feet from the street and in front of the Victorian by a few feet. The front steps will not need a railing because there will be 7 inches less of foundation. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi Steev said they will research on the porch and make sure it is reconstructed back to the original. This house and the Berko studio will be moved forward. We have the historic building, connector and the two story element. We have pulled the volume off the historic element as much as we could. We will hold the stairs back from the window but it is the best solution to get to the second floor and basement. The stringer will be moved back to the center of stair so that it is not visible. It is not a direct application to the glass. We don’t know what the material of the tread will be on the stairs, possibly acrylic. There will be grass over the front lawn. We have talked to Parks about the tree removal by the garage. Mirte Berko said the applicant has incorporated a lot of their suggestions. We don’t support moving the massing east which staff supports. Steev said the top of the building will be dwarfed by the two story structure that will be erected next door. Our structure is set far back. We will reuse the stone from the base of the building. The façade is a beautiful composition. Scott Ride said one of the early comments was to save the second level of the Victorian and by doing that it required that we put steps in which also access the basement. They have to work together. The steps provide natural light for the downstairs living area. We have brought them back and it will be hard to see them. The roof is set back at least 40 feet from the studio. The second floor of the addition to the studio adjacent also affects the view and we have supported their application from the beginning. We feel there is not an impact. Deliberation: Relocation Setback variances 500 square foot bonus Dropping the resource 7 inches in the ground Stairs P34 III.a 2 Willis said the site seems under analyzed. Instead of an L shape plan maybe it could be mirrored. The bonus is achievable and the setbacks are OK. The stairs pushed back are OK. If the 7 inch drop eliminates the handrails I am all for that. Bob said the new rendering is no more of a problem then the addition to the studio. The addition to the studio is more apparent then what is being proposed tonight. Regarding the stair case I question HPC getting involved with certain aspects of the interior. The staircase is OK. John said he is OK with the stairs. We shouldn’t be concerned about what is going on in the side of the house. The setbacks are OK. I am concerned about restoring a front façade that we don’t know what it looks like and removing it. It wouldn’t be an exact restoration and I am concerned about the bonus. Everything else is very well thought out. Gretchen said they did a good job by pushing the addition back and pulling the Victorian forward. The addition overwhelms the Victorian and the entire development overwhelms the Aspen Modern experience. If you are going to relocate the Victorian perhaps the Aspen Modern can have more space. A site plan could have been done to enhance both properties. Patrick said he likes the mass and scale and the openness of the trellis and deck to the north of the connector. The pitched roofs separate from the Aspen Modern which has flat roofs. The project is well done. If there is a way to reduce the square footage to the addition I would be in favor of that. Sallie said she agrees with staff. At some point looking from the street at the Berko studio you will see the addition in the back. I do like the mass and scale and how it is laid out. I also agree that the staircase should not be in the entryway. Living rooms should look like living rooms when you walk by the street. I do support the 500 square foot bonus. Eric said this is a great presentation and the diagraming is very clear. The addition in the back of the Berko studio is also imposing. The Victorian is closer to its original position than the Berko studio is. The stair location is OK. MOTION: Sallie made the motion to approve resolution #16 as written by staff, including the 500 square foot bonus and restudy the staircase in the front; second by Patrick. Willis made a friendly amendment to add more separation on the side yard. Sallie did not accept the friendly amendment. Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, no, John, no; Bob, yes; Sallie, yes; Eric, yes; Willis, no. Motion carried 4-3. P35 III.a Gibson Matchless Subdivision Staff Memo 6/1/2015 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council FROM: Rebecca Levy, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Gibson Matchless Subdivision Second Reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 2015 MEETING DATE: June 1, 2015 MEMO: Due to the depth and breadth of new and old business items under consideration at this meeting, staff recommends continuing the public hearing for the Gibson Matchless Subdivision until June 8 th . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuing the public hearing for the second reading of Ordinance 21, of Series 2015 to June 8 th . RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to continue the second reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 2015, approving the Gibson Matchless Subdivision, to June 8 th , 2015.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P36 IV.a Charter Amendment – 2nd Reading Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Ordinance 20, Series of 2015 – Incorporation of Charter Amendment into Land Use Code MEETING DATE: June 1, 2015 SUMMARY : The attached Ordinance incorporates the recently approved Charter Amendment (Referendum 1) into the Land Use Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance. BACKGROUND : On May 5, 2015, the City of Aspen voters approved a Charter Amendment (Referendum 1) that requires certain land use approvals to go to a public vote. The language in the Charter Amendment states “The City of Aspen shall amend the Land Use Regulations to be consistent with this Home Rule Charter Amendment.” The proposed code amendment incorporates the Charter Amendment into the Land Use Code, as required by the language in the Referendum. It should be noted that nothing in the Land Use Code today is in conflict with the approved Charter Amendment, and the Charter Amendment is fully in effect. OVERVIEW: The proposed code amendment incorporates a reference to the City of Aspen Charter into each affected zone district, and into the Common Development Review Procedures (Chapter 26.304). Staff believes this is the cleanest and most effective way to incorporate the Charter Amendment into the Land Use Code. In March, City Council approved Ordinance 9. Series of 2015 (Variations Code Amendment), in response to the Charter Amendment effort. Staff is recommending that the changes in that Ordinance related to height and floor area be removed for clarity. A summary of the changes in Ordinance 9 are listed below: • Limits the amount of height and floor area an applicant can request through Planned Development to 2 feet beyond the maximum allowed height and 5% of the maximum allowed floor area. This provision applies to all properties in the City with an existing or requesting a new Planned Development designation. However, multi-family residential buildings, single-family homes, and duplexes are exempt. P37 IV.b Charter Amendment – 2nd Reading Page 2 of 2 • Prohibits any reductions in required affordable housing mitigation, except for Essential Public Facilities (public, non-profit, religious organizations, etc) and properties requesting historic designation (AspenModern). • Minor grammatical and spelling corrections were also included in the Ordinance. In contrast, the Charter Amendment applies to any property in a commercial or lodge zone district east of Castle Creek, and applies to any action, not just Planned Developments. The Charter Amendment would require a public vote for any increase in height or floor area beyond what is allowed in the zone district, as well as for any decrease in required affordable housing mitigation or off-street parking. Given the public vote requirements and the applicability of the Charter Amendment, Staff recommends removing the height and floor area limits that were part of Ordinance 9. Ordinance 9 would limit a height request to 2 feet beyond the maximum allowed in the zone district, but does not limit a “hardship” request for increase height. The Charter Amendment requires both to go to a public vote. While the provisions of Ordinance 9 are not in conflict with the Charter Amendment, staff believes the different requirements and limitations add even more complexity to a code and land use process that can already be confusing. Staff recommends that the height and floor area portion of Ordinance 9 be removed so that all types of requests are treated the same – they trigger a public vote through the Charter Amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2015.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS : _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A – Staff Findings P38 IV.b Code Amendment – Charter Amendment Ordinance 20, Series 2015 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE No. 20 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE IMPLEMENTING A CHARTER AMENDMENT APPROVED BY CITY OF ASPEN VOTERS ON MAY 5, 2015. WHEREAS, on May 5, 2015, the City of Aspen voters approved an amendment to Article XIII of the City’s Charter, commonly known as Referendum 1; and WHEREAS, the approved Charter Amendment applies to all properties located east of Castle Creek that on January 1, 2015 were zoned Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Mixed Use (MU), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge Overlay (LO), or Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP); and WHEREAS, the approved Charter Amendment, requires that any land use approval, amendment to a previous land use approval, including those as a result of litigation, that exceeds the zoning limitations for allowable floor area or maximum height (including height restricted by view planes), or which reduces the requirements for the amount of off-street parking spaces or affordable housing, shall not be effective unless subsequently approved by a majority of all City electors voting thereon; and WHEREAS, the approved Charter Amendment requires the Land Use Code be amended to implement said Charter Amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2015 City Council approved Ordinance 9, Series 2015, approving a code amendment in response to Referendum 1, and now desires to repeal certain sections of that Ordinance related to height and floor area increases due to the subsequent passage of Referendum 1; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Chapter 26.304.065 – Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.304.065. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. All development applications shall comply with the regulations outlined in the City of Aspen Charter, including Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals . P39 IV.b Code Amendment – Charter Amendment Ordinance 20, Series 2015 Page 2 of 5 Section 2: Chapter 26.710.140(E) – Commercial Core, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC). E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 3: Chapter 26.710.150(E) – Commercial, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.150 Commercial (C-1). E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Commercial (C-1) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 4: Chapter 26.710.160(G) – Service/Commercial/Industrial, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.160 Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I). G. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 5: Chapter 26.710.170(E) – Neighborhood Commercial, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.170 Neighborhood Commercial (NC). E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 6: Chapter 26.710.180(E) – Mixed-Use, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.180 Mixed Use (MU). E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. P40 IV.b Code Amendment – Charter Amendment Ordinance 20, Series 2015 Page 3 of 5 Section 7: Chapter 26.710.190(F) – Lodge, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.190 Lodge (L). F. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Lodge (L) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 8: Chapter 26.710.200(F) – Commercial Lodge, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.200 Commercial Lodge (CL). F. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Commercial Lodge (CL) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 9: Chapter 26.710.310(E) –Lodge Overlay, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.310 Lodge Overlay (LO) Zone District. E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Lodge Overlay (LO) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 10: Chapter 26.710.320(E) –Lodge Preservation Overlay, Compliance with City of Aspen Charter , shall be added as follows: 26.710.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District. E. Compliance with City of Aspen Charter. Any property located east of the Castle Creek River that was in the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district on January 1, 2015, is subject to the provisions of Article XIII Section 13.14, Voter authorization of certain land use approvals , of the City of Aspen Charter. Section 11: Chapter 26.445.030(B) – Planned Development, Scope and Limitations of Project Review , shall be amended as follows: B. Scope and Limitations of Project Review. Project Review shall set forth the overall concept and general parameters of a project. The allowed land uses, layout, mass and scale, and dimensions of the project, including all deviations from zone district allowances and limitations, shall be established during Project Review. P41 IV.b Code Amendment – Charter Amendment Ordinance 20, Series 2015 Page 4 of 5 Section 12: Chapter 26.445.050 – Planned Development, Project Review Standards, shall be amended to delete Section J, Height and Floor Area Variations. Section 13: Scrivener’s Errors The Community Development Director is hereby authorized to correct any incorrect references within the Land Use Code related to this Ordinance. Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 14: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 16: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 17: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the ___ day of ______________, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of May, 2015. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___day of _________, 2015. Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor P42 IV.b Code Amendment – Charter Amendment Ordinance 20, Series 2015 Page 5 of 5 Approved as to form: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P43 IV.b Charter Amendment – 2nd Reading Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before City Council , the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment incorporates the recently approved Charter Amendment (aka Referendum 1). There are no known conflicts with existing provisions. Staff finds these criteria are met. P44 IV.b 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Base 2, 232 East Main Street, First Reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2015 – Major Development Conceptual Review, Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Planned Development – Project Review. MEETING DATE: June 1, 2015 APPLICANT : 232 East Main Street, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE : Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning. LOCATION : 232 East Main Street, corner of Monarch and Main Streets. CURRENT ZONING : Mixed Use Historic District SUMMARY : The applicant requests approval to develop a three story above grade lodge building with a basement level and commercial on the first floor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval with conditions. Photo: Current image of 232 East Main Street. COMMENTS FROM SECOND READING : Due to the quick turnaround time for the continued hearing on Monday June 1 st , the applicant will address concerns raised by council at the public hearing specifically: Parking – an increase to 15 spaces is proposed with a parking audit after 2 years to assess actual demand and methods to minimize impacts. Rear yard setback - Changes to the architecture that explore the rear yard setback will be presented on June 1 st . Ground floor lodge rooms – Staff amended the ordinance to allow the commercial space at the rear to be changed to lodge rooms. Public amenity –Adding green space on a portion of the rooftop, in addition to the public amenity, to provide a buffer for the residences across the alley and expected storm water requirements will be presented on June 1 st . P45 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 2 of 10 The applicant intends to build both Bases next year with an opening date of December 2016. To make this a possibility, expedited reviews for the detailed review land use application at HPC and for building permit review is requested. An amended draft ordinance is attached which grants approval with conditions for the flat roof version and incorporates the proposed changes listed above (with the exception of the rear yard setback which will be presented on June 1 st ). UPDATE FROM FIRST READING ON JANUARY 12, 2015 : First Reading for Base 2 Lodge was presented in January 2015. After first reading, the applicant decided to table Base 2 and to focus on its sister Base 1 Lodge located at Original and Cooper Streets behind City Market. Base 1 was approved in February after two public hearings. During the process the applicant removed many of the initial variance and fee waiver requests. A total of 42 lodge units and 44 lodge bedrooms were approved; however that number will be reduced due to floor area changes to accommodate the cottonwood tree located in the sidewalk. Council granted a height variance for the bathrooms: by the second hearing the bathrooms were changed to a mechanical room because mechanical rooms have a 10’ height exemption, but Council decided that the space was better used as a bathroom and granted the height increase of 4’ (from 37’ allowed to 41’ approved). Floor area, setbacks and the height of the building (with the exception noted above) complied with the underlying Commercial Lodge Zone District. A reduction to the parking requirement was granted after lengthy discussion – the requirement was 21 spaces and the reduction was to 15 spaces off-site. Affordable housing credits at a generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/lodge bedroom was approved. The applicant took the experience with Base 1 and applied it to Base 2. Most of the requested waivers and reductions have been withdrawn. Housing credits at Category 4 are proposed for mitigation of employees generated at the 0.3 FTE/ lodge bedroom rate. Two roof forms are proposed- gable and flat. The gable version requests a height variance and the flat roof version complies with height except for the elevator overrun. The bathrooms on the roof that were previously proposed in January have been removed. Similar to Base 1, the public amenity is proposed on the roof with a public access easement. Off-site parking spaces are proposed. Comparison of the two roof form options is provided in the memo below. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL : The Applicant has requested to consolidate all conceptual and growth management reviews at City Council. The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the existing lodge: • Conceptual Major Development Review (Chapter 26.415) for new construction in a Historic District. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) • Demolition within the Historic District (Chapter 26.415) for demolition of the existing building, which is located in the Main Street Historic District. ((Historic Preservation P46 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 3 of 10 Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) • Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use lodge building. (The Historic Preservation Commission is the final review authority . (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) • A Planned Development Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional requirements for the project. The Applicant requests a PD Review to allow an increase in overall floor area, lodge floor area, setback variations, height, and to establish parking requirements. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) • GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for lodge, commercial, affordable housing and allotments. (Historic Preservation Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review authority .) PREVIOUS APPROVALS : The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the project during two public hearings. The applicant changed the design to respond to Staff and HPC’s concerns about context by reducing the height of the mass adjacent to the Cortina Lodge from a three stories to two stories. The applicant removed lodge rooms and square footage in order to achieve inflection next to the Cortina Lodge. HPC voted 4-2 in support of the project with the condition that the applicant restudy the rear yard setback. The building is proposed to be built to the property line along the alley. HPC was concerned about the impact of a 0’ setback on the alley experience and the residences directly across the alley. BACKGROUND : The property is currently developed as 1 of 2 gas stations within the city limits. There is a small commercial building on the property. P47 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 4 of 10 Figure 1: Zone District map - Mixed Use (MU) Historic District is green. Commercial Core (CC) Historic District is light blue. Commercial (C-1) District is dark blue. Medium Density Residential (R-6) District is Yellow. Hatching indicates historic landmarks. The subject property is located on the edge of the Mixed Use Historic District across the street from the Commercial Core Historic District. Historic landmarks are located across the street, across the alley, and within the block of the proposed project. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT : The applicant proposes to develop a mixed use lodge building as follows: • Basement level: accessory lodge uses, back of house areas • Ground level: 2 commercial spaces, lodge lobby, accessory lodge uses • Second level: 21/20 lodge rooms (gable/flat) • Third level: 17/19 lodge rooms (gable/flat) • Rooftop Deck Table 1: Proposed Dimensions Main Street Monarch Street P48 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 5 of 10 Requirement in MU Proposed – GABLE ROOF Proposed – FLAT ROOF front yard (Main St.) 10’ 0’ 0’ side yard (Monarch St.) 5’ 0’ 0’ side yard (west) 5’ 0’ 0’ rear (alley) 5’ 0’ 0’ maximum height 28’- 32' through Commercial Design 42’ top of stair/elevator 36’ 3” front gable (Main St.) 33’9” the parapet (Main St.) 36’ 7” rear gable (Alley) 40’ top of exterior stair 44’ top of elevator overrun 32’ to parapet 34’6” to top of railing 39’ top of exterior stair 45’5” top of elevator overrun public amenity 10% or 600 sf 4,033 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method of public amenity 3,942 sf mostly on the rooftop *subject to approval as an alternative method of public amenity minimum off- street parking spaces 20.27 spaces (gable) 20.77 spaces (flat) 12 off-site spaces- location to be determined 12 off-site spaces- location to be determined cumulative floor area 1:1 (5,976 sf) or 1.25:1 (7,470 sf) through Special Review 2.65:1(15,819 sf) 2.64:1 (15,770 sf) lodge and commercial floor area 0.75:1 (4,482 sf) total or 1:1 (5,976 sf) total through Special Review Lodge: 2.02:1 (12,094 sf) Commercial: 0.62:1 (3,724 sf) Lodge: 2.07:1 (12,390 sf) Commercial: 0.57:1 (3,380 sf) commercial net leasable area n/a 2,891 sf 2,885 sf average lodge unit size n/a about 182 sf about 186 sf lodge net livable area n/a 6,925 sf 7,253 sf Number of lodge units n/a 38 units 39 units Lodge : The applicant proposes either 38-39 lodge units with an average room size of just over 180 square feet. There are a range of singles, doubles and bunk rooms proposed in both versions. Commercial : The applicant proposes 2 commercial spaces on the ground floor to house a café and a gift shop/retail. Affordable Housing : As described in Exhibit C, the applicant requests approval to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay generation rate of 0.3 FTEs/bedroom for the lodge portion of the project as opposed to the Lodge generation rate of 0.6 FTEs/bedroom based on the amenities and P49 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 6 of 10 room sizes proposed. In either the 0.6 or 0.3 generation rate scenario, the affordable housing requirement is minimal (2.74/2.8 FTEs gable/flat or 1.6/1.63 FTEs gable/flat). The project provides lodging with room sizes that are just over 180 square feet and some ground floor commercial space. Staff is supportive of the adjustment of the employee generation rate to 0.3 FTEs/bedroom considering the type of lodge proposed and the intent of the lower generation rate for smaller lodges. The applicant proposes Housing Credits at Category 4 to mitigate for the 1.6 FTEs. Parking : The property currently has no legal onsite parking spaces. Both roof form proposals require just over 20 parking spaces. Similar to Base 1, the applicant is interested in providing off-site and off-street parking for the project (Base 1 requirement was 21 spaces and 15 offsite spaces were approved). For Base 2, 12 off site spaces are proposed. The location is to be determined and is required to be approved as part of the Development Agreement (see Sections 6 and 14 of the draft ordinance). The central location of the property is conducive to walking to downtown services and it is located a few blocks from a RFTA bus stop. In addition to providing off-street parking, the applicant proposes the following: • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 1. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. STAFF FINDINGS : PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) – PROJECT REVIEW (E XHIBIT A) The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. A primary goal of a PD is to relate a development to the surrounding context by varying dimensional requirements. Through the PD process the applicant requests approval to vary the maximum cumulative floor area, maximum allowable floor area for commercial/lodge uses, height, and setback requirements. Staff finds that the proposed lodge project with just over 180 sf average room sizes fills a void in the lodging market. Increasing the bed base and diversifying the bed base has been a goal of the City Council that is supported by the community during outreach sessions and included as a policy in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes two versions of the project – a gable roof which requires height variations and a flat roof which meets the underlying height requirement with the exception of the elevator shaft which is 1.5’ over the maximum allowance for elevators. Both versions, gable and flat, request setback variations and floor area variations. P50 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 7 of 10 The property is located in the Main Street Historic District and is adjacent to the historic Cortina Lodge. The block is mostly 19 th century historic landmarks with the exception of the subject property and the property at the corner of Aspen and Main Street. The block across the street is entirely 1- 2 story historic landmarks. The number of historic landmarks in the vicinity of this property contributes to a challenging context for redevelopment. On the other hand, the intensity of uses and the mass and scale steps up significantly across Monarch Street where the zoning changes to the Commercial Core. The subject property is located in a transitional area at the edge of the Mixed Use Zone District, which creates an appropriate context for larger and taller building mass toward Monarch Street as a way to visually step up to the Commercial Core context. A zoning map is provided in the staff memo. Height : The Commercial Core Zone District allows a maximum height of 38’- 40’, as opposed to the maximum height of 28’- 32’ in the Mixed Use Zone District. For the Gable roof version, the applicant proposes a maximum of 36’3” along Main Street and maximum of 36’7” along the alley. The elevator overrun measures at 44’. The proposed height is about 5’ over the allowable height in the Mixed Use Zone District and is well under that allowed in the adjacent Commercial Core Zone District (elevator overruns are allowed up to 50’ in the CC district). The project meets the 32’ height limit in the Mixed Use Zone District by replacing the two gable roof forms with a flat roof ( a height variation for the elevator shaft is requested for the flat roof version- it is 1.5’ over the allowed height). The gable roof provides interest and a strong connection to the mixed use nature of the Main Street Historic District which boasts a variety of flat and gable roof forms. Both gable and flat roof versions drop the west elevation to two stories to provide relief to the Cortina Lodge and the other 19 th century landmarks in the block. Requirement in MU Proposed – GABLE ROOF Proposed – FLAT ROOF maximum height 28’- 32' through Commercial Design 42’ top of stair/elevator 36’ 3” front gable (Main St.) 33’9” the parapet (Main St.) 36’ 7” rear gable (Alley) 40’ top of exterior stair 44’ top of elevator overrun 32’ to parapet 34’6” to top of railing 39’ top of exterior stair 45’5” top of elevator overrun Considering the historic context, historic district guidelines, and the property’s transitional location on the edge of the downtown core, Staff is supportive of the overall design of the gable roof project. As described in Exhibit B, the prominent gable roof form is appropriate and the proposed building is an exciting and creative addition to the historic district. The flat roof form meets the height limitations (with the exception of the elevator) but does not contribute to the streetscape in a positive way. In Staff’s opinion, the flat roof design has less to do with the gable roof forms and residential feel of the Main Street Historic District and is more connected to the largely flat roof Commercial Core Historic District. Being in a transitional location, either version is appropriate; however Staff finds that the gable version creates a stronger connection to the Main Street Historic District and the surrounding landmarks that mostly have gable roof forms. P51 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 8 of 10 Images: Gable roofed historic landmarks located to the west of the subject property (upper right and left). Explore Booksellers (lower left) and Cortina Lodge (lower right). The applicant provided a height analysis of surrounding buildings and a 3-D model will be presented at the Council meeting. Following are height measurements of surrounding context: Carl’s Pharmacy – about 27’5” top of parapet Cortina Lodge (the 2 story building) – about 21’ gable roof apex Hotel Jerome – about 50’ going up to 50’4” at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker Sts. Residential 2 story Victorian – about 20’ 6” gable roof apex Floor Area : Both the gable and the flat roof options request floor area variations. The proposed floor area – cumulative, lodge and commercial – are less than the maximum allowances in the P52 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 9 of 10 Commercial Core (cumulative 2.75:1; lodge 2.5:1; and commercial 2:1) but are 1.5 times what is allowed in the Mixed Use Zone District. Requirement in MU Proposed – GABLE ROOF Proposed – FLAT ROOF cumulative floor area 1:1 (5,976 sf) or 1.25:1 (7,470 sf) through Special Review 2.65:1(15,818.11 sf) 2.66:1 (15,912 sf) lodge and commercial floor area 0.75:1 (4,482 sf) total or 1:1 (5,976 sf) total through Special Review Lodge: 2.02:1 (12,094 sf) Commercial: 0.62:1 (3,724sf) Lodge: 2.09:1 (12,507 sf) Commercial: 0.57:1 (3,406 sf) The proposed floor area creates a transition from Mixed Use to the Commercial Core Zone District through the two story massing proposed west (adjacent to the Cortina) and the three story massing proposed on the east (across the street from Carl’s and the Hotel Jerome). Staff is supportive of the floor area increase and, in addition to supporting a small room lodge, Staff finds that the proposed massing is appropriate for the location and the context. Setbacks : The project requests setback variances to construct the building to the property line. The Commercial Core Historic District has a 0’ setback requirement to allow buildings to build to the property line, but the Main Street Historic District has 10’ and 5’setback requirements to reflect the historic pattern of the residential homes along Main Street. The proposed variances are consistent with the Commercial Core allowances. Further, the Cortina Lodge has a 0’ front and east yard setback. Staff is supportive of the requested variances considering the location of the property adjacent to the Commercial Core and the current setback condition of the historic Cortina Lodge. HPC had concerns about the rear yard setback and suggested that the building be pushed back from the rear property line to provide some relief to the neighbor across the alley. Requirement in MU Proposed – GABLE ROOF Proposed – FLAT ROOF front yard (Main St.) 10’ 0’ 0’ side yard (Monarch St.) 5’ 0’ 0’ side yard (west) 5’ 0’ 0’ rear (alley) 5’ 0’ 0’ Staff recommends approval of the proposed dimensions for the gable roof iteration. Parking : Just over 20 parking spaces are generated by the development. The applicant plans to provide 12 off-site parking spaces. The location of the parking spaces is proposed to be determined as part of the Development Agreement. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (E XHIBIT B) A complete description of the design standards and guidelines is addressed Exhibit B. As described above and in Exhibit B, Staff is supportive of the massing changes and finds that the Design Guidelines are met. Staff is supportive of the public amenity space on the roof. Staff P53 IV.c 232 E. Main Street – Base 2 Staff Memo 5/26/15 Page 10 of 10 recommends that a primary entrance be added to the Main Street façade as a condition of approval for Detailed Review. GROWTH MANAGEMENT (E XHIBIT C) City Council is asked to conduct Growth Management as part of the consolidated review process. Staff is supportive of the request to use the Lodge Preservation Overlay employee generation table to determine employee generation. Affordable Housing Credits at Category 4 are proposed to mitigate for the additional employees. DEMOLITION (E XHIBIT D) The applicant requests demolition approval of the existing building. This review is required because the property is located within the Main Street Historic District. Staff finds that the building is not historic and recommends demolition approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve Ordinance 1, Series of 2015. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #1, Series of 2015 on Second Reading. Attachments: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, PD Review Criteria [updated for 5/26/15 hearing] Exhibit B – Staff Findings, Commercial Design Standard Review Criteria [updated for 5/26/15 hearing] Exhibit C – Staff Findings, Growth Management Review Criteria [updated for 5/26/15 hearing] Exhibit D – Staff Findings, Demolition for property in Historic District, Review Criteria [updated for 5/26/15 hearing] Exhibit E – Development Review Committee comments [updated for 5/26/15 hearing] Exhibit F – Meeting Minutes from Historic Preservation Commission meetings – November 19, 2014 and December 3, 2014 Exhibit G – Historic Preservation Commission Resolution #36, Series of 2014 Exhibit H- Application [updated for 5/26/15 hearing] P54 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 1 of 10 ORDINANCE NO. 1 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLTION APPROVAL, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BASE 2 LODGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 232 E MAIN STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-20-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Base 2 Lodge (the Application) from 232 E. Main LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning for the following land use review approvals: • Planned Development – Project Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. • Growth Management Review – Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review –Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Growth Management Review – Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. • Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412; • Major Development Conceptual Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; • Demolition Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415; and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application – October 20, 2014, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Base 2 Lodge proposes: 39 lodge units and 39 bedrooms in 6,925 square feet of net livable area. 2,891 square feet of accessory commercial net leasable space; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval with the condition that affordable housing be mitigated onsite by the board was provided at their November 5, 2014, regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and, P55 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Planned Development - Project Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS , such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS , the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, continued from November 19, 2014, during which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Historic Preservation Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission approved Resolution 36, Series of 2014, by a four to two (4 -2) vote recommending City Council approve the Base 2 Application and all necessary land use reviews; and, WHEREAS , all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, on January 12, 2015 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 3, Series 2015, on First Reading by a three to two (3-2) vote; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on January 26, 2015, the Aspen City Council continued Ordinance No. 1, Series 2015, to March 9, 2015; and, WHEREAS, during a public hearing on March 9, 2015, the Aspen City Council tabled Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2015; and WHEREAS, all required public noticing for a public hearing on June 1, 2015 continued from May 26, 2015 was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public notice submitted to the record, a public open house was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304.035, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Community P56 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 3 of 10 Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby grants – Planned Development - Project Review approval, Growth Management approvals, Major Development Conceptual approval, Conceptual Commercial Design approval and Demolition approval, for a Site Specific Development Plan for Base 2 Lodge, subject to the recommended conditions of approval as listed herein. Exhibit A describes the dimensional requirements. The lodge and commercial floor area may be changed through an administrative amendment to accommodate the conversion of the ground floor commercial space along the alley into either lodge units or commercial use. The overall cumulative maximum floor area may not be increased without a Planned Development amendment granted by City Council. Minor dimensional changes resulting from building permit review that are no greater than the allowances of the underlying zone district and/or the allowances approved in Exhibit A are permitted. Section 2: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Final Major Development Review, and Planned Development – Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein. The applicant shall combine these applications, and they shall be made no later than one (1) year following City Council approval of the reviews outlined herein. Upon submittal of a complete Land Use application for final reviews, Council directs staff to expedite the scheduling of the public hearing on the Historic Preservation Commission’s agenda. Section 3: Expedited Reviews . Council directs all building permit review departments to provide first round permit comments within three weeks of the applicant’s submittal of complete information and second round comments within two weeks of the applicant’s submittal of complete information. Section 4: Growth Management Allotments 4.1 Reconstruction Credits . Based on the existing development at 232 E. Main St. the Applicant is entitled to the following reconstruction credits, pursuant to Land Use Chapter 26.470 a. A commercial reconstruction credit of 1,629 square feet of net leasable area is credited toward the Project’s 2,885 square feet of commercial net leasable area. P57 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 4 of 10 4.2 Growth Management Allotments . The following growth management allotments are granted to the Base 2 Lodge: a. 78 lodging pillows are granted from the 2015 allotments. b. 1,256 square feet of net leasable commercial space is granted from the 2015 allotments. c. Adjustments to these numbers may be approved by the Community Development Director to account for detailed design changes or conversion of the ground floor commercial space. Section 5: Affordable Housing The Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District employee generation rate of 0.3 FTEs per bedroom is established for Base 2 Lodge. Affordable Housing Credits at Category 4 for the increase in commercial net leasable and the increase in lodge rooms are required prior to building permit issuance. Unless otherwise waived, any further increase in lodge rooms or commercial net leasable area requires affordable housing mitigation at the rate defined in the Land Use Code at the time of application for the Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone District. Section 6: Planned Development – Detail Review In addition to the general documents required as part of a Planned Development – Detail Review, the following items shall be required as part of the Application’s Planned Development – Detail Review: a. Trash and utility areas meeting City standards or as otherwise approved by the Utility and Environmental Health Departments. b. A signage plan. c. Interior vestibules for commercial spaces. d. Add at least one primary entrance on Main Street into the commercial space. e. An Outdoor Lighting Plan, pursuant to section 26.575.150. f. A proposed Landscaping Plan for the streetscape trees and landscaping. g. A snow storage and snow shedding plan. Snow is not permitted to shed off roofs onto neighboring properties. Demonstrate that any snow which sheds off roofs will remain on-site. h. An updated and final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan and narrative. i. A plan for deliveries, pursuant to Section 26.412. j. Draft sidewalks and right of way civil plans. k. Draft parking lease/agreement for any offsite spaces. l. Draft public amenity agreement. m. Provide the information listed in Section 8, Building. Section 7: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Commercial Design and Planned Development – Detail Review approvals by the Historic Preservation Commission. The recordation documents shall be P58 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 5 of 10 submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form , the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Commercial Design Review/ Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), including a monitoring plan. b. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements , a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. c. A parking contract or lease for off-street parking. d. A permanent access easement for the rooftop public amenity space. e. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements , the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. f. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees , the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. Section 8: Engineering The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. 8.1 Drainage : The project shall meet the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements. Provide a full major drainage report that meets URMP and Engineering Design Standards with building permit submittal. 8.2 Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter : All sidewalk curb and gutter shall meet the Engineering Standards of City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 21. Due to the current condition, the curb and gutter along Monarch St shall be replaced. 8.3 Encroachments: The building overhang into the ROW must have a minimum height of 7’. Include information on how the overhang is supported in the building permit submittal. Buildings shall not overhang into the alley. Locate all utility pedestals and electric transformers to within the property boundary. P59 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 6 of 10 8.4 Excavation Stabilization : Due to the proximity of the neighboring property and the excavation of the building, an excavation stabilization plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to building permit submittal. 8.5 CMP : The Construction Management Plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. 8.6 Environmental Site Assessment: An environmental site assessment and soils test is required. The site assessment and remediation is to comply with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment – Division of Oil and Public Safety. 8.7 Survey Requirement : Pothole and provide depth to utilities on the survey as part of building permit submittal. 8.8 Parking: Parking lanes shall not be located within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection or within thirty feet of any signal. Section 9: Building Provide a more refined plan to address exiting, accessibility, toilet facilities and percent opening on the north elevation prior to Detailed Review by HPC. Section 10: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 11: Parks All landscaping in the right of way shall be approved by the Parks Department and shall comply with requirements in the Municipal Code. Section 12: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District The applicant shall commit to funding the replacement of the existing District owned main sanitary sewer lines serving the proposed development. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) are required for all food processing establishments. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to soil stabilization. Soil nails are not allowed in ROW. P60 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 7 of 10 Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Above grade development shall flow by gravity. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). A “Line Replacement Request” and a “Collection System Agreement are required for these projects. Both are ACSD Board of Director’s action items. Pool drain sizing shall be approved by the District. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. The applicant’s engineer shall furnish average and peak flows as well as proposed service size prior to building permit issuance. Section 13: Environmental Health The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement. The trash enclosures shall meet the minimum requirements outlined in Title 12 unless varied through Special Review. Prior to Detail PD Review, the dimensions of the trash area and an accessible route to the trash area shall receive approval by the Environmental Health Department. Section 14: Transportation A specific narrative associated with the Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted with the Detailed PD Review application. The TDM and MMLOS measures described below shall be P61 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 8 of 10 implemented. Additional TDM and MMLOS measures may be required during Detailed Review. • Prior to arrival providing guests with information for RFTA. • Providing bus passes to employees that live down valley. • Local and airport shuttle service to be shared with Base 1 Lodge. • Either partner with Wecycle or provide bicycles for guests. Section 15: Parking Two parking spaces on Monarch Street in front of the lodge shall be signed loading zones for lodge guests. 15 off-site and off-street parking spaces are required. Operational requirements shall be specified in the development agreement. A parking audit shall be performed 2 years after the certificate of occupancy is granted. The lodge operator shall provide the average daily number of parking spaces demanded during the two summer on-seasons to the Community Development Department after the second year of operation. The Community Development Director and the Director of Transportation shall evaluate the data and determine whether additional transportation demand management measures are needed. Section 16: Water/Utilities Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. All Water System Distribution standards in place at the time of building permit shall apply, and all tap fees will be assess per applicable codes and standards. Utility and transformer placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Transformer location shall be included in the Detailed Review application. Section 17: Outdoor Lighting and Signage All outdoor lighting and all signage shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code unless otherwise varied through Detailed Review. Section 18: Public Amenity Space The Applicant has committed to providing a roof top public amenity space. The rooftop deck does not count toward floor area calculation. The public amenity space may not be less than the required 10% of the lot or 600 sf. These spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or elevators. The rooftop space shall not be enclosed with temporary or permanent walls or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space. A permanent public access easement is required as part of the Development Agreement. Section 19: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. P62 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 9 of 10 Section 20: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 21: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12 th day of January, 2015. __________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of __________, 2015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: __________________________ ______________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Dimensional Requirements P63 IV.c 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Ordinance #1, Series 2015 Page 10 of 10 Exhibit A –Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Requirements front yard (Main St.) 0’ side yard (Monarch St.) 0’ side yard (west) 0’ rear (alley) 0’ maximum height 32’ to parapet 34’6” to top of railing 39’ top of exterior stair 45’5” top of elevator overrun minimum off-street parking spaces 15 spaces off-site Maximum cumulative floor area 2.64:1 (15,770 sf) lodge and commercial floor area Lodge: 2.07:1 (12,390 sf)* Commercial: 0.57:1 (3,380 sf)* commercial net leasable area 2,885 sf average lodge unit size about 186 sf lodge net livable area 7,253 sf Number of lodge units 39 units *The lodge and commercial floor area may be changed through an administrative amendment to accommodate the conversion of the ground floor commercial space along the alley into either lodge units or commercial use. The overall cumulative maximum floor area may not be increased without a Planned Development amendment granted by City Council. P64 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 1 Introduction (Flat Roof Design Option): This is an update to the Planned Development (PD) application that was previously submitted for the “Base2 Lodge” on the property located at 232 East Main Street (currently the site of the Conoco gas station). This 5,976 square foot lot is located on the northwest corner of East Main and North Monarch Streets, is zoned Mixed-Use (MU), and is in the Main Street Historic District. The property is legally described as Lots R and S, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. The lodge will provide private bunkrooms (averaging approximately 186 square feet each), and feature other desirable amenities that are meant to bring “fun, vitality and enjoyment” for not only its guests, but also the Aspen public at large. This Base2 Lodge and its sister lodge will, together, advance the significant community goal of economic sustainability through the provision of affordable short-term lodging in Aspen, but it requires the flexibility of a Planned Development review in order to accommodate its dimensions and unique attributes. Although another design option is provided, the proposed lodge development still has no free-market residential component and no timeshare or fractional estate component. The applicant is providing a design option that entails significant differences from the previous design proposal. The contemplated changes are based upon feedback received from the HPC, City Council, and the public during public hearings. The most obvious design changes from the earlier proposal are the flat roof that meets the 32’ height limit of the Mixed-Use Zone District, and different exterior building materials. Additionally, landscaping has been included in the new design, and there is a ground level setback on the alley that was suggested by members of the HPC and the City Council. Most of the other changes from the earlier proposal are internal to the building. All of the differences between the two proposals are explained in detail below. Project Description/The Proposal (Flat Roof Design Option): The newly proposed Base2 Lodge design has removed the gabled roof and replaced it with a flat roof that measures only thirty-two feet (32’) in height to the top of the parapet. There is also a three and a half foot (3½‘) railing that is set back from the Street-facing front façades a distance equal to its height, which is an allowed exemption from the 32’ height limit pursuant to Code Section 26.575.020.F.4. The roof massing steps down toward and in respect to the adjacent Cortina Lodge (multi-family housing) structure. The exterior building materials are softened to now be primarily wood and glass. There are still two accessory commercial spaces at the street level (a restaurant and a gift shop), however, the size, layout and entries of these spaces have changed. The lodge’s accessory commercial space at the front of the building is planned as a cafe with 2,080 square feet of net leasable area, while the other space will be a gift shop with 805 square feet of net leasable area. Both of these spaces are accessed via Monarch Street, while the P65 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 2 restaurant/bar space includes an entryway and storefront windows along the Main Street frontage. With a combined total of 2,885 square feet of accessory commercial net leasable area and the Code-stipulated 3.6 FTE per thousand square feet, these spaces will theoretically generate 10.39 FTE (2.885 x 3.6). The two ground floor accessory commercial spaces are intended to serve not only hotel guests but also the local Aspen community, in general. The basement level of the Base1 Lodge still includes functional spaces and amenities that will also be open to the general public. For example, the basement level continues to include bar, lounge and library rooms, a communal Hamam (similar to a steam room) space, men’s and women’s locker rooms, and mechanical and back of house spaces. There are still two stories of lodge rooms above the ground floor. These two stories have similar floor plans to that found in the gable-roofed design, however the second floor in this flat-roofed option has twenty rooms, while the third floor has only nineteen (19), for a total of thirty-nine (39) rooms that average approximately 186 square feet of net livable area (total lodge rooms net livable area is 7,253sf divided by 39 rooms). Since the third floor has an additional front setback to provide relief for the adjacent Cortina property, only 19 rooms could be accommodated on that level, and a couple of the third floor rooms contain only 145-150 square feet of net livable area. All of the lodge rooms will have large windows, providing ample natural light and views. These net livable areas are actually smaller than represented, as the calculations still need to be revised to deduct the area of interior wall partitions between adjoining units and hallways. Finally, an outdoor terrace is proposed on the rooftop. This terrace area will serve the guests of the lodge but also be open to the general public. The central portion of the rooftop will house the elevator and stair enclosures. The outdoor rooftop terrace is 3,682 square feet (exclusive of enclosed spaces, areas behind the handrail, and the mechanical area). The plan also includes an approximately 146 square foot, landscaped public amenity area at the southwest corner of the site (at ground level), bringing to total public amenity to approximately 3,828 square feet, or 64% of the lot area. Thus, the proposal provides more than six times the 10% or 597sf of public amenity required on the subject property. Furthermore, while not included in the public amenity space calculation, there is also a courtyard at the street level that can be accessed via the restaurant. This is an open-air courtyard in the middle of the west side of the property. Similarly, all of the basement level amenities will be open to the general public but have not been calculated as contributing to the public amenity. It is noted that City staff was supportive of the rooftop public amenity proposed in the initial application and similar space was recently approved for the sister Base 1 Lodge. Utilizing the far more appropriate and reasonable 0.3 FTE per lodging bedroom generation rate associated with the properties in the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district (and as supported/recommended by staff and the HPC, and as approved by City Council for the Base 1 sister lodge) the 39 bedrooms of the Base2 Lodge will theoretically generate 11.7 FTE P66 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 3 (39 x 0.3). Between the two accessory commercial spaces and the lodging, the proposed development will generate 22.09 FTE (11.7 + 10.39). The existing development on the subject property includes 1,500 square feet of fully enclosed net leasable area that generates (at 3.6 FTE per 1,000 square feet of such space) 5.4 FTE. In addition, while erroneously excluded until now, Code Section 26.575.020.I.2. clearly provides that the covered area of the gas pumps (beneath the roof canopy structure) shall also be included in the calculation of existing net leasable area. This 1,041 square foot area, therefore, generates an additional 3.75 FTE (1.041 x 3.6). In total, the existing development on the subject property includes 2,541 square feet of ground level net leasable area, which generates 9.15 FTE and carries an off-street parking requirement of 2.54 spaces (no off-street parking exists, leaving a 2.54 space deficit). Given that the existing development on the subject property generates 9.15 FTE, the net additional employee generation associated with the Base2 Lodge development is 12.94 FTE (22.09 minus 9.15). Further, since the average net livable area of the proposed lodge units is less than 300 square feet (actually, approximately 186 net livable square feet per unit), Code Section 26.470.070(8)(a)(2) dictates that percentage of employee generation requiring the provision of mitigation is 10%. With a total additional employee generation of 12.94 FTE, the Code, therefore, requires the provision of mitigation for a total of 1.29 FTE. In the interest of incentivizing the type of lodging being proposed herein and in the interest of keeping the cost for this lodging down, it is proposed that no on-site employee mitigation be required for this Base2 Lodge. It is necessary achieve a minimum density of rooms and beds, not just on this site but also as combined with the proposed Base1 Lodge at Cooper and Original. While the Code provides that the City may apply a credit towards the mitigation requirements of the free-market residential component of a lodge project, as a means of incentivizing lodge development, and it would be fully reasonable to request a mere 1.29 FTE credit since this lodging application includes no free market residential units at all, the applicant will instead provide Category 4 equivalent Affordable Housing Credit Certificates for mitigation of 1.29 FTE. After conferring with several potential hotel operators, it has become evident that all such operators will only work with the developer if both Base1 and Base2 are approved and delivered as a single, sister hotels operation. The applicant wants to deliver affordable lodging to Aspen but has found that, unfortunately, the one lodge cannot be developed or efficiently operated without the other. There is not a reputable operator that will take on a 39-room hotel or a 42-room hotel. As much as we all wish otherwise, the days of new mom-and-pop built and operated hotels in Aspen have passed, owning largely to the cost of land and development here. There seems to be a minimum threshold of at least 80 rooms necessary to get hotel operators interested. The proposed Base 2 flat-roof option includes thirty-nine (39) lodge rooms for which the Code requires 19.5 off-street parking spaces (39 x 0.5). Note that the Code does not require P67 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 4 that such off-street parking be provided on-site. The 2,885 square feet of accessory commercial space generates a need to provide 2.9 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, the cumulative off-street parking requirement for the subject PD proposal would be 19.86 spaces ([19.5 + 2.9] less the existing deficit of 2.54 spaces). There is no parking requirement whatsoever for lodges in the CC or C-1 Zone Districts, which represents the current zoning on all three other corners at the same street intersection as the proposed Base 2 Lodge. In other words, the exact proposal on any of the other three corners at the same street intersection would require no off-street parking whatsoever. The proximity of these zones to the subject property and their complete lack of any applicable parking requirement deserves real consideration when determining what a fair parking requirement for this PD will ultimately be. Although the proposed development does not include any on-site parking, the applicant has engaged in discussions with the City of Aspen and, subject to working out final terms of an agreement, can be guaranteed access to 40-50 parking spaces during the Fall, Winter and Spring seasons, and 20-25 spaces during the summer season. Furthermore, the applicant has volunteered several exceptional and innovative Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures aimed at reducing automobile usage and dependency and minimizing traffic generation, so as to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and City as a whole. During the initial review, Staff found that the review criteria for a reduction of the parking requirement had been met so long as off-site parking is provided in the Rio Grande parking garage or similar situation. The applicant is hereby committing to the provision of sufficient off-street parking as a condition of Conceptual approval with a requirement that a specific plan, location and number of spaces be included as part of the PD Detailed Review application; therefore, in no way will the Lodge be developed without a satisfactory parking plan first being reviewed and approved. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (HEIGHT, PUBLIC AMENITY, TRASH AREA) Base2 Lodge Dimensional Requirements Comparison Table, MU Zoning and Proposed Planned Development DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT MIXED USE (MU) ZONE DISTRICT BASE2 LODGE PLANNED DEVELOPEMNT (PD) Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet, which may be reduced to 5 feet No requirement (5’ along the nearly 30 feet of Main Street frontage closest to the Cortina) Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet No requirement Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet No requirement Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle Area1 20’W x 10’D x 10’H 1 (= 200sf/2,000cf) 9’10”W x 15’D x 10’H, plus another 29’W x 5’D x 10’H P68 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 5 (147sf + 145sf = 292sf/2,920cf) 1 Maximum Height 28 feet, which may be increased to 32’ through Commercial Design Review 32’ to parapet2 34’6’’ to top of railing2 39’ to stairwell enclosure2 45’5” to top of elevator shaft2 Public Amenity Space3 10% (597 square feet, per existing) 3 3,828sf or 64% (ground level plus roof terrace) 3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4 1:1 to 1.25:1 Cumulative; 0.75:1 to 1:1 for Commercial and Lodge uses 2.66:1 Cumulative (15,915sf)4 0.57:1 Commercial (3,410sf)4 2.09:1 Lodging (12,510sf)4 Maximum Residential Unit Size 2,000 to 2,500 sf net livable Not applicable Minimum Off-Street Parking 5 1 space/1,000 net leasable square feet of commercial space (100% may be provided through payment in lieu); 0.5 spaces/lodge unit (fewer by Special Review; no requirement for lodge units in CC or C-1 Zones) 5 TBD 5 NOTES: 1 : Minimum Utility/Trash/Recycle Area requirements of Code Section 12.10 for a fewer than 60-unit lodge development with commercial spaces that will contain or have the capacity to contain an establishment with retail food services is 20’Wx10’Dx10’H. Dimensions of the Utility/Trash/Recycle Area are subject to variation through Special Review under Code Section 12.10.080 when an applicant desires to reduce the size requirements and/or feels that the requirements cannot be met given the nature of the property. The applicant is proposing that the Utility/Trash/Recycle Area dimensions proposed herein be approved as part of the Planned Development rather than through a separate special review (as a “Combined Review” pursuant to Code Section 26.304.060.B.1.). The two areas proposed herein are not only sufficient but they combine to exceed the requirement. 2 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.020.F.4., specific exceptions to height limitations are allowed, as may be applicable. Rooftop Railings. On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential building, rooftop railings and similar safety devices permitting rooftop access may extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the railing connects. To qualify for this exception, the railing must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. All railings shall be set back from any street-facing facade of the building by an amount equal to the height of the railing. Additional height measurement exemptions are P69 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 6 allowed under Code Section 26.575.020F.4. Per the Codified exemptions, the parapet, the handrails and the stair enclosure all comply with the 32-foot height limit; the elevator shaft enclosure exceeds the allowed exemption by 4’-5” and requires a PD variation. 3 : Pursuant to Code Section 26.575.030.B., 25% of the area of the parcel shall be provided as public amenity; however, for redevelopment of parcels on which less than 25% currently exists, the existing (prior to redevelopment) percentage shall be the effective requirement provided not less then 10% is the end requirement. Consistent with Code Section 26.575.030.C.4., and also consistent with precedent for allowing use of outdoor restaurant decks and seating areas on private property to satisfy Public Amenity requirements, this PD proposes that similar outdoor spaces on private property, but which shall remain open to the general public, be used to not only satisfy but greatly exceed the effective 10% (597 square foot) requirement. 4 : Per Code Section 26.575.020.D.: decks, balconies, loggias, gazebos, exterior stairways, trellis, and similar features of a mixed-use, commercial, or lodge building within the MU Zone District shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations; patios developed at or within six inches of finished grade shall not be counted towards Floor Area; etc. Accordingly, the basement level, the ground floor courtyard, the rooftop deck, and the utility/trash/recycle area, among other areas, are not counted as Floor Area in the PD. Refer to the accompanying C+T plans set, Sheets FAR-2, FAR-2 and FAR-3, for more precise measurements. 5 : Per Code Section 26.515.030, whenever the off-street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a Final PD Plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned Development; and an existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. As explained in the above-provided narratives, it is proposed that the required number and location of off-street parking spaces be established as a condition of this PD Project Review with satisfaction required as part of the subsequent PD Detailed Review application. Code Section 26.470.040 states that the remodeling or replacement of existing commercial or lodge development is exempt from Growth Management. The existing commercial net leasable area to be demolished is 2,541 square feet. The proposed commercial net leasable is 2,885 square feet, all of which is located on the ground level. The difference between the existing and proposed net leasable area must receive a GMQS allotment. Therefore, a commercial net leasable area allotment of 344 square feet is requested to the extent that accessory commercial net leasable area even requires an allotment. The applicant is proposing that the U/T/R area dimensions proposed herein, which are 9’- 10”W x 15’D x 10’H, plus another 29’W x 5’D x 10’H (147sf + 145sf = 292sf/2,920cf), be approved as part of the Planned Development rather than through a separate special review. P70 IV.c Base2 Lodge/232 East Main Street Update for Flat Roof Option 7 Section 26.610.090 of the Code provides the established impact fees for development within the City of Aspen. The Parks Development fee is $5.45 per square foot of floor area for residential or hotel development. The Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality impact fee is $0.61 per square foot of floor area. Notwithstanding the fact that Section 26.610.100 of the Code states that a lodging development may apply for a waiver of the impact fees as an economic development incentive, the applicant will pay the applicable fees at the time of building permit issuance. P71 IV.c DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT CS-1COVER SHEET--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. AS P E N , C O LO C A L J U R I S D I C T I O N : TH E C I T Y O F A S P E N 13 0 S . G A L E N A S T R E E T AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 4 2 9 - 2 7 6 1 CO N T A C T : B Y D E P A R T M E N T AR C H I T E C T : CA M B U R A S & T H E O D O R E , L T D . 24 5 4 E . D E M P S T E R S T R E E T , S U I T E 2 0 2 DE S P L A I N E S , I L 6 0 0 1 6 TE L ( 8 4 7 ) 2 9 8 - 1 5 2 5 CO N T A C T : T E D J . T H E O D O R E , N C A R B , L E E D A P OR R O B A V I L A , L E E D A P LA N D P L A N N E R : HA A S L A N D P L A N N I N G , L L C 42 0 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T , S T E . 1 0 - B AS P E N , C O 8 1 6 1 1 TE L ( 9 7 0 ) 9 2 5 - 7 8 1 9 CO N T A C T : M I T C H H A A S VI C I N I T Y M A P DRAWING LIST: SH E E T N U M B E R SHEET NAME CS - 1 COVER SHEET PA - 1 EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY PA - 2 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY PA - 3 PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY - ROOF A- 0 1 0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN FA R - 1 FLOOR PLAN - FAR CALCULATIONS FA R - 2 FLOOR PLAN - FAR CALCULATIONS NL - 1 FLOOR PLAN - NET LE ASABLE/NET LIVABLE NL - 2 FLOOR PLAN - NET LE ASABLE/NET LIVABLE A- 2 1 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A- 2 1 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AL T A EXISTING LAND SURVEY EC - 1 EXISTING CONDITION FLOOR PLAN A- 1 1 1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN A- 1 1 2 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN OW N E R ' S R E P R E S E N T A T I V E : M D E V E L O P M E N T 20 0 1 N . H A L S T E D S T . , S U I T E 3 0 4 CH I C A G O , I L 6 0 6 1 4 CO N T A C T : M A R K H U N T FA R - 3 FLOOR PLAN - FAR CALCULATIONS NL - 3 FLOOR PLAN - NET LE ASABLE/NET LIVABLE A- 1 1 3 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN P72IV.c P 7 3 I V . c TH I S L O T D O E S N O T HA V E A N Y E X I S T I N G PU B L I C A M E N I T Y S P A C E DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 11/11/14 TTRA11-11-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION PA-1EXISTING PUBLIC AMENITY__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EX I S T I N G P U B L I C A M E N I T Y CA L C U L A T I O N S REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P74IV.c NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A - 2 , 5 4 1 . 0 4 S F LE A S A B L E A R E A - 1 5 0 0 S F FU E L P U M P A R E A LE A S A B L E A R E A - 1 1 8 . 2 8 S F DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 4/30/15 TTRA4-30-15 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION EC-1EXISTING FLOOR PLANS__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, COREVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P75IV.c AL L E Y 3 0 M I N . P U B L I C P A R K I N G MA I N S T . A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ( L O D G E ) FE N C E BU S S T O P PL A N T E R LA N S C A P I N G S I T E T R I A N G L E 30 ' - 0 " L A N D S C A P I N G S I T E T R I A N G L E 3 0 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TR A F F I C SI G N A L TR A F F I C SI G N A L TR A F F I C SI G N A L TR A F F I C SI G N A L 2 S T O R Y BU I L D I N G (C A R L ' S P H A R M A C Y ) 1 S T O R Y B U I L D I N G 3 S T O R Y BU I L D I N G ST R E E T LI G H T ST R E E T LI G H T 1 STORY BUILDING BR I C K PA V E R S BR I C K PA V E R S BR I C K PA V E R S 1 S T O R Y B U I L D I N G AL L E Y M O N A R C H S T . P L A N T E R 7 ' - 0 " 44 ' - 9 " MA I N S T . 3 S T O R Y BU I L D I N G (B A S E 2 L O D G I N G ) PR O P E R T Y L I N E 59 ' - 9 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TR A S H AR E A 1 5 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 6 " 7' - 0 " 9' - 5 " 9 9 ' - 1 0 " S T R E E T P A R K I N G L O D G E P I C K - U P D R O P - O F F L O D G E P I C K - U P D R O P - O F F 29 ' - 4 " PR O P O S E D P U B L I C AM E N I T Y LA N D S C A P E A R E A 14 6 . 2 5 S . F . DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 12/05/14 TTRA12-05-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION PA-2PROPOSED PUBLIC AMENITY__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 PR O P O S E D P U B L I C A M E N I T Y CA L C U L A T I O N REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P76IV.c RO O F T O O P TE R R A C E NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A 50 2 . 1 3 S F 3, 6 8 2 . 1 8 S . F . PU B L I C AM E N I T Y ME C H A N I C A L AR E A RO O F T E R R A C E 40 0 ST A I R # 1 40 1 ST A I R # 2 40 2 EL E V . # 1 40 3 EL E V . # 2 40 4 DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT PA-3ROOFTOP PUBLIC AMENITY--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P L A N - P U B L I C A M E N I T Y P77IV.c AL L E Y 3 0 M I N . P U B L I C P A R K I N G A D J A C E N T B U I L D I N G ( L O D G E ) FE N C E BU S S T O P PL A N T E R LA N S C A P I N G S I T E T R I A N G L E 30 ' - 0 " L A N D S C A P I N G S I T E T R I A N G L E 3 0 ' - 0 " NE W L A N D S C A P E A R E A N E W L A N D S C A P E A R E A 10 ' - 0 " TR A F F I C SI G N A L TR A F F I C SI G N A L 2 S T O R Y BU I L D I N G (C A R L ' S P H A R M A C Y ) 3 S T O R Y BU I L D I N G ST R E E T LI G H T 1 STORY BUILDING BR I C K PA V E R S BRICK PAVERS AL L E Y P L A N T E R 7 ' - 0 " 44 ' - 9 " 3 S T O R Y BU I L D I N G (B A S E 2 L O D G I N G ) PR O P E R T Y L I N E 59 ' - 9 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 4 " 5 ' - 0 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 9' - 5 " 3 0 ' - 6 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 4 " S T R E E T P A R K I N G L O D G E P I C K - U P D R O P - O F F L O D G E P I C K - U P D R O P - O F F 2 4 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " N E W L A N D S C A P E A R E A NE W L A N D S C A P E A R E A DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.NU 12/05/14 TTRA12-05-14 1ISSUE FOR CITY SUBMISSION A-010SITE PLAN__232 EAST MAIN ST.ASPEN, CO 1 " = 1 0 ' - 0 " 1 SI T E P L A N - A L T A U N D E R L A Y REVISIONS NO.DATEBYDESCRIPTION P78IV.c UP 1234' - 1 1/2"31' - 9"34' - 1 1/2"100' - 0" 29 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 30 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 29 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 59 ' - 9 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " HO T E L G I F T S H O P 10 1 UT I L I T Y A R E A 11 0 HO T E L C A F E 10 2 RE C E P T I O N 10 7 LO B B Y 10 0 ST O R A G E 10 8 CO U R T Y A R D 10 9 ST A I R # 1 10 3 EL E V . # 1 10 5 EL E V . # 2 10 6 ST A I R # 2 10 4 EG R E S S 11 1 4' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 3 Y D DU M P S T E R 3 Y D DU M P S T E R 3 Y D DU M P S T E R . . . SL I D I N G DO O R , T Y P . TR A S H A R E A 11 2 TR A N S ME C H A N I C A L L1 0 7 BA R L1 0 2 HA M A M L1 0 5 ME N ' S L O C K E R L1 0 6 WO M E N ' S LO C K E R L1 0 4 BA C K O F H O U S E L1 1 0 LO U N G E L1 0 0 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 9 ST A I R # 1 L1 0 8 EL E V . # 1 L1 1 1 EL E V . # 2 L1 1 2 LI B R A R Y L1 0 1 C O R R I D O R L 1 1 6 59 ' - 9 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 5' - 3 3 / 4 " 6 ' - 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 4 3 / 4 " 5' - 3 3 / 4 " DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT A-111FLOOR PLANS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 LO W E R L E V E L P79IV.c Ro o m 1 3 21 3 Room 10 210 Room 11 211 Room 12 212 Ro o m 1 4 21 4 Ro o m 1 5 21 5 Ro o m 1 6 21 6Ro o m 1 7 21 7 Ro o m 1 8 21 8 Room 7 207Room 6 206 Ro o m 5 20 5 Ro o m 4 20 4 Ro o m 3 20 3 Ro o m 1 20 1 Ro o m 1 9 21 9 Ro o m 2 0 22 0 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9/16"9' - 3 9/16" 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 14 ' - 2 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 19' - 3 1/16" 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 2 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 59 ' - 9 " 4 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 10' - 0 1/2"10' - 1"10' - 1"10' - 1"10' - 0 1/2"12 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 22' - 7"22' - 7"16' - 5 9/16" 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " Ro o m 2 20 2 Room 8 208 168 SFRoom 9 209 19' - 3 1/16" 4' - 6 " ST A I R # 1 22 1 EL E V . # 1 22 3 EL E V . # 2 22 4 ST A I R # 2 22 2 CO R R I D O R 20 0 Ro o m 3 7 33 7 Ro o m 3 6 33 6 Ro o m 3 5 33 5 Ro o m 3 4 33 4 Ro o m 3 3 33 3 Ro o m 3 2 33 2 Ro o m 3 0 33 0 Ro o m 2 9 32 9 Ro o m 3 8 33 8 Ro o m 3 9 33 9 Ro o m 2 1 32 1 Ro o m 2 4 32 4 Ro o m 2 5 32 5 Ro o m 2 6 32 6 Ro o m 2 7 32 7 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 59 ' - 9 " Ro o m 2 3 32 3 Ro o m 2 2 32 2 Ro o m 2 8 32 8 Ro o m 3 1 33 1 9' - 3 3 / 8 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 1 " 4' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 28 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 " 4' - 5 7 / 1 6 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 14 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 2 1 / 1 6 " 16 ' - 5 9 / 1 6 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " TE R R A C E 34 5 ST A I R # 1 34 1 EL E V . # 1 34 3 EL E V . # 2 34 4 ST A I R # 2 34 2 CO R R I D O R 34 0 DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT A-112LODGE PLANS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 2N D F L O O R 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 3R D F L O O R P80IV.c 12 ST A I R # 1 40 1 RO O F T E R R A C E 40 0 EL E V . # 1 40 3 EL E V . # 2 40 4 ST A I R # 2 40 2 24 ' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 24 ' - 1 0 1 / 1 6 " 2 3 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 1 6 ' - 0 1 / 1 6 " 9' - 5 " 1 9 ' - 1 1 7 / 8 " 8 ' - 8 " 1 6 ' - 0 1 / 1 6 " 24 ' - 1 0 " 9' - 9 " 24 ' - 1 0 1 / 1 6 " 21 ' - 2 1 / 1 6 " 0 ' - 3 1 / 2 " RA I L I N G S Y S T E M , T Y P . 4 ' - 8 " 3' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " 9' - 5 " DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT A-113ROOF PLAN--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P81IV.c 3 4 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 3 0 ' - 9 " 3 4 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 9' - 9 9 / 1 6 " 20 ' - 6 1 5 / 1 6 " 29 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 59 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 2 " 1 9 ' - 7 1 5 / 1 6 " 3 5 ' - 2 " 5 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 30 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 1 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 8 " 1 6 ' - 7 1 5 / 1 6 " 4' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 22 ' - 0 9 / 1 6 " HO T E L G I F T S H O P 10 1 LO B B Y 10 0 HO T E L C A F E 10 2 ST A I R # 1 10 3 ST A I R # 2 10 4 EL E V . # 1 10 5 EL E V . # 2 10 6 RE C E P T I O N 10 7 ST O R A G E 10 8 CO U R T Y A R D 10 9 UT I L I T Y A R E A 11 0 M O N A R C H S T R E E T MA I N S T R E E T NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A 14 2 . 3 2 S F TO T A L C O M M E R C I A L AR E A 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F NO N - U N I T CO M M O N AR E A 3 0 1 . 8 8 SF ( E X E M P T PA T I O ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A L O D G E 1, 2 9 5 . 7 5 S F NO N - U N I T CO M M O N AR E A 71 0 . 1 6 S F 1 5 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 6 " 4' - 6 " TR A S H A R E A 11 2 NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A 15 2 . 7 1 S F ME C H A N I C A L L1 0 7 BA R L1 0 2 HA M A M L1 0 5 ME N ' S L O C K E R L1 0 6 WO M E N ' S LO C K E R L1 0 4 BA C K O F H O U S E L1 1 0 LO U N G E L1 0 0 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 9 ST A I R # 1 L1 0 8 EL E V . # 1 L1 1 1 EL E V . # 2 L1 1 2 LI B R A R Y L1 0 1 C O R R I D O R L 1 1 6 59 ' - 9 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 5' - 3 3 / 4 " 6 ' - 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 4 3 / 4 " 5' - 3 3 / 4 " NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A 2 , 2 6 0 . 5 4 S F (E X E M P T S U B G R A D E ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F (E X E M P T S U B G R A D E ) NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A 4 4 0 . 0 0 S F (E X E M P T S U B G R A D E ) ZO N I N G I N F O R M A T I O N & C A L C U L A T I O N S : ZO N I N G : ( M U ) M I X E D U S E NE T L O T A R E A : 5 , 9 7 6 S F ( 5 9 . 6 7 ' x 1 0 0 ' ) ZO N I N G A L L O W A N C E ( 2 : 1 ) : 1 1 , 9 5 2 S F ( 2 x 5 , 9 7 6 S F ) LO W E R L E V E L : 0 % E X P O S E D WALLS (100% EXEMPT) CA L C U L A T I O N S : GR O S S F L O O R A R E A : CO M M E R C I A L S P A C E : 3,012.00 SF LO D G I N G S P A C E : 13,448.72 SF NO N - U N I T S P A C E : 5,283.88 SF GR O S S N O N - U N I T A R E A : 1S T : 1 , 0 0 5 . 1 9 S F ( P U R P L E ) 2N D : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( P U R P L E ) 3R D : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( P U R P L E ) 4T H : 0 S F LL : 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F ( P U R P L E ) TO T A L : 5, 2 8 3 . 8 8 S F TO T A L G R O S S U N I T F L O O R AREA (MINUS NON-UNIT): LO D G E F L O O R A R E A + C O M M ERCIAL FLOOR AREA = 13 , 4 4 8 . 7 2 S F + 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F = 16,460.72 SF TO T A L N O N - U N I T F L O O R A R EA (MINUS BASEMENT): 1S T F L O O R + 2 N D F L O O R + 3 R D F L O O R = 1, 0 0 5 . 1 9 S F + 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F + 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F = 2,009.45 SF PE R C E N T A G E O F U S E C A T E G O R Y PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA: LO D G E : [ ( 1 3 , 4 4 8 . 7 2 / 16,460.72)x100] = 81.70% CO M M E R C I A L : [ ( 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 / 1 6 , 4 6 0 . 7 2 ) x 1 0 0 ] = 18.30% AP P L I C A T I O N O F U S E P E R C E N T A G E S TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA: LO D G E : 2 , 0 0 9 . 4 5 x 8 2 % = 1,647.75 SF CO M M E R C I A L : 2 , 0 0 9 . 4 5 x 1 8 % = 361.70 SF FI N A L F L O O R A R E A : TO T A L F A R F O R L O D G E : [ ( 13,448.72-2,700.54)+1,647.75] =12,395.93 SF (2.08:1) TO T A L F A R F O R C O M M E R C I A L: 3012.00+361.70 =3,373.70 SF (0.57:1) CU M U L A T I V E : 15,769.63 SF (2.64:1)GROSS LODGE AREA:1ST: 1,295.75 SF (BLUE)2ND: 4,865.96 SF (BLUE & RED)3RD: 4,865.96 SF (BLUE & RED)4TH: 0 SF LL: 2,700.54 SF (BLUE)TOTAL: 13,448.72 SF DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT FAR-1FAR CALCULATIONS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 LO W E R L E V E L - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: MA I N L E V E L : 5 . 6 1 4 . 8 2 S F HO T E L A C C E S S O R Y A R E A : 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 3 0 7 . 0 7 SF (TRASH, CO URTYARD & ELEV.) 2N D L E V E L : 5 , 3 6 8 . 0 8 S F LO D G I N G A R E A : 4 , 2 6 0 . 1 2 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R ) RO O F L E V E L : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 5 , 9 7 5 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 3 0 1 . 8 8 S F ( C O U R T Y A R D - P A T I O ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 3 1 2 . 9 4 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 3 6 8 . 0 8 S F 3R D L E V E L : 5 , 3 6 5 . 3 6 S F TOTAL FAR: 15,769.63 SF (2.64:1 FAR) LO D G I N G A R E A : 3 , 8 9 9 . 6 1 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 7 7 8 . 8 9 S F ( S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R , T E R R A C E ) DE D U C T I O N S : 2 7 6 . 7 6 S F ( T E R R A C E ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 0 8 8 . 6 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F ( D E C K , S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 5 , 9 7 5 S F (SUBGRADE EXEMPT) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 1,295.75 SF (LOBBY) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 6 0 5 . 8 3 S F ( C O R R I D O R ) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 6 8 6 . 8 6 S F ( C O R R I D O R ) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 0 S F NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 2 , 7 0 0 . 5 4 S F P82IV.c Ro o m 1 3 21 3 Ro o m 1 0 21 0 Ro o m 1 1 21 1 Ro o m 1 2 21 2 Ro o m 1 4 21 4 Ro o m 1 5 21 5 Ro o m 1 6 21 6 Ro o m 1 7 21 7 Ro o m 1 8 21 8 Ro o m 7 20 7 Ro o m 6 20 6 Ro o m 5 20 5 Ro o m 4 20 4 Ro o m 3 20 3 Ro o m 1 20 1 Ro o m 1 9 21 9 Ro o m 2 0 22 0 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 14 ' - 2 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 2 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 59 ' - 9 " 4 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 16 ' - 5 9 / 1 6 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " Ro o m 2 20 2 Ro o m 8 20 8 Ro o m 9 20 9 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " 4' - 6 " ST A I R # 1 22 1 ST A I R # 2 22 2 CO R R I D O R 20 0 EL E V . # 1 22 3 EL E V . # 2 22 4 LO D G I N G A R E A 4, 2 6 0 . 1 2 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A L O D G E 6 0 5 . 8 3 S F NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A 50 2 . 1 3 S F CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W Ro o m 3 7 33 7 Ro o m 3 6 33 6 Ro o m 3 5 33 5 Ro o m 3 4 33 4 Ro o m 3 3 33 3 Ro o m 3 2 33 2 Ro o m 3 0 33 0 Ro o m 2 9 32 9 Ro o m 3 8 33 8 Ro o m 3 9 33 9 Ro o m 2 1 32 1 Ro o m 2 4 32 4 Ro o m 2 5 32 5 Ro o m 2 6 32 6 Ro o m 2 7 32 7 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 59 ' - 9 " Ro o m 2 3 32 3 Ro o m 2 2 32 2 Ro o m 2 8 32 8 Ro o m 3 1 33 1 9' - 3 3 / 8 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 1 " 4' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 28 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 " 4' - 5 7 / 1 6 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 14 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 2 1 / 1 6 " 16 ' - 5 9 / 1 6 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " CO R R I D O R 34 0 12 7 S F ST A I R # 1 34 1 ST A I R # 2 34 2 EL E V . # 1 34 3 EL E V . # 2 34 4 CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W TE R R A C E LO D G I N G A R E A 3, 8 9 9 . 6 1 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N AR E A L O D G E 6 8 6 . 8 6 S F NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A 50 2 . 1 3 S F NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A EX E M P T 2 7 6 . 7 6 S F ZO N I N G I N F O R M A T I O N & C A L C U L A T I O N S : ZO N I N G : ( M U ) M I X E D U S E NE T L O T A R E A : 5 , 9 7 6 S F ( 5 9 . 6 7 ' x 1 0 0 ' ) ZO N I N G A L L O W A N C E ( 2 : 1 ) : 1 1 , 9 5 2 S F ( 2 x 5 , 9 7 6 S F ) LO W E R L E V E L : 0 % E X P O S E D WALLS (100% EXEMPT) CA L C U L A T I O N S : GR O S S F L O O R A R E A : CO M M E R C I A L S P A C E : 3,012.00 SF LO D G I N G S P A C E : 13,448.72 SF NO N - U N I T S P A C E : 5,283.88 SF GR O S S N O N - U N I T A R E A : 1S T : 1 , 0 0 5 . 1 9 S F ( P U R P L E ) 2N D : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( P U R P L E ) 3R D : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( P U R P L E ) 4T H : 0 S F LL : 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F ( P U R P L E ) TO T A L : 5, 2 8 3 . 8 8 S F TO T A L G R O S S U N I T F L O O R AREA (MINUS NON-UNIT): LO D G E F L O O R A R E A + C O M M ERCIAL FLOOR AREA = 13 , 4 4 8 . 7 2 S F + 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F = 16,460.72 SF TO T A L N O N - U N I T F L O O R A R EA (MINUS BASEMENT): 1S T F L O O R + 2 N D F L O O R + 3 R D F L O O R = 1, 0 0 5 . 1 9 S F + 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F + 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F = 2,009.45 SF PE R C E N T A G E O F U S E C A T E G O R Y PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA: LO D G E : [ ( 1 3 , 4 4 8 . 7 2 / 16,460.72)x100] = 81.70% CO M M E R C I A L : [ ( 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 / 1 6 , 4 6 0 . 7 2 ) x 1 0 0 ] = 18.30% AP P L I C A T I O N O F U S E P E R C E N T A G E S TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA: LO D G E : 2 , 0 0 9 . 4 5 x 8 2 % = 1,647.75 SF CO M M E R C I A L : 2 , 0 0 9 . 4 5 x 1 8 % = 361.70 SF FI N A L F L O O R A R E A : TO T A L F A R F O R L O D G E : [ ( 13,448.72-2,700.54)+1,647.75] =12,395.93 SF (2.08:1) TO T A L F A R F O R C O M M E R C I A L: 3012.00+361.70 =3,373.70 SF (0.57:1) CU M U L A T I V E : 15,769.63 SF (2.64:1)GROSS LODGE AREA:1ST: 1,295.75 SF (BLUE)2ND: 4,865.96 SF (BLUE & RED)3RD: 4,865.96 SF (BLUE & RED)4TH: 0 SF LL: 2,700.54 SF (BLUE)TOTAL: 13,448.72 SF DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT FAR-2FAR CALCULATIONS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 2N D F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 3R D F L O O R - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: MA I N L E V E L : 5 . 6 1 4 . 8 2 S F HO T E L A C C E S S O R Y A R E A : 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 3 0 7 . 0 7 SF (TRASH, CO URTYARD & ELEV.) 2N D L E V E L : 5 , 3 6 8 . 0 8 S F LO D G I N G A R E A : 4 , 2 6 0 . 1 2 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R ) RO O F L E V E L : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 5 , 9 7 5 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 3 0 1 . 8 8 S F ( C O U R T Y A R D - P A T I O ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 3 1 2 . 9 4 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 3 6 8 . 0 8 S F 3R D L E V E L : 5 , 3 6 5 . 3 6 S F TOTAL FAR: 15,769.63 SF (2.64:1 FAR) LO D G I N G A R E A : 3 , 8 9 9 . 6 1 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 7 7 8 . 8 9 S F ( S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R , T E R R A C E ) DE D U C T I O N S : 2 7 6 . 7 6 S F ( T E R R A C E ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 0 8 8 . 6 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F ( D E C K , S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 5 , 9 7 5 S F (SUBGRADE EXEMPT) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 1,295.75 SF (LOBBY) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 6 0 5 . 8 3 S F ( C O R R I D O R ) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 6 8 6 . 8 6 S F ( C O R R I D O R ) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 0 S F NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 2 , 7 0 0 . 5 4 S F P83IV.c RO O F T O O P TE R R A C E NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A 50 2 . 1 3 S F NO N - U N I T CO M M O N A R E A EX E M P T 3 , 6 3 9 . 9 6 S F ME C H A N I C A L AR E A RO O F T E R R A C E 40 0 ST A I R # 1 40 1 ST A I R # 2 40 2 EL E V . # 1 40 3 EL E V . # 2 40 4 RA I L I N G S Y S T E M , T Y P . ZO N I N G I N F O R M A T I O N & C A L C U L A T I O N S : ZO N I N G : ( M U ) M I X E D U S E NE T L O T A R E A : 5 , 9 7 6 S F ( 5 9 . 6 7 ' x 1 0 0 ' ) ZO N I N G A L L O W A N C E ( 2 : 1 ) : 1 1 , 9 5 2 S F ( 2 x 5 , 9 7 6 S F ) LO W E R L E V E L : 0 % E X P O S E D WALLS (100% EXEMPT) CA L C U L A T I O N S : GR O S S F L O O R A R E A : CO M M E R C I A L S P A C E : 3,012.00 SF LO D G I N G S P A C E : 13,448.72 SF NO N - U N I T S P A C E : 5,283.88 SF GR O S S N O N - U N I T A R E A : 1S T : 1 , 0 0 5 . 1 9 S F ( P U R P L E ) 2N D : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( P U R P L E ) 3R D : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( P U R P L E ) 4T H : 0 S F LL : 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F ( P U R P L E ) TO T A L : 5, 2 8 3 . 8 8 S F TO T A L G R O S S U N I T F L O O R AREA (MINUS NON-UNIT): LO D G E F L O O R A R E A + C O M M E R C I A L F L O O R A R E A = 13 , 4 4 8 . 7 2 S F + 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F = 16,460.72 SF TO T A L N O N - U N I T F L O O R A R EA (MINUS BASEMENT): 1S T F L O O R + 2 N D F L O O R + 3 R D F L O O R = 1, 0 0 5 . 1 9 S F + 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F + 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F = 2,009.45 SF PE R C E N T A G E O F U S E C A T E G O R Y PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA: LO D G E : [ ( 1 3 , 4 4 8 . 7 2 / 16,460.72)x100] = 81.70% CO M M E R C I A L : [ ( 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 / 1 6 , 4 6 0 . 7 2 ) x 1 0 0 ] = 18.30% AP P L I C A T I O N O F U S E P E R C E N T A G E S TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA: LO D G E : 2 , 0 0 9 . 4 5 x 8 2 % = 1,647.75 SF CO M M E R C I A L : 2 , 0 0 9 . 4 5 x 1 8 % = 361.70 SF FI N A L F L O O R A R E A : TO T A L F A R F O R L O D G E : [ ( 13,448.72-2,700.54)+1,647.75] =12,395.93 SF (2.08:1) TO T A L F A R F O R C O M M E R C I A L: 3012.00+361.70 =3,373.70 SF (0.57:1) CU M U L A T I V E : 15,769.63 SF (2.64:1)GROSS LODGE AREA:1ST: 1,295.75 SF (BLUE)2ND: 4,865.96 SF (BLUE & RED)3RD: 4,865.96 SF (BLUE & RED)4TH: 0 SF LL: 2,700.54 SF (BLUE)TOTAL: 13,448.72 SF DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT FAR-3FAR CALCULATIONS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P L A N - F A R C A L C U L A T I O N S FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: MA I N L E V E L : 5 . 6 1 4 . 8 2 S F HO T E L A C C E S S O R Y A R E A : 3 , 0 1 2 . 0 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 1 , 3 0 7 . 0 7 SF (TRASH, CO URTYARD & ELEV.) 2N D L E V E L : 5 , 3 6 8 . 0 8 S F LO D G I N G A R E A : 4 , 2 6 0 . 1 2 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 5 0 2 . 1 3 S F ( S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R ) RO O F L E V E L : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 5 , 9 7 5 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 3 0 1 . 8 8 S F ( C O U R T Y A R D - P A T I O ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 3 1 2 . 9 4 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 0 S F AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 3 6 8 . 0 8 S F 3R D L E V E L : 5 , 3 6 5 . 3 6 S F TOTAL FAR: 15,769.63 SF (2.64:1 FAR) LO D G I N G A R E A : 3 , 8 9 9 . 6 1 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 7 7 8 . 8 9 S F ( S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R , T E R R A C E ) DE D U C T I O N S : 2 7 6 . 7 6 S F ( T E R R A C E ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 5 , 0 8 8 . 6 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 4 , 1 4 2 . 0 9 S F ( D E C K , S T A I R S / E L E V A T O R ) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F NO N - U N I T C O M M O N A R E A : 3 , 2 7 4 . 4 6 S F DE D U C T I O N S : 5 , 9 7 5 S F (SUBGRADE EXEMPT) AR E A T O W A R D S F A R : 0 S F NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 1,295.75 SF (LOBBY) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 6 0 5 . 8 3 S F ( C O R R I D O R ) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 6 8 6 . 8 6 S F ( C O R R I D O R ) NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 0 S F NO N - U N I T L O D G E A R E A : 2 , 7 0 0 . 5 4 S F P84IV.c UP 3 4 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 3 0 ' - 9 " 3 4 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 9' - 9 9 / 1 6 " 20 ' - 6 1 5 / 1 6 " 29 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 59 ' - 9 " 5 ' - 0 " 3 5 ' - 2 " 1 9 ' - 7 1 5 / 1 6 " 3 5 ' - 2 " 5 ' - 0 " 29 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 30 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 1 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 8 " 1 6 ' - 7 1 5 / 1 6 " 4' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 22 ' - 0 9 / 1 6 " HO T E L G I F T S H O P 10 1 LO B B Y 10 0 HO T E L C A F E 10 2 ST A I R # 1 10 3 ST A I R # 2 10 4 EL E V . # 1 10 5 EL E V . # 2 10 6 RE C E P T I O N 10 7 ST O R A G E 10 8 CO U R T Y A R D 10 9 UT I L I T Y A R E A 11 0 M O N A R C H S T R E E T MA I N S T R E E T NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A 1 5 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 6 " 4' - 6 " NE T L E A S A B L E A R E A EG R E S S 11 1 ME C H A N I C A L L1 0 7 BA R L1 0 2 HA M A M L1 0 5 ME N ' S L O C K E R L1 0 6 WO M E N ' S LO C K E R L1 0 4 BA C K O F H O U S E L1 1 0 LO U N G E L1 0 0 ST A I R # 2 L1 0 9 ST A I R # 1 L1 0 8 EL E V . # 1 L1 1 1 EL E V . # 2 L1 1 2 LI B R A R Y L1 0 1 C O R R I D O R L 1 1 6 59 ' - 9 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 5' - 3 3 / 4 " 6 ' - 0 5 / 8 " 5' - 4 3 / 4 " 5' - 3 3 / 4 " DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT NL-1NET LEASABLE--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 MA I N F L O O R - N E T L E A S A B L E SUMMARY: MA I N L E V E L : 5 , 2 1 0 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2,885 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2,325 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF 2N D & 3 R D L E V E L : 2 N D - 4 , 7 5 7 S F , 3 R D - 4 , 6 3 7 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 2ND-3,793 SF, 3RD-3,461 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2ND-964 SF, 3RD-1,176 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF RO O F L E V E L : 4 , 1 6 4 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 358 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 3,806 SF TO T A L C O M M O N A R E A : 9 , 9 4 6 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 5 , 1 2 3 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 5,123 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF TO T A L N E T L E A S A B L E : 2 , 8 8 5 S F TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 7,254 SFTOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY: 3,806 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA: 23,060 SFLOWER LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name Number Area LO U N G E L 1 0 0 5 6 2 S F LI B R A R Y L 1 0 1 5 2 4 S F BA R L 1 0 2 9 7 8 S F WO M E N ' S LO C K E R L104 244 SF HA M A M L 1 0 5 3 5 9 S F ME N ' S LO C K E R L106 244 SF ME C H A N I C A L L 1 0 7 4 8 1 S F ST A I R # 1 L 1 0 8 1 2 7 S F ST A I R # 2 L 1 0 9 1 2 7 S F BA C K O F HO U S E L110 870 SF EL E V . # 1 L 1 1 1 5 2 S F EL E V . # 2 L 1 1 2 5 2 S F CO R R I D O R L 1 1 6 5 0 3 S F 5123 SF MAIN LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name Number Area LO B B Y 1 0 0 7 9 6 S F HO T E L GI F T S H O P 101 805 SF HO T E L C A F E 1 0 2 2 0 8 0 S F ST A I R # 1 1 0 3 1 2 7 S F ST A I R # 2 1 0 4 1 2 7 S F EL E V . # 1 1 0 5 5 2 S F EL E V . # 2 1 0 6 5 2 S F RE C E P T I O N 1 0 7 2 0 6 S F ST O R A G E 1 0 8 2 0 6 S F CO U R T Y A R D 1 0 9 3 0 2 S F UT I L I T Y A R E A 1 1 0 1 4 6 S F EG R E S S 1 1 1 1 6 5 S F TR A S H A R E A 1 1 2 1 4 8 S F 5210 SFTOTAL AREA:NO NET LEASABLE OR NET LIVABLE ON THIS LEVELCOMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE TOTAL AREA:TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2,885 S.F.NET LEASABLECOMMON SPACE NET LEASABLE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 LO W E R L E V E L - N E T L E A S A B L E COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE P85IV.c Ro o m 1 3 21 3 Ro o m 1 0 21 0 Ro o m 1 1 21 1 Ro o m 1 2 21 2 Ro o m 1 4 21 4 Ro o m 1 5 21 5 Ro o m 1 6 21 6Ro o m 1 7 21 7 Ro o m 1 8 21 8 Ro o m 7 20 7 Ro o m 6 20 6 Ro o m 5 20 5 Ro o m 4 20 4 Ro o m 3 20 3 Ro o m 1 20 1 Ro o m 1 9 21 9 Ro o m 2 0 22 0 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 19 ' - 0 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 14 ' - 2 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 9' - 6 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 2 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 59 ' - 9 " 4 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 16 ' - 5 9 / 1 6 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " Ro o m 2 20 2 Ro o m 8 20 8 Ro o m 9 20 9 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " 4' - 6 " ST A I R # 1 22 1 ST A I R # 2 22 2 CO R R I D O R 20 0 EL E V . # 1 22 3 EL E V . # 2 22 4 LO D G I N G A R E A 4, 2 6 0 . 1 2 S F CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W Ro o m 3 7 33 7 Ro o m 3 6 33 6 Ro o m 3 5 33 5 Ro o m 3 4 33 4 Ro o m 3 3 33 3 Ro o m 3 2 33 2 Ro o m 3 0 33 0 Ro o m 2 9 32 9 Ro o m 3 8 33 8 Ro o m 3 9 33 9 Ro o m 2 1 32 1 Ro o m 2 4 32 4 Ro o m 2 5 32 5 Ro o m 2 6 32 6 Ro o m 2 7 32 7 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 9 / 1 6 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 1 5 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 0 " 9' - 6 " 2 5 ' - 1 1 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 59 ' - 9 " Ro o m 2 3 32 3 Ro o m 2 2 32 2 Ro o m 2 8 32 8 Ro o m 3 1 33 1 9' - 3 3 / 8 " 9' - 3 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 2 2 ' - 7 " 1 0 0 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 1 " 4' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 28 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 1 " 4' - 5 7 / 1 6 " 2 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 1 6 " 14 ' - 5 1 5 / 1 6 " 1 5 ' - 7 " 1 7 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 2 1 / 1 6 " 16 ' - 5 9 / 1 6 " 19 ' - 3 1 / 1 6 " CO R R I D O R 34 0 ST A I R # 1 34 1 ST A I R # 2 34 2 EL E V . # 1 34 3 EL E V . # 2 34 4 CO U R T Y A R D BE L O W TE R R A C E DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT NL-2NET LEASABLE--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST.SECOND LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name Number Area CORRIDOR 200 605.83 SF Room 1 201 163.41 SF Room 2 202 162.34 SF Room 3 203 163.21 SF Room 4 204 163.38 SF Room 5 205 163.38 SF Room 6 206 209.90 SF Room 7 207 193.33 SF Room 8 208 168.08 SF Room 9 209 168.08 SF Room 10 210 168.08 SF Room 11 211 193.33 SF Room 12 212 209.90 SF Room 13 213 163.38 SF Room 14 214 163.11 SF Room 15 215 240.06 SF Room 16 216 163.16 SF Room 17 217 222.04 SF Room 18 218 246.15 SF Room 19 219 246.15 SF Room 20 220 222.04 SF STAIR #1 221 127.23 SF STAIR #2 222 127.23 SF ELEV. #1 223 51.67 SF ELEV. #2 224 51.67 SF 4756.15 SF TOTAL AREA:TOTAL NET LIVABLE:COMMON SPACE NET LIVABLE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACENET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE 3,792.51 SF 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 2N D F L O O R - N E T L I V A B L E 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 3R D F L O O R - N E T L I V A B L E THIRD LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name Number Area Room 21 321 163.41 SF Room 22 322 162.33 SF Room 23 323 163.21 SF Room 24 324 163.38 SF Room 25 325 163.38 SF Room 26 326 209.90 SF Room 27 327 193.12 SF Room 28 328 167.86 SF Room 29 329 168.08 SF Room 30 330 167.86 SF Room 31 331 193.12 SF Room 32 332 209.90 SF Room 33 333 163.38 SF Room 34 334 163.33 SF Room 35 335 145.62 SF Room 36 336 147.75 SF Room 37 337 246.08 SF Room 38 338 246.08 SF Room 39 339 222.04 SF CORRIDOR 340 674.19 SF STAIR #1 341 127.23 SF STAIR #2 342 127.23 SF ELEV. #1 343 51.67 SF ELEV. #2 344 51.67 SF TERRACE 345 144.50 SF 4636.31 SF TOTAL AREA:TOTAL NET LIVABLE:COMMON SPACENET LIVABLE 3,459.82 SFCOMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACENET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE SUMMARY: MA I N L E V E L : 5 , 2 1 0 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2,885 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2,325 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF 2N D & 3 R D L E V E L : 2 N D - 4 , 7 5 7 S F , 3 R D - 4 , 6 3 7 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 2ND-3,793 SF, 3RD-3,461 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2ND-964 SF, 3RD-1,176 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF RO O F L E V E L : 4 , 1 6 4 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 358 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 3,806 SF TO T A L C O M M O N A R E A : 9 , 9 4 6 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 5 , 1 2 3 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 5,123 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF TO T A L N E T L E A S A B L E : 2 , 8 8 5 S F TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 7,254 SFTOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY: 3,806 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA: 23,060 SF P86IV.c PU B L I C A M E N I T Y AE R A ME C H A N I C A L AR E A RO O F T E R R A C E 40 0 ST A I R # 1 40 1 ST A I R # 2 40 2 EL E V . # 1 40 3 EL E V . # 2 40 4 RA I L I N G S Y S T E M , T Y P . DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT NL-3NET LEASABLE--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 RO O F P L A N - N E T L E A S A B L E ROOF LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name Number Area RO O F TE R R A C E 400 3806 SF ST A I R # 1 4 0 1 1 2 7 S F ST A I R # 2 4 0 2 1 2 7 S F EL E V . # 1 4 0 3 5 2 S F EL E V . # 2 4 0 4 5 2 S F 4164 SF NO N E T L E A S A B L E O R N E T LIVABLE ON THIS LEVELTOTAL AREA:PUBLIC AMENITY COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE COMMON SPACE SUMMARY: MA I N L E V E L : 5 , 2 1 0 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2,885 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2,325 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF 2N D & 3 R D L E V E L : 2 N D - 4 , 7 5 7 S F , 3 R D - 4 , 6 3 7 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 2ND-3,793 SF, 3RD-3,461 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 2ND-964 SF, 3RD-1,176 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 2ND & 3RD-0 SF RO O F L E V E L : 4 , 1 6 4 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 358 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 3,806 SF TO T A L C O M M O N A R E A : 9 , 9 4 6 S F LO W E R L E V E L : 5 , 1 2 3 S F TOTAL NET LEASABLE: 0 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA: 5,123 SF PUBLIC AMENITY: 0 SF TO T A L N E T L E A S A B L E : 2 , 8 8 5 S F TOTAL NET LIVABLE: 7,254 SFTOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY: 3,806 SFTOTAL BUILDING AREA: 23,060 SF P87IV.c MA I N F L O O R 0' - 0 " 2N D F L O O R 12 ' - 0 " 3R D F L O O R 21 ' - 6 " PA R A P E T 32 ' - 0 " RO O F 31 ' - 0 " RA I L I N G 34 ' - 6 " T/ O S T A I R W E L L 39 ' - 0 " T/ O E L E V A T O R SH A F T 45 ' - 5 " EL E V A T O R S H A F T BE Y O N D ST A I R W E L L BE Y O N D WO O D T I M B E R AN D G L A S S R A I L I N G SY S T E M , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R PO S T , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R RA I L I N G , T Y P . CL E A R G L A S S RA I L I N G , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R BE A M , T Y P . CA S T I R O N DE C O R A T I V E ME D A L L I O N , T Y P . WO O D P L A N K SI D I N G , T Y P . WIN D O W PL A N T E R , T Y P . CO N C R E T E BA S E , T Y P . CO N C R E T E CU R B , T Y P . BU T T G L A Z E D JO I N T , T Y P . PE R I M E T E R W I N D O W RE V E A L , T Y P . PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L WIN D O W F R A M E , T Y P . OR N A M E N T A L M E T A L HE A D E R , T Y P . CL E A R S T O R E F R O N T GL A Z I N G , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R AN D G L A S S RA I L I N G S Y S T E M BE Y O N D , T Y P . MA I N F L O O R 0' - 0 " 2N D F L O O R 12 ' - 0 " 3R D F L O O R 21 ' - 6 " PA R A P E T 32 ' - 0 " RO O F 31 ' - 0 " RA I L I N G 34 ' - 6 " T/ O S T A I R W E L L 39 ' - 0 " T/ O E L E V A T O R SH A F T 45 ' - 5 " EL E V A T O R S H A F T BE Y O N D ST A I R W E L L BE Y O N D ST A I R W E L L BE Y O N D WO O D T I M B E R PO S T , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R BE A M , T Y P . CA S T I R O N DE C O R A T I V E ME D A L L I O N , T Y P . WO O D P L A N K SI D I N G , T Y P . WI N D O W PL A N T E R , T Y P . CO N C R E T E BA S E , T Y P . CO N C R E T E CU R B , T Y P . BU T T G L A Z E D JO I N T , T Y P . PE R I M E T E R W I N D O W RE V E A L , T Y P . PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L WI N D O W F R A M E , T Y P . OR N A M E N T A L M E T A L HE A D E R , T Y P . CL E A R S T O R E F R O N T GL A Z I N G , T Y P . WO O D S H U T T E R AW N I N G , T Y P . PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L CL A D D I N G D O O R SU R R O U N D , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R AN D G L A S S R A I L I N G SY S T E M B E Y O N D , T Y P . MAIN FLOOR 0' - 0"2ND FLOOR 12' - 0"3RD FLOOR 21' - 6"PARAPET 32' - 0"ROOF 31' - 0"RAILING 34' - 6"T/O STAIRWELL 39' - 0"T/O ELEVATOR SHAFT 45' - 5" EL E V A T O R S H A F T BE Y O N D ST A I R W E L L BE Y O N D TRASH AND UTILITY AREA BEYOND WO O D T I M B E R PO S T , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R BE A M , T Y P . WO O D P L A N K SI D I N G , T Y P . WI N D O W PL A N T E R , T Y P . CO N C R E T E BA S E , T Y P . CO N C R E T E CU R B , T Y P . PE R I M E T E R W I N D O W RE V E A L , T Y P . PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L WI N D O W F R A M E , T Y P . SL I D I N G SC R E E N DO O R . . . WO O D T I M B E R AN D G L A S S R A I L I N G SY S T E M , T Y P . DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT A-210EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 SO U T H E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 EA S T E L E V A T I O N 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 NO R T H E L E V A T I O N P88IV.c MA I N F L O O R 0' - 0"2ND FLOOR 12' - 0"3RD FLOOR 21' - 6"PARAPET 32' - 0"ROOF 31' - 0"RAILING 34' - 6" T/ O S T A I R W E L L 39' - 0" T/ O E L E V A T O R SHAFT 45' - 5" EL E V A T O R S H A F T BE Y O N D ST A I R W E L L BE Y O N D ST A I R W E L L BE Y O N D WO O D T I M B E R PO S T , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R RA I L I N G , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R BE A M , T Y P . WO O D P L A N K SI D I N G , T Y P . WI N D O W PL A N T E R , T Y P . CO N C R E T E BA S E , T Y P . CO N C R E T E CU R B , T Y P . PE R I M E T E R W I N D O W RE V E A L , T Y P . PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L WI N D O W F R A M E , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R RA I L I N G , T Y P . CL E A R G L A S S RA I L I N G , T Y P . OR N A M E N T A L M E T A L HE A D E R , T Y P . CL E A R S T O R E F R O N T GL A Z I N G , T Y P . PE R I M E T E R W I N D O W RE V E A L , T Y P . PR E F I N I S H E D M E T A L WIN D O W F R A M E , T Y P . WO O D T I M B E R AN D G L A S S R A I L I N G SY S T E M , T Y P . DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:DATE:REVIEWED:PROJECT NO.:LOCATION NO.:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUNLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHT: CAMBURAS & THEODORE, LTD.RA 4/22/15 TT A-211EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS--BASE 2 232 E. MAIN ST. 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 WE S T E L E V A T I O N P89IV.c P90IV.c 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Ordinance #14, Series of 2015, 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Tree Removal Permit Appeal, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 26, 2015 ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: 211 E. Hallam is a West End property that contains the studio of celebrated Aspen photographer Ferenc Berko. This 6,000 square foot lot was recently created through a subdivision approval that separated the studio from the Victorian era home to the east that was the Berko family residence. The studio lot is currently listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures because the entire 12,000 square foot original parcel was designated many years ago due to the 19 th century home. While the studio lot is subject to HPC review for all alterations and redevelopment, the studio has never been formally recognized as a historic resource itself. The Berko family proposes to clarify the status of the property by volunteering to participate in the AspenModern negotiation process. The Berko’s intend to renovate the studio into a more livable home and to add a second unit on the site. The family requests financial benefits, variances and issuance of a contested tree removal permit in order to achieve preservation. On April 8 th , HPC passed Resolution #12, Series of 2015, approving Conceptual design review, on- site relocation and variances for the proposed construction. The resolution also included a recommendation that City Council work diligently with the applicant to achieve a mutually acceptable package of incentives to be awarded for the preservation of the studio, considered one of the best examples of an AspenModern era resource. P91 IV.d 2 HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPLICANT: ELM 223, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Harry Teague Architects. PARCEL ID: #2737-073-16-007. ADDRESS: 211 E. Hallam, Lot 1, 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6. AspenModern Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. P92 IV.d 3 Staff Response: 211 E. Hallam was built in 1964 as the photography studio and salon for Ferenc Berko. Berkos’s 2000 obituary in the New York Times describes him as “a Hungarian- born photographer who was a pioneer in the use of color film and helped to put Aspen, Colo., prominently on the map.” “After capturing faces, places and figures throughout the world and briefly settling in Chicago, Mr. Berko accepted an invitation in 1949 to visit Aspen, a crumbling old silver-mining town, to record the transformation that was about to take place.” Berko’s photos of the Goethe Bicentennial Convocation were the beginning of a 50 year residence in Aspen. Some of his best known photos of Aspen, and his classic self-portrait, are seen below. P93 IV.d 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS Ted Mularz, pictured at the right, was the architect of Berko’s studio. Mularz graduated from University of Illinois in 1959. A friend, AspenModern noted architect Robin Molny, suggested Mularz relocate to Aspen, where he worked for Fritz Benedict and Herbert Bayer before opening his own office. Mularz appreciated Aspen’s heritage and was a founding member of the Aspen Historical Society. He practiced in Aspen for 30 years before relocating to Oregon, where he lives today. In staff’s opinion, this property is a clear example of the importance of the AspenModern program as part of the City’s historic preservation efforts. The property not only illustrates the architectural philosophies being expressed in midcentury Aspen, but also the career of a prominent artist who produced iconic photos of the community. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff’s score sheet is attached as Exhibit B. Staff scored the building as a “best” example of AspenModern, with 17 out of 20 possible points. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20 th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. Staff Response: As noted above, HPC’s assessment of this property is that it is one of the best examples of an AspenModern era resource. Preservation of this structure helps to achieve all of the stated purposes of the City’s preservation program, which are: P94 IV.d 5 A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. Up until 2011, no historic designations in Aspen required owner consent. City Council could designate any property that was found to meet landmark criteria. Lengthy debates about the appropriate approach to use for non-Victorian era architecture resulted in voluntary program that relies on the negotiation of individualized incentives that address the unique conditions of each property. This concept has led to some remarkably successful historic preservation projects over the last two years and resulted in the recent naming of the Aspen HPC as “Commission of the Year” by the National Alliance of Historic Preservation Commissions and recognition by History Colorado. Benefits, particularly relief from certain dimensional requirements, have been critical to the success of the Aspen Historic Preservation program since they were made available over 25 years ago. The HPC carefully uses this flexibility to encourage projects that retain historic resources in the greatest entirety possible, while allowing new construction to occur in a sensitive manner. The give and take aspect of this process attempts to offer a degree of fairness in terms of development rights for the less than 300 privately owned properties (only about 15% of the total lots in town) that are responsible for maintaining Aspen’s identity as a historic community. As recognition of their preservation effort, the 211 E. Hallam applicant requests benefits that include variances to dimensional requirements, fee waivers, and an appeal of the tree protection ordinance. Some of the requested benefits are ones that HPC typically has the purview to award, in particular dimensional variances. For this project, HPC has approved the following, pending approval by Council: • a 500 square foot floor area bonus. • a 5’ rear setback, a 3’ east setback (plus the necessary projection to accommodate the eave and a fire rated east wall), an 8’ combined sideyard and a 4’ front yard. • a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass, Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window. P95 IV.d 6 Benefits which are unique and require Council review are: Waiver of building permit fees. Permit fees are related to the valuation of the work and the amount of square footage affected. The estimated building permit fee for this project (plan check, building permit fee, energy code, zoning, engineering permit review, construction mitigation, GIS, parks permit review) is $100,060. Water tap fees are expected to be approximately $28,975. The City Manager and City Finance Director were asked to provide a referral comment to Council relative to waivers that affect the General Fund. Their comment is that the fee waiver request is significantly higher than the City has typically provided in past years. However, it is entirely up to City Council to decide the appropriate dollar amount necessary to incentivize the applicant to participate in the Aspen Modern program. It is impossible for City staff to analyze an appropriate level of fee waiver without more information. The Utilities Department was asked to provide a referral comment regarding the proposed tap fee waiver. Their comment is attached as an exhibit. Utilities proposes that the applicant receive a credit for the existing structure (this is not the standard practice when a project is considered a “substantial remodel”), but be required to mitigate for the new construction. This approach would provide the applicant with an approximate fee reduction of $5,795. Waiver of impact fees. Building permits are generally subject to impact fees based on any increases in floor area. The proposed expansion involved in this remodel is approximately 2700 square feet of floor area. The applicant has calculated a wavier of $14,502 for the Park Development Impact fee, $1,623 for TDM/Air Quality and $14,700 for affordable housing cash in lieu. Landmarks typically receive waiver of all these fees through existing code provisions. The applicant asks to be granted these standard benefits. The Housing Authority has been informed of the potential waiver and has recommended that the employee mitigation generated by the expansion of the 211 East Hallam building be satisfied via fee-in-lieu in place at the time of building permit and that the request for a waiver be denied. APCHA’s comments are attached as an exhibit. Parks has no comments for Council on the fee waiver requests. Waiver of tree removal fees The Parks Department has issued a permit allowing for the removal of all but one tree on this site. The total valuation of the trees approved for removal is $68,200. The applicant intends to plant new trees on the site with a value of approximately $7,959, and asks that Council waive the remaining mitigation balance of $60,241. The Parks Department has denied a tree removal permit for one large spruce tree in the southeast corner of the site, along the alley. The applicant is appealing the matter, addressed further below. P96 IV.d 7 Mitigation for the southeast tree is estimated to be $32,957. The applicant requests the fee be waived. Parks has no comments for Council on the fee waiver requests. The chart below summarizes the proposed incentives, comparing the applicant’s original request from First Reading, an alternative request submitted for Second Reading, and the staff recommendation. With either version of the requested incentive package, the applicant asks that designation go into effect after HPC Final design review is completed and a Development Order is issued. This flexibility was allowed on two previous AspenModern projects; 610 E. Hyman and 301 Lake, and is acceptable to staff. The applicant wishes to have complete entitlement of the project through the land use process before accepting the Ordinance. P97 IV.d 8 The applicant also asks for five years of vested rights, rather than the standard three years. This is the twelfth voluntary landmark negotiation and the fifth that is related to residential, rather than mixed use development. The previous AspenModern residential designations are 1102 Waters Avenue, 624 W. Francis, 120 Red Mountain and 301 Lake Avenue. (Please note that there are 11 other postwar era homes in Aspen that were landmarked before AspenModern and were not able to participate in the incentive negotiation.) The previous residential AspenModern negotiations vary in project scope and incentives awarded. Each of the homes was considered a “best” example of its style. All of the designated buildings are being preserved in their original location. 1102 Waters has no alterations approved (but a new duplex was allowed to be added to the site), 624 W. Francis and 120 Red Mountain were permitted modest expansions, and 301 Lake Avenue involves a significant addition. There are a limited number of residential properties that appear eligible for future AspenModern designation and of course it is unknown how many property owners will volunteer to participate in preservation. Not all of the eligible sites have the architectural or cultural value that the Berko studio represents. Staff considers this designation to be of high importance and an occasion that incentives are important and appropriate. We do acknowledge that this particular project involves repositioning of the historic resource and a certain degree of reconstruction will be an outcome of that process. The attached ordinance includes the applicant’s alternative incentive package, with the recommendation that Council award one, rather than two TDRs. We make this recommendation in order to maintain a reasonable equality to previous negotiations. In staff’s opinion, the negotiation for preservation of 301 Lake should represent the top level of incentives of any residential negotiation to date. The Lundy house is remaining in place, with a one story addition, and preservation of all exterior features except where the addition meets the historic resource. In that project, even the majority of the existing interior will be preserved. All preservation projects require special expertise and construction methods that may or may not exceed the costs of standard construction. This is one of the reasons that incentives have been so important to the City’s preservation program over the years and it is hoped that a reasonable balance can be achieved with this applicant, like others before. It is difficult to directly compare the financial impacts of the designation and incentives. All of the earlier projects received some dimensional variances. Two received expedited permit review. 624 W. Francis received approximately $30,000 in fee waivers, 120 Red Mountain received $90,000. 301 Lake will be required to pay all fees except for a $15,000 waiver, but the owner received one TDR certificate which should have a value approximately equal to the permit fees that will be due, with about $50,000 left to use towards other costs. Based on the staff recommendation, after the 211 E. Hallam applicant pays the fees that will be due to the City, they will be left with about $140,000 in cash incentive from the sale of the TDR to apply to fees and costs above and beyond the building permit. P98 IV.d 9 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPEAL Planning staff respects the City Forester’s position that the southeast tree has a similar value to other preserved trees in Aspen. HPC has expressed an opinion that preservation of this historic structure is a higher priority due to the very small collection of eligible structures and the particular importance of the Berko studio. It is hoped that Council and the applicant can find a mutually agreeable solution to this issue. The attached Ordinance includes the granting of the tree removal appeal, but requires the applicant to pay the associated mitigation fee. The Parks Department received a permit requesting removal of all code sized trees on the property to facilitate the proposed redevelopment. Parks approved the permit, except for one tree, a large spruce located in the southeast corner of the site. The applicant initiated an appeal to the City Manager. The City Manager requested HPC input because there are tree removal criteria that take impacts on historic resources into account. On April 8 th , HPC heard presentations from the applicant and Parks Department and recommended 5-0 that, of the five historic preservation concepts expressed in the tree removal criteria, Criterion E does provide a compelling reason for Parks to approve this tree removal. HPC noted the Berko family has indicated that if the tree is not removed, they will likely abandon the proposed voluntary preservation of the studio structure. HPC does not wish to see this outcome. Criterion E states: In cases where, per the advice of the Historic Preservation Commission, the protection of a tree conflicts with the redevelopment of a historically designated property in a manner that is consistent with the “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,” the Manager of Parks and Recreation shall consult with the Historic Preservation Commission to consider the feasibility of all options including removal or relocation of the tree or redesign of the development. Unless the tree is an unusual or unique species or specimen tree quality, flexibility shall be allowed for its removal or relocation in favor of the best preservation option for the historic structure, subject to mitigation pursuant to Section 13.20.020(d). The full record of the tree appeal, and a memo from Parks is attached. Because at least part of the applicant’s request to remove the tree is related to solar access for the property, HPC included a request to Council in their Conceptual design approval resolution. HPC asks that, if Council allows the southeast tree to be removed from the property, Council should require the rooftop mechanical system concept represented in the application to be substantially implemented. Staff has included this condition in the attached Ordinance. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ P99 IV.d 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council work diligently with the applicant to achieve a mutually acceptable package of incentives to be awarded for the preservation of the studio, which is considered one of the best examples of an AspenModern era resource. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 2015.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ EXHIBITS : Ordinance #14, Series of 2014 Exhibit A: Integrity Score Sheet Exhibit B: HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2015 Exhibit C: HPC minutes of April 8, 2015 Exhibit D: Public comment from HPC meetings Exhibit E: Application Exhibit F: Applicant’s alternative incentive request Exhibit G: Referral comment from Utilities Department Exhibit H: Referral comment from APCHA Exhibit I: Tree appeal P100 IV.d P101 IV.d Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 211 E. Hallam, AspenModern Negotiation Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE #14 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 E. HALLAM, LOT 1, 223 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, ELM 223, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Harry Teague Architects, has requested that the property located at 211 E. Hallam receive benefits for historic designation through the AspenModern process described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the application initiated a 90 day period of negotiation that may be extended if no agreement has been reached. Since the review process could not be completed within 90 days, City Council, through Resolution #44, Series of 2015, granted a 30 day extension of the negotiation period, from May 10 th to June 9 th , 2015; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation period, “the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;” and WHEREAS, the property owner and representatives met with the Historic Preservation Commission on April 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 8, 2015, the HPC considered the designation and proposed development, and found that 211 E. Hallam is a “best” example of AspenModern era architecture. HPC recommended City Council approval of preservation benefits; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, “council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property”; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that “as part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations;” and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met; and P102 IV.d Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 211 E. Hallam, AspenModern Negotiation Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby directs that 211 E. Hallam, Lot 1, 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, while already listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, be hereby identified as containing a contributing historic resource which is historically designated, subject to the conditions described herein. The property owner shall have five (5) days from the date of adoption of the HPC Final Major Development approval Resolution to provide the City with a written agreement accepting the terms of this Ordinance. Otherwise, the Ordinance shall be considered null and void in its entirety. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves the following incentives. 1. Waiver of impact fees. Parks, TDM and Affordable Housing fees for the remodel approved by HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2015 shall be waived. 2. Water tap fee credit. Water tap fees shall be reduced by a credit for the value represented by the existing home. 3. Waiver of tree mitigation fees. Mitigation fees for removal of all trees on this property except for the southeast tree that is the subject of appeal, shall be waived, less $7,959 of the fee which the applicant must mitigate with on-site tree plantings to be reviewed and approved by Parks and HPC. 4. Tree removal. Council hereby directs the Parks Department to issue a tree removal permit for the spruce tree in the southeast corner of the site. As a condition of allowing the southeast tree to be removed from the property, the property owner shall substantially implement the rooftop mechanical system concept represented in the application P103 IV.d Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 211 E. Hallam, AspenModern Negotiation Page 3 of 5 approved by HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2015. The mitigation fee for removal of this tree shall be paid. 5. Dimensional variances. Dimensional variances are approved, as addressed in HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2015, specifically allowing: • a 500 square foot floor area bonus. • a 5’ rear setback, a 3’ east setback (plus the necessary projection to accommodate the eave and a fire rated east wall), an 8’ combined sideyard and a 4’ front yard. • a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass and Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window. 6. Transferable Development Right. Council directs the Community Development Department to issue the applicant one (1) Transferable Development Rights certificate. 7. Expedited review. Council directs all building permit review departments to provide first round permit comments within three weeks of the applicant’s submittal of complete information and second round comments within two weeks of the applicant’s submittal of complete information. Section 3: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for five (5) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits . Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval by the Historic Preservation Commission , the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights . Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, s uch notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described P104 IV.d Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 211 E. Hallam, AspenModern Negotiation Page 4 of 5 property: 211 E. Hallam, Lot 1, 223 E. Hallam Street Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance. The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 4: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Litigation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 26 th day of May, 2015 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. P105 IV.d Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 211 E. Hallam, AspenModern Negotiation Page 5 of 5 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of April, 2015. _______________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2015. _______________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P106 IV.d 1) Simple geometric forms, both in plan and elevation Character Defining Features of the Bauhaus/International Style x 5) Windows are treated as slots in the wall surface, either vertically or horizontally, or glazing appears as a curtain wall 7) Materials are generally manufactured and standardized, surfaces are smooth, with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and roof edge x x Total Points, 0 - 10 7 x 2) Flat roofs, usually single story 4) Asymmetrical arrangement of elements 6) Detailing is reduced to the composition of elements rather than decorative effects x Check box if statement is true. 1 point per box. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) Entry is usually marked by a void in the wall, a cantilevered screen element, or other architectural clue that directs one into the composition 9)Buildings are connected to nature through the use of courtyards, wall elements that extend into the landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual connection to the natural environment 10) Schemes are monochromatic, using neutral colors. Primary colors are used for accents. x x 8 9 3) Proportions are long and low, horizontal lines are emphasized A building must have 6 of the 10 character defining features, either present or clearly documented through photographic of physical evidence to qualify as Bauhaus/International Style. Restoration may be required as part of the award of incentives. If the property earned 6 or more points, continue to the next page. If the property earned less than 6 points, scoring ends. 10 P 1 0 7 I V . d INTEGRITY SCORING If a statement is true, circle the number of points associated with that true statement. Integrity Score (this page) maximum of 10 points: HISTORIC ASSESSMENT SCORE: Best: 15 up to 20 points Better: 12 up to 15 points Good: 10 up to 12 points Not Eligible:0 up to 10 points Character Defining Features Score (first page) maxi- mum of 10 points: LOCATION OF BUILDING ON THE LOT: The bui l di ng i s i n i ts ori gi nal l ocation.2 poi nts The bui l di ng has be e n shi ft e d on the ori gi nal parce l , but mai ntai ns i ts ori gi nal al i gnme nt and/or prox i mi ty to the stre e t.1 poi nt SETTING : The prope rty i s l ocate d wi thi n the ge ographi cal are a surrounde d by Castl e Cre e k, the Roari ng Fork Ri ve r and A spe n Mountai n.1 poi nt The prope rty i s outsi de of the ge ographi cal are a surround by Castl e Cre e k, the Raori ng Fork Ri ve r and Aspe n Mountai n.1/2 poi nt DESIG N: The form of the bui l di ng (f ootpri nt, roof and w al l pl ane s) are unal te re d f rom the ori gi nal de si gn.3 poi nts a.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but l e ss than 25% of the ori gi nal wal l s have be e n re move d, OR b.) The al te rations to the f orm al l occur at the re ar of the subj e ct bui l di ng, OR c.) The f orm of the bui l di ng has be e n al te re d but the addi tion i s l e ss than 50% of the si ze of the ori gi nal bui l di ng, OR d.) The re i s a roof top addi tion that i s l e ss than 50% of the footprint of the roof. 2 poi nts MATERIALS Exteri or mate rial s The original e x te ri or mate ri al s of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts 50% of the e x te ri or mate ri al s have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt Windows and doors The ori gi nal wi ndows and doors of the bui l di ng are stil l i n pl ace , wi th the e x ce ption of normal mai nte nance and re pai rs.2 poi nts 50% of the ori gi nal wi ndows and doors have be e n re pl ace d, but the re pl ace me nts match the ori gi nal condi tion.1 poi nt P108 IV.d A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, ON-SITE RELOCATION AND VARIANCES, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 E. HALLAM, LOT 1,223 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION #12 SERIES OF 2015 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-16-007 WHEREAS, the applicant, ELM 223, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates and Harry Teague Architects, has requested that the property located at 211 E. Hallam receive benefits for historic designation through the AspenModern process described at Section 26.415.025 and Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval for Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation and Variances; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. For review of benefits, such as a floor area bonus and setback variances, HPC must determine conformance with Section 26.415.110 of the Municipal Code. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to receive approval for Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve variances to the Residential Design Standards according to Section 26.410.020.D; and WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated April 8, 2015, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the property qualifies as a "best" example of AspenModern historic resources. Staff recommended in favor of the Conceptual Major Development, On-site Relocation and Variances; and RECEPTION#: 619259, 04/23/2015 at 11:09:12 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO I P109 IV.d WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on April 8, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff recommendation and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review criteria, with conditions, by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC asks City Council to work diligently with the applicant to achieve a mutually acceptable package of incentives to be awarded for this "best" example of an AspenModern resource. HPC grants Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variance approval with the following conditions: 1. In the event that the applicant decides to preserve the southeast tree by deleting the single stall garage, the Conceptual design approval remains valid. The two displaced parking spaces would need to be reconfigured for Final review, or the applicant may request a variance. 2. HPC hereby grants a 500 square foot floor area bonus. 3. HPC hereby allows a 5' rear setback, a 3' east setback (plus the necessary projection to accommodate the eave and a fire rated east wall), an 8' combined sideyard and a 4' front yard. 4. HPC hereby grants a waiver of the Residential Design Standards related to Secondary Mass and Street Oriented Entrance and Principal Window. 5. For the temporary relocation of the studio during basement excavation, the owner must provide a $30,000 letter of credit, cashier's check, or other form acceptable to the City Attorneyto insure the safe relocation of the house. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application, and the applicant shall include documentation of the existing elevation of the home and the relationship of the foundation to grade in the building permit application. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of April 8, 2015, 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. 7. As part of the Council AspenModern negotiation, HPC asks that, if Council allows the southeast tree to be removed from the property, Council should require the rooftop mechanical system concept represented in the application to be substantially implemented. P110 IV.d APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of April, 2015. Willis Pember, Chair Approved as to Form: PT City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Stri land, Chief Deputy Clerk P111 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, Bob Blaich, Gretchen Greenwood and Eric Sechrist. Absent were Sallie Golden, Jim DeFrancia and John Whipple. Staff present: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Simon, Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Nora will recuse herself on 211 E. Hallam MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of March 11, 2015; second by Gretchen. All in favor, motion carried. 211 E. Hallam St. — Referral comment on tree removal request Amy said the applicant requested a tree permit removal and it was denied. This is an appeal process which first goes to the City Manager, Steve Barwick then to City Council. Steve Barwick started the discussion that in the tree ordinance there are criteria that deals specifically with historic preservation. HPC needs to review the criteria and tell the City Manager if there is something he needs to consider regarding the criteria. Amy said there are five criteria. Criteria A talks about whether a tree could be removed if it is physically harming an historic resource. In this case we cannot find that criteria is met because the studio is being moved away from the tree in question. Criteria B talks about that a tree can be removed if it is an inappropriate element of a historically significant landscape. As an example lets us the Herbert Beyer,works at the Aspen Institute. If a tree grew up in the midst of the marble garden that would be a good reason for Parks to say that the tree needs removed that it is negatively impacting the historic resource. This site has not be identified as an historic landscape so we do not find that criteria met. 1 P112 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL S, 2015 Criteria C is that the tree can be removed if it is blocking the visibility of the resource. In this case the studio is to be removed which is partially solving the problem. Criteria D is that the Parks Dept. could allow the tree to be removed if it is inappropriate or not consistent with landscape on the property or around the architecture of the building. The applicant argues in the information in the packet that this tree which is very tall is out of character for the Bauhaus modern architecture philosophy. That may be true but we don't see this as a designed landscape and the applicant is moving the building and it could create a more sympathetic design around the building. We are not assured that this is one HPC would find to be met. Criteria E is the one we think has the most basis for discussion here. It has to do with whether the tree is negatively affecting preservation opportunities for the site or not creating the best project that we could get. The site plan is an L shape design with the studio on the front and an addition along the west side of the property. To some extent it is working around the tree and it is possible that the tree could be preserved in this plan; however, the applicant does not desire to preserve the tree and this is an negotiation for a voluntary preservation. We do find that there is some concern there. This isn't the same as other sites that have a mandatory designation and there is nothing to be discussed. It does appear that it could jeopardize the success of this negotiation. This is the criteria that HPC should focus on. Debbie said the tree removal ordinance is a separate section of the code. This section indicates that the manager of Parks and Recreation makes the determination. He can make the determination based on the advice from the Historic Preservation Commission. Your purpose tonight is to provide advice. The Parks Department already said no but the advice will go to the City Manager. Ben Carlson, City Forester said the spruce tree is in the south east corner of the lot. The tree has no signs of disease. The tree is healthy. The tree fits the criteria for preservation. The tree is an important part of the community and spruce trees last around 200 years. Gretchen asked about taking the braches off from the ground up. 2 P113 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Ben said we typically discourage that but it has been done. It doesn't allow for the trunk to develop in the way it should. Excavation of the current project if the tree should stay should occur within the current foundation where the building currently sits. That has to do with the root structures around the foundation. Excavation could occur under the canopy of the tree but to not go in any further than the current foundation. The tree removal permit is in section 13.20 of our code. Gretchen commented that every situation regarding trees is different. Willis asked how many specimen trees there are in Aspen. Ben said this is a specimen tree and he doesn't know how many exist. This tree is in an environment where it can grow and has room to grow and strive. Willis said there are specimen trees and there are legacy trees. Ben said a specimen tree is a value to the community. Heritage and legacy trees have more to do with historical preservation. Howie Mallory, 1230 Snowbunny Lane. Regarding the longevity of the tree there will be a significant development to the Victorian property to the east of this property that will involve a large basement. The conditions will change The studio will be moved and a large building will be built 15 feet away. Howie said staff has made themselves available to us which is greatly appreciated. The tree is 90 to 95 feet high. City codes despite their best intentions are often in conflict with one another. HPC's primary goal is preservation and not to be at odds with the intent of the tree removal ordinance. We have taken the intent of the five sections of the ordinance very seriously and in good faith when developing our final design. We are asking HPC to support our appeal. Exhibit I — Bill Stirling's letter Nora Berko also thanked Ben for his hard work. The architecture, the livability and the landscape are one in the same and they are intertwined. They are all part of our AspenModern proposal. We have tried for 9 months to come up with a project to achieve our family objectives and goals and to preserve the studio and keep the tree. Unfortunately we can't do all three. If we keep the tree and our family objectives then we cannot preserve the 3 P114 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 studio. We want to keep the studio. It is not a garage that is driving the tree it is the necessity of a one story program element right behind the studio. We want to be able to see the studio from Hallam Street and the alley. That is why the mass is pushed to the west. .We feel our proposal is supported by section D & E and B. B states that it detracts from the integrity of the landscape and in this case Aspen Modern. With the tree it is not an AspenModern landscape. We as a family would like the support of HPC before going to council for the entire project. The tree has been limbed up and it has a large predominant top which makes it vulnerable and the growing environment will not be the same. It will be impacted from both sides. We feel the life of the tree is limited and the studio is one of the 5 Bauhaus resources in the Wes End and this is one of them. We also feel the studio is part of the cultural fabric of our town. We would like HPC to support criteria B, D and E so that we can all move forward. Harry Teague, architect What is the relevance of this to historic preservation and what is the relevance to the architecture. The tree is very big and the resource is very small. You will see the small house with 100 feet of evergreen behind it. You also won't be able to see Aspen Mountain. The building has important geometry and unique shapes. Stan Clausen, landscape architect. We discourage clients from planting spruce trees because of the'eventual growth pattern of those trees particularly on small lots. Criteria B & E maybe useful to the HPC in evaluating this and should be the basis of a recommendation that this tree can be removed. Criteria E talks about a specimen tree which is a tree that has been able to grow in its natural habit. The location of this particular planting close to the studio has been required to be limbed up at least 20 feet. That liming up has changed the natural habit. ,Because this tree has had to be limbed up because it was planted to close to the house. In short this is not a specimen tree and it does not achieve its natural habit and has been limbed up and you will never re-generate those bottom limbs. This is not a tree that should be considered for preservation. This tree overpowers the lot in terms of sunlight and the livability of the property. Harry said they were hoping the determination could be as a whole. Bob said the image clearly defines one of'the problems of the tree. The tree has been trimmed up 20 feet or so. What would happen if the tree stays? 4 P115 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES-OF APRIL 8, 2015 Nora said the studio would be gone and it wouldn't be a good area for parking. Harry also said from a constructability state it is very difficult with the drip line of the tree etc. Eric asked about the tree planting. Nora said she remembers the tree being there when the studio was built. It w was probably a XMAS tree size. Willis said in terms of deterring the decision until after the presentation we have been advised by our,assistant attorney to take these one at a time in a linear way. Debbie said three criteria have been identified by the applicant that you could advise, B,D,E. You are not asked to take a position just give advice. D is whether the tree is inconsistent with an established historic landscape pattern in the area or landscape practices associated with the period of significance. On E you do not need to decide if it is a specimen tree all you have to decide is whether or not you agree that the protection of the tree conflicts with the redevelopment,of the to be designated historic property. Willis said this boils down to a cultural resource on one hand and an environmental resource on the other. It would behoove us to take the side of the cultural resource. The tree is so fall removed from the right-of-way it won't distinguish itself and doesn't have the aesthetic charge that the Sardy house tree does. This comes down to the fact that the studio is not replaceable. As a board we need to support the cultural resource which will be a very green project. I would not want to risk the loss of the studio. Gretchen said she concurs. That block has a lot of specimen trees on it. I feel this tree is completely 100% replaceable. 'We have a tree mitigation program. The studio is irreplaceable and is important to our history much more so than the tree. I could not vote for keeping the tree. This project is fantastic and is important for Aspen. The tree is a threat to our historical roots and I would vote to have it taken down. Parks can work out a viable program to plant trees elsewhere and where they will be a better asset to the 5 P116 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 community. This tree is a detriment to the preservation of history to the family and to Mr. Berko. Bob said he does not see the tree as a public asset because of its location in the alley. If anything it is a detriment. The tree as you can see from the photo dominates the site vs the historic property and therefore it is in conflict with everything that they are trying to accomplish with this historic site. It also obstructs the views of Aspen Mountain in some locations. The additional house is to have solar panels on the roof and I had to remove solar panels from an historic house because the trees were so big they sheltered the light and the panels didn't work anymore. I am in favor of moving ahead on this project and make a recommendation to the City Manager that we as a panel take the position of removing the tree. Eric said there is a very human element that comes along with this but because we are being asked to categorize B, D or E I agree that the tree is not an historic asset in this case. The most important factor is that the Berko studio be saved. Patrick said he agrees with the analysis of Parks from the code and guidelines. This is an interesting case if you can't do the project we'll have to "shoot the puppy". Historically these are intertwined because they are about the same time. My solution is to separate the two and maybe there is somewhere to put the tree somewhere else in a better location. Gretchen said Parks has a good mitigation program. Willis said he has had projects where old trees have been in harm's way due to construction and possibly the wood could be repurposed and include it in parts of the architectural project such as benches and outdoor seating. Memorialize the fact that the tree was there. If the tree is removed the applicant should implement the solar proposal because it is a mechanical system and the two are tied together. Gretchen said she feels the solar is part of the fenestration and we aren't there yet. Willis said based on B, D, and E the HIPC feels E is the strongest criteria met for the removal of the tree. 6 P117 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Gretchen said she feels we need to make a stronger recommendation of the criteria. Gretchen said criteria B,C,D and E are met. Bob said we need to be very clear and not have ambiguous things. Patrick said it will be debated again regardless if it is denied by the city manager and then it will go to council. Gretchen said we need to come from a strong position. Gretchen said the landscape is the building, it is the property and location and history. The tree is inappropriate, criteria B. All agreed on B except Patrick. Patrick said E has been met and we need a win win situation. I want the historic resource preserved and the tree needs to be moved. Gretchen said she can't agree with that. The historic building is going to have conflicts with the tree as well. MOTION: Willis said the board feels criteria E is the most compelling reason to allow the tree removal. Some of the members thought B and D were met and some members did not. Motion second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. Nora said they have submitted a tree mitigation program. 211 E. Hallam St. - Aspenmodern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation, Conceptual Major Development, On-Site Relocation and Variances — continued public hearing. Amy said the major point of contention was how the new addition physically connected with the resource to be preserved. The guidelines offer two solutions one is creating a one-story link at the back of the resource and then add on. In this case they are going with the guideline that says you can build alongside of the resource but push back at least ten feet so that there is some distinction between new and old. In this version of the plan the studio is two feet east and two feet forward of what HPC saw before which allows the addition to notch back and not touch the roof of the studio and we feel this is successful. They are also asking for the 500 square foot FAR bonus and staff supports that because the resource is being preserved. They need a 5 foot rear yard setback because the garage is placed where it is allowed to be 7 P118 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 but you are not allowed to have living space on top or below it. They need a 3 foot.east setback variance and a combined setback variance. The combined requirement is 15 feet and they only have 8 feet. They also need a 4 foot front yard reduction mostly because of the balcony that is on the original building and too close to the property line. Staff is supporting two waivers of RDS's, one is secondary mass which is the garage which isn't as big as the standard requires. The front door is not close enough to the street to satisfy the standard which is ten feet and we wouldn't want them to satisfy that by pushing the addition forward. They will also provide a 30,000 assurance to make sure the relocation goes as planned and the applicant has to apply for a final within one year. At council the applicant is asking for some financial relief. Staff feels this is the best example of an Aspenmodern resource and in keeping with the policies of the historic preservation program. In the event that council will not allow the tree to be removed and the applicant does decide to go forward with this plan we would like HPC to say that they could come back, delete the garage and HPC would still consider their conceptual approved. This plan meets the parking requirements of four spaces. Staff recommends approval. Harry Teague said we are breaking new ground and there is negotiation and this is very exciting. We have worked with staff to make changes that are in keeping with the architecture. If we can work through this there is hope for Aspenmodern. The building has been moved forward to the north and to the east. There is now a ten foot setback from the front of the building. There will be a one story basement not quite under the entire resource. Harry went over the changes on a power point. Regarding the solar panels we have not done an extensive study with a consultant. Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. Mitch Haas said the code says tandem parking spaces cannot be used to satisfy the parking requirement. Amy said tandem spaces are allowed for one unit. At final we can discuss if there are any issues with this plan. Amy said'in the packet there were several letters and two more letters were forwarded by e-mail. 8 P119 IV.d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2015 Carla Kelly who is in support of the project, Exhibit II and Bill Stirling's letter, Exhibit L Willis identified the issues: Connector Setback variances Willis said the resolution lays everything out. This project is ready to approve and we are appreciative of the connector change. The connector meets the intent of the code. The variances are warranted based on the improvement to the siting of the resource. The board should consider adding language realizing that the roof plan is only schematic at this time the solar functionality be required to be implemented in the final project because it is based and connected to the removal of the tree. Gretchen said she would agree to that. This is a great project and what you came back with is a great improvement with the connection issue. I feel as though the garage added on detracts from the rest of the building and looks like an afterthought. When you walk down the alley you get a full view of the historic resource from the alley. That alley is used a lot. When that garage is taken away the project is perfect. Maybe a solution that is more transparent. Patrick said he also agrees with the seventh condition. Eric said he agrees with staff's comments. Their approach of less is more was great because it maximizes the design. Bob said he also supports staff's recommendations. Bob raised the issue that the tree was in conflict with the solar panels. MOTION: Willis made the motion to approve resolution #12, 2015 with the six conditions as written and addition condition #7, as part of the negotiation with city council the roof top mechanical system be substantially implemented if council is allowing the tree to be removed. Patrick second the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Roll call vote: Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes, Eric, yes; Willis, yes. 9 P120 IV.d P121 IV.d P122 IV.d P123 IV.d To: The Historic Preservation Commission Ref: 211 E. Hallam St. Aspen Modern Application Final Hearing. Letter to each Commission Member Date: April 8, 2015 From: Bill Stirling Dear members of the HPC, DO IT FOR ONE AND YOU HAVE TO DO IT FOR ALL. ONE SIZE FITS ALL. These two aphorisms are not applicable to the 211 E. Hallam Aspen Modern proposal. The Aspen Modern Program is one of the City’s most innovative and unique programs. Each application has an unusual quality to it, as there is no easy description for the wide variations in architectural style for the Aspen Modern buildings. The design features vary wildly, which is what makes this program so interesting and sets Aspen apart from the rest of Colorado, by our preserving important post World War II buildings. You have to use your acumen, imagination and intelligence as you consider these Aspen Modern proposals. Just think, from Lundy to Berko! The intentions of the Aspen Modern defining ordinance from 2010 are clear that the HPC must be very flexible to often make round pegs fit into square holes. I served as Chair of the Aspen Modern Task Force, appointed by the City Council, from 08-010. There were 21 active and varied participants, and there were many tie or 11-10 votes. It reminded me of the progress then of the National Affordable Care Act Congressional Committee votes. The votes in Aspen reflected the split on the task force between those wanting to leave property owners alone, and those desirous of using a carrot and a stick program with incentives, and not losing such valuable architectural modern buildings. Aspen has one of the most ambitious and successful historic preservation programs in Colorado, if not in the nation. The City Council received the Task Force’s split report, and in their wisdom passed the 2010 Ordinance, which made the entire Aspen Modern program voluntary, but with a generous bundle of incentives available for applicants to request and also to prove made sense. The Task Force wanted the HPC and City staff to be flexible, creative and fair, as one by one the HPC began to consider the Aspen Modern applications. In general 211 E. Hallam is a perfect example of how the Code and Residential Guidelines have to bend and flex in order to add another important resource to the “designated forever” list. No two projects have been the same. Almost every building is distinct. The Aspen Modern program is working because of the vision of the HPC and staff. There is not the commonality of design, which gives the 19th Century Victorian preservation program so much coherence. Responsiveness, creativity and flexibility are the watchwords for the Aspen Modern program. It makes your jobs so interesting and intellectually stimulating. P124 IV.d One key element for you to consider this evening is the plight of the lone tree standing in the back SE corner of the lot. It is an odd, scraggly spruce tree. Who knew in the 1950’s that this tree would have such a bearing on the preservation forever of the iconic Berko studio? Our strict tree preservation ordinance sometimes can be in conflict with the purpose of preserving our important, historic residential buildings. Who could look 40 years ahead, when we began our laudable effort to nourish and preserve our urban residential forest, what the unintended consequences might be? I had to work closely with the City Forester three years ago to fell over 25 trees on my Victorian corner lot on the NE corner of 4th and W. Smuggler, as the health of many of my trees was threatened by other less important, less elegant and less sturdy trees. This felling and pruning was important also to show off the Victorian resource, protect the resource and enhance the resource. The City worked with me on this complicated but essential task. It was successful. The 211 E. Hallam application is a perfect case in point. That tree in the SE corner of the lot is a clear and present danger to the livability of the new plan, which includes both solar gain and light. Its absence will enhance the Aspen Modern resource. Its loss is minimal for the urban residential forest, as it allows for the Berko physical resource to stand and be seen as a “gift to the streets,” that tree no longer looming over the new, discreet residential compound. The urban forest will gain more greenery on this site, but the new supporting plantings will be in synch with the simplicity and low scale of the Bau Haus design. This giant, senior tree is not an asset to this application, and it probably has a life span remaining of less than 10 years, by which time the new plantings, new compound and open space will be seen as so critical to the success of this Aspen Modern project. Our intentions for the Aspen Modern program are clearly articulated in this plan with the incentives supported by the staff, and I believe a variation for removal of the tree under criteria D and E, mentioned in the March 25, 2015 memo, should be added to your approval. Let City Council know that this tree removal goes hand in glove with this proposed project. It will be another feather in the Aspen Modern program cap! Be bold and take a long term view in supporting the preservation of this vital Aspen Modern resource. Being resourceful is just what we had in mind for the HPC, when the enabling legislation spawned Aspen Modern. Sincerely, Bill Stirling P125 IV.d file:///G|/...rent%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Berko%20Mallory%20Residences.txt[4/17/2015 1:39:39 PM] From: Jess Bates <jessbates@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 9:47 AM To: Amy Simon Subject: Berko Mallory Residences To Whom It May Concern; I just wanted to express my support of the Berko Mallory Residences development on Hallam Street. I have looked at the architectural rendering and am pleased that the studio will be preserved and moved to the front of the lot. I'm also supportive of this development to give the family options for stying in Aspen. Regards, Jess Bates Hayes Family Partnership 209 E. Bleeker St Aspen CO 81611 P126 IV.d file:///G|/...G/Land%20Use%20Cases/Current/Current%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/berko%20plans.txt[3/30/2015 1:00:57 PM] From: Gigi Whitman <whit8637@bellsouth.net> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:54 PM To: Amy Simon Subject: berko plans we have looked over the Berko plans and we have no issues with them. Thank you Gigi and Randy Whitman P127 IV.d P 1 2 8 I V . d file:///G|/...urrent%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Bump_211%20East%20Hallam.txt[4/17/2015 1:39:40 PM] From: Richard Bump <bumpr@mindspring.com> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:45 AM To: Amy Simon Cc: berko.nora@gmail.com Subject: 211 East Hallam Amy Simon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 211 East Hallam: Berko Studio Designation as AspenModern Dear Amy; I am writing this letter to support the request to designate the "Berko Studio" as an example of AspenModern Architecture. I also support the re-location of the above studio to that portion of the lot that allows the structure more visibility from the Hallam Street side, as a prominent historic structure. Relocating this structure to the Hallam street side of the property, allows the studio to be visible to those who pass through the neighborhood on foot, via shuttle or in private cars. It is close to the red brick school building where many community activities currently take place. The neighborhood today is home to several AspenModern structures, as well as a variety of historic Victorian homes. I am a current owner of the property located at 219 North Monarch, which is next door to the original Berko residence. My family has been a neighbor of the Berko family since the early 60's and this designation is appropriate and necessary to recognize and celebrate all of the important contributions that Ferenc Berko has made to the community of Aspen. Mr. Berko, as he was known to me, epitomizes the very essence of what an involved and dedicated community member represents. From my earliest memory, he was always cataloging the history of Aspen through photographs, most specifically black and white photographs. He has chronicled many an important event in the history of Aspen as a town and over the years, his photographs remain a window into our past, which can only help how we manage the Aspen of the present and plan for the Aspen of the future. Without maintaining the integrity of buildings such as this studio for future generations, it will be virtually impossible to only offer verbal explanations to our children, as we educate them about the Aspen of the past, as I experienced it and how that relates to the Aspen of the future, as they will experience it and as their children will experience it. I believe that is it exemplary behavior on the part of Nora Berko, in that she is willing and able to allow this structure to remain in the hands of history, when she certainly is not required to do so. She has championed the cause that her parents began, by preserving a bit of history for the next generations to come. During my lifetime, owning a photograph taken by Mr. Berko was quite the prized possession, as he managed to capture on film even the most simple images that all related to the Aspen that I know and love. I still own and proudly display every photograph Mr. Berko took of me while riding on the chairlift up Aspen Mountain. To know that a small piece of his history will remain protected in perpetuity, seems to me to qualify as the very definition of historic preservation. I hope that the HPC Board agrees that the offer of designating the Berko Studio as an example of AspenModern architecture, is a gift to the entire community of Aspen and to all of us who desire a connection to the past. All too often, important and significant architectural structures are quickly demolished to make way for new construction. This time, an opportunity has presented itself that can benefit everyone involved. Please take a moment and consider how the city of Aspen looked over the years through Ferenc Berko's camera lens and honor his memory, his talent and his gift through P129 IV.d file:///G|/...urrent%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Bump_211%20East%20Hallam.txt[4/17/2015 1:39:40 PM] photography, that made Aspen the community it is today. I thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Linda Light Bump P130 IV.d file:///G|/...ses/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Support%20for%20Berko%20Studio%20preservation.txt[4/17/2015 1:39:40 PM] From: dfloria@qcompany.com Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:58 PM To: Amy Simon Cc: Nora Berko Subject: Support for Berko Studio preservation Dear Amy Simon, I am writing in support of the current proposal to modify and preserve the historic studio of esteemed photographer, Ferenc Berko. My relationship with Franz began in 1983, when I was invited, as the new Curator of the Aspen Art Museum, to curate an exhibition for the Paepke Gallery, at The Aspen Institute. The exhibition was of Berko's black and white portraits taken at the Institute since his arrival in residence. He and I poured over his prints in that charming studio, it was the first of many wonderful meetings with him there. I firmly believe that the Berko studio is an essential site to the cultural history of Aspen. I believe that it should be preserved as a study center and archive for posterity. It was my great honor and pleasure to know and work with Berko as a friend and colleague, it would be a tragic mistake not to value his distinguished legacy enough to maintain his archive in it's proper home. Please contact me if I can assist in any way. Sincerely yours, David Floria P131 IV.d file:///G|/...ases/Current/Current%20HP%20Cases/211ehallam/Conceptual%20April%208%202015/public%20comment/Berko%20Studio.txt[4/17/2015 1:43:57 PM] From: Karla Kelly <karla@thisorthat.com> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 1:01 PM To: Amy Simon Cc: Nora Berko Subject: Berko Studio Dear Ms. Guthrie, We are in process of building a house at 203 E Hallam, next door to the Berko studio. It is our belief that the history of Aspen is a rich and varied one and that modern buildings can be as worthy of historical preservation and significance as original miner ’s cottages. The Berko studio is an excellent example of mid century modern architecture and Ferenc Berko was an important artist in Aspen’s recent history. I have reviewed the plans for restoration and addition to the property and believe they would make a welcome addition to the tapestry of the neighborhood. I am also in great support of having full time residents in the West End, which this project would enable. Please consider approval of this project and allow this family maintain their legacy in the Aspen community. Thank you, Karla Kelly (970) 236-6228 P132 IV.d P 1 3 3 I V . d P 1 3 4 I V . d P 1 3 5 I V . d P 1 3 6 I V . d P 1 3 7 I V . d P 1 3 8 I V . d P 1 3 9 I V . d P 1 4 0 I V . d P 1 4 1 I V . d P 1 4 2 I V . d P 1 4 3 I V . d P 1 4 4 I V . d P 1 4 5 I V . d P 1 4 6 I V . d BERKO STUDIO AspenModern REDEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 6 January 2015 Location: 211 E. Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado (PID: 273707316007) City of Aspen Historic Townsite Block 72, Lots C, and D An application to designate the Berko Studio as an AspenModern structure, relocate the studio within the lot, and construct an additional residence. Represented By: P147 IV.d TABLE OF CONTENTS  Project Overview and Code Response  Attachment 2 – Land Use Application  Attachment 3 – Dimensional Requirements Form  Attachment 4 – HOA Compliance Form  Attachment 5 – Vicinity Map & Property Description  Attachment 6 – Lot Split Plat (Improvement Survey)  Attachment 7 – Proof of Ownership  Attachment 8 – Letter of Authorization  Attachment 9 – Previous Approvals  Attachment 10 – Property Owners within 300’  Attachment 11 – Pre-Application Conference Summary Appendix—Development Plans and Elevations 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 1 22 January 2015 P148 IV.d PROJECT OVERVIEW Elm223, LLC (the “Applicant”) submits this application for AspenModern Designation, Historic Structure Relocation, and Concept Development Review of a small studio-style residential structure to be relocated and expanded to create a duplex residential structure. The subject site is a 6,000 SF parcel on the south side of the 200 block of E. Hallam St (the “Property”). The Property lies in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district. This application is submitted in conformance with the Pre-application Conference summary dated 22 October 2014. The Applicant seeks the preservation of the existing building on Lot 1, known as the Berko Studio (the “Studio”), through designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites as an AspenModern structure. The Studio was designed by Ted Mularz, who is among the architects profiled on the aspenmod.com website. In addition, the building illustrates the history of mid-century Aspen, having been the studio/salon for photographer Ferenc Berko. The property is located within a two-block radius of 21 historic properties and 3 AspenModern structures. In conjunction with designation, the applicant proposes moving the Studio forward on the lot and rotating the Studio, so that the entry faces Hallam Street rather than the alley. A new residential addition is proposed to the rear of the Berko Studio which will complement and be secondary to the proposed historic resource. The addition will be two stories in height with the first story located at grade. The addition will complement the architectural style of the Studio through use of complimentary exterior materials, building form, and fenestration. Garages will be constructed accessing the alley. Relocating the Studio will feature the potential historic resource more prominently on the property and create a better relationship with the residences on the two adjacent properties to the East and West. In conjunction with the relocation of the Studio, a new masonry foundation will be provided which will maintain the partially subgrade first level condition of the existing Studio. The new foundation will replicate the existing one in terms of materials and design. This will recreate the unique architectural element that causes the second story to appear to be elevated above grade on a “plinth.” The Applicant requests minimal variances and the project complies with the applicable Land Use Code. The minimal variance requests include: • Setback variance for the roof eave which extends about one (1) foot into the Eastern property line setback; • Setback variance for total side yard setback, where15 Feet is required and 9 Feet requested; • Secondary massing variance for the garage, which will not make up 10% of the total floor area on the property; • Entry door position variance for the front door of the rear residence, which is recessed from the front wall of the structure by 11 feet, exceeding the requirement of a 10 feet maximum recession; and • Entry door porch variance for the porch which will have only 40 SF covered, where 50 SF covered porch are is required. Additionally, the new construction does not present a connecting element as suggested by the historic preservation guidelines. Great care has been taken to provide 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 2 22 January 2015 P149 IV.d differentiation between the historic resource and the new construction. However, the size the lot and the site plan that places construction at a distance from the adjacent Berko Victorian, does not provide space for a significant connecting element. The requested variances are required in order to create a site plan that best complements the studio and provides meaningful use of the property. Relocation of the studio to the front of the property and completion of the building program will require the removal of existing trees on the property. An unfortunate consequence of the original plantings on the property is that these trees have become quite oversized for the size of the lot, resulting in constant dense shading and darkness. The trees themselves have developed growth patterns that suggest a limited future life- span and potentially hazardous conditions. The Parks Department has been consulted and has agreed to the removal of these overgrown trees, with one exception. The exception is a large spruce tree located on the back easterly portion of the property, near the alley. The applicant is requesting the removal of this tree as well, as it provides dense shading over the entire property for most of the year. Moreover, the proposed construction, both as part of this application, and likely redevelopment of the adjacent property will further compromise the viability of this tree. The tree has been evaluated by the Aspen Tree Service as having “a co-dominant top originating approximately thirty feet from the top,” which is a debilitating and potentially hazardous condition. The applicant is requesting as part of the Aspen Modern negotiation that the Parks Department re-evaluate their recommendation with respect to this tree and that the tree be removed. A landscape plan has been prepared that will afford mitigation in terms of new street trees and site-appropriate plantings. It should be noted that the relocation and reconstruction of the Berko Studio is an expensive undertaking, given that the Studio was not originally constructed to current standards for insulation and energy efficiency. Accordingly, as part of the Aspen Modern negotiation, fee waivers are being requested for all fees which are under the purview of the City of Aspen. These include the standard fees that are waived for historic preservation projects, as well as waivers for tree mitigation, water tap and building permit fees. The Applicant has worked to design a project that honors the Studio and its potential as an historic resource, meets the City goals with respect to duplex development in the Medium-Density Residential zone district, and which ensures that a West End residence will be maintained and lively. The intent here is to create a family compound, which honors and carries forward the legacy of Ferenc Berko while providing a full-time home for successive generations of the family. In this context, it should be noted that the residence incorporates a space dedicated to his granddaughter’s work in archiving and presenting the work of this significant Aspen photographer. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 3 22 January 2015 P150 IV.d LAND USE CODE SECTION RESPONSES 26.410. Residential Design Standards 26.410.010. General. A. Purpose. The purpose of the following design standards is to preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment. The existing Studio building will be moved from the back of the lot to the front and rotated so that the Studio and associated development will relate to Hallam Street in a much stronger manner. The modified siting will enhance the visual integration of the studio with the streetscape. While the location of the Studio will be modified, the exterior of the building will maintain its parallel orientation with the street. The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Certain elements of the front façade of a house are particularly important components of neighborhood character. Front porches provide outdoor living space and animation to the streetscape, and one-story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. Street-facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger, formal windows denoting public areas and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. Landscape elements will balance privacy with the important public views into the property and of the building. Walkways from the street to the private entrances will be oriented perpendicular to that of the street. The architectural design will conform to the appropriate domestic scales and maintain the character of the neighborhood. Front porches have been provided at the entrances, and the existing front porch on the historic Studio will be retained. Acknowledgement of the context that has been established by the existing built environment is important to protecting the uniqueness of the City. Avoiding building materials which have no relevance to Aspen's history or climate helps to meet this goal, as does avoiding a significant overshadowing of small homes by larger structures. Relocating the existing Studio from the back of the lot and expanding upon it as planned to complete the duplex development will improve the contiguity of architectural character and scaling in the neighborhood. Architectural materials from the studio will be retained, thus maintaining relevance to the architectural history of the neighborhood. Architectural style and materials used for the additions to the studio are selected to be an appropriate complement to the existing style of the studio. Finally, along with creating homes which are architecturally interesting and lively, the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood can be further enhanced by reducing conflicts between people and automobiles and by making alleys an attractive place to walk. Parking areas are to be concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 4 22 January 2015 P151 IV.d Secondary structures and accessory dwelling units, located along the alleys and inspired by the tradition of outbuildings in Aspen, are encouraged. Parking will be provided at the rear of the lot, accessible from the alley between E. Hallam St. and E. Bleeker St. in two garages and uncovered spots completely out of the alley travel-way. The two garages and uncovered parking will provide space for four (4) vehicles. One of the two garages will be detached, thus conforming to the tradition of outbuildings in the City of Aspen’s residential neighborhoods. B. Applicability. Except as outline below, this Section applies to all residential development in the City requiring a building permit, except for residential development within the R-15B Zone District: 1. Only the following standards shall apply to multi-family housing: Subsection 26.410.040.A.1, Building orientation, Paragraph 26.410.040.C.1.a, Access or, if not applicable, Paragraph 26.410.040.C.2.b, Garage setback and Subsection 26.410.040D, Building elements, as outlined in said Section for multi-family buildings. This project does not include multifamily housing, thus this is not applicable. 2. Parcels located within and partially within the Aspen infill area (see Chapter 26.104, Definitions) shall be required to comply with all of the standards. This property is located within the Aspen infill area and will comply with all applicable standards. 3. Parcels not located in the Aspen infill area are required to comply with all the standards except the following: Subsection 26.410.040.B.1, Secondary mass, Subsection 26.410.040.D.3.b, Nonorthogonal windows and Subsection 26.410.040.E.2, Inflection, in its entirety. This project is within the Aspen infill area, thus this is not applicable. 4. Parcels with no street frontage and parcels with front yard setbacks at least ten (10) feet vertical above street grade shall be exempt from the following requirements: Subsection 26.410.040.A.1, Building orientation, and Subsection 26.410.040.D, Building elements, in its entirety. This property does include street frontage and is approximately level with street and curb, thus this is not applicable. 5. Residential units within mixed-use buildings shall be exempt from the requirement of this Chapter 26.410 in its entirety. This project is a duplex development in a residential zoning district, thus this is not applicable. C. Application. An application for residential development shall consist of an application for a development order as may be required by the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, pursuant to Section 26.304.030 and an application for "Residential Design Standards" review, pursuant to Section 26.410.020. A complete application will be submitted in accordance with the Pre-Application Conference Summary dated 22 October 2014. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 5 22 January 2015 P152 IV.d D. Exemptions. No application for a residential development order shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section unless the Planning Director determines that the proposed development: 1. Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or 2. Is a remodel of a structure where alterations proposed change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or 3. Is an application only for the erection of a fence and the application meets Subsection 26.410.040.A.3. The project will include a significant addition to the small existing Studio building and complete relocation of the existing structure. Therefore, the project will not be exempt to this Section, and will be compliant as applicable. 26.410.020. Procedures for review. A. Determination of applicability. Applicability shall be determined at the time of building permit submittal. The applicant may request a pre-application conference to determine as to whether the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. A Pre-application Conference has been conducted, and a Pre-Application Conference Summary dated 22 October 2014 was provided to the applicant. B. Determination of consistency. Consistency with the residential design standards shall be determined at the time of building permit review. The applicant may request a pre-application conference to determine consistency with the requirements of this Chapter. A Pre-application Conference has been conducted, and a Pre-Application Conference Summary document dated 22 October 2014 was provided to the applicant. C. Appeal of adverse determination. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the residential design standards, the applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance as set forth below. D. Variances. 1. Administrative variances. The applicant may seek an administrative variance for not more than three (3) of the individual requirements. An applicant who desires a variance from the residential design standards shall demonstrate, and the Community Development Director shall find that the variances, if granted, would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the director feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or The project will improve the property and historic structure by relocating it so that its position in the context of the neighborhood is improved. The variances requested will assist the project in attaining this improvement. It is expected that the variances would not be Administrative Variances, but would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission in the context of this application for Aspen Modern designation of the property. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 6 22 January 2015 P153 IV.d 2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or The project will improve the property and historic structure by relocating it so that its position in the context of the neighborhood is improved. The variances requested will assist the project in attaining this improvement. It is expected that the variances would not be Administrative Variances, but would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission in the context of this application for Aspen Modern designation of the property. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The relocation of the historic Studio and the duplex addition provide certain site-specific constraints that necessitate the requests for variances. 26.410.040. Residential design standards. A. Site design. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "façade line" and defines the public and semi-public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. 1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. The existing small Studio structure will be relocated to the front of the lot and aligned parallel to the street. This standard is met. 2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the sixty percent (60%) standard. The front of the building is designed to rest within 5 feet of the front yard setback line for more than 60% of its length. This standard is met. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 7 22 January 2015 P154 IV.d 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Manmade berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. No fence or hedgerow forward of the front facade will exceed 42 inches above the natural grade. Currently, no fences or hedgerows are proposed for the site. This standard is met. B. Building form. The intent of the following building form standards is to respect the scale of Aspen's historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing, by promoting the development of accessory units off of the City alleys and by preserving solar access. 1. Secondary mass. All new single-family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10%) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked to it by a subordinate linking element. This standard shall only apply to parcels within the Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A detached garage is included in the plans at the rear of the lot providing covered parking accessible from the alley. The garage represents less than 10% of the total square footage above grade. This will be a variance requested as part of the application. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, not more than ten (10) feet in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. Site constraints require that the design does not include a subordinate linking element as described in this requirement. The duplex element is brought to a corner of the historic Studio, but is oriented perpendicular to the Studio structure. The perpendicular orientation, along with a differentiation of materials and forms, will provide an alternative to strictly meeting this requirement. A variance for this standard is requested. C. Parking, garages and carports. The intent of the following parking, garages and carport standards is to minimize the potential for conflicts between pedestrian and automobile traffic by placing parking, garages and carports on alleys or to minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist. 1. For all residential uses that have access from an alley or private road, the following standards shall apply: a) Parking, garages and carports shall be accessed from an alley or private road. Parking will be accessed from the alley between E. Hallam St. and E. Bleeker St. This standard is met. b) If the garage doors are visible from a street or alley, then they shall be single-stall doors or double-stall doors designed to appear like single-stall doors. Both garages will include only single stall doors. This standard is met. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 8 22 January 2015 P155 IV.d c) If the garage doors are not visible from a street or alley, the garage doors may be either single stall or normal double-stall garage doors. One detached garage and one attached garage are included in the design for the duplex development. Both garages are accessed from the alley between E. Hallam St. and E. Bleeker St. Doors will be single stall for both garages. This standard is not applicable. 2. For all residential uses that have access only from a public street, the following standards shall be apply… This property has access from an alley, as well as the pedestrian access to E. Hallam Street. This standard is not applicable. D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single-family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street-oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi-family units shall have at least one (1) street-oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a) The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front- most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. The front door is recessed 11 feet from the front wall of the first floor and 13 feet from the front wall of the second floor. It is important to note here that the front unit of the duplex will be made by relocating the proposed historic studio and the first story will be recessed below grade by approximately 5 feet; the finished floor of the second story will be approximately 4 feet above grade. This additional recess assists in differentiating the addition from the historic resource. The entry doors will not be taller than eight feet. A variance is requested for the 1-foot additional setback of the front door of the Studio. b) A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. The porch at the primary entrance will be covered by an approximately 4- foot deep overhang of the second story of the rear unit of the duplex. The porch will be approximately 10 feet wide. The entry porch and canopy will not exceed one story in height. A 2-foot variance in the porch depth is requested. c) A street-facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of window face street. The principal window will be on the second story of the front unit of the duplex with views out of the primary living space in the front unit of the 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 9 22 January 2015 P156 IV.d duplex. Windows are provided in the front wall of the first story as well, but are subordinate to the primary window provided in the second story. This standard is met. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street-facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20%) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. The primary mass of the front unit of the duplex is comprised of the proposed historic AspenModern Studio. When relocated, the massing of the studio will not change. In its current configuration, the studio does not include any projections that match the requirements of a first story element. This is an existing condition of the historic resource and would not require a variance. 3. Windows. a) Street-facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. No street-facing windows span the area between the first and second floor. This standard is met. b) No more than one (1) nonorthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single nonorthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) nonorthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. No nonorthogonal windows are proposed in any portion of the building. This standard is met 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street-facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front-most wall of the building. A lightwell is included in the partially sub-grade first floor of the front unit of the duplex. The lightwell is located entirely behind the front-most wall of the building. This standard is met. E. Context. The intent of the following standards is to reinforce the unique character of Aspen and the region by drawing upon Aspen's vernacular architecture and neighborhood characteristics in designing new structures. 1. Materials. The following standards must be met: a) The quality of the exterior materials and details and their application shall be consistent on all sides of the building. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 10 22 January 2015 P157 IV.d The relocated proposed historic AspenModern Studio building will retain its exterior architectural materials or have them reconstructed in kind. The addition to the Studio that will become the rear unit of the duplex will include exterior architectural materials that will be compatible with those of the studio. This standard is met. b) Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance stucco, which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as stone. No materials will be used in an inappropriate capacity. This standard is met. c) Highly reflective surfaces shall not be used as exterior materials. Reflective material will be limited to glass used for windows. No other highly reflective materials are included in the building design. This standard is met. 2. Inflection. The following standard must be met for parcels which are six thousand (6,000) square feet or over and as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.2: a) If a one-story building exists directly adjacent to the subject site, then the new construction must step down to one-story in height along their common lot line. If there are one-story buildings on both sides of the subject site, the applicant may choose the side toward which to inflect. A one-story building shall be defined as follows: A one story building shall mean a structure or portion of a structure, where there is only one (1) floor of fully usable living space, at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage. This standard shall be met by providing a one story element which is also at least twelve (12) feet wide across the street frontage and one (1) story tall as far back along the common lot line as the adjacent building is one (1) story. Neither residence on either side of the property in question has a one story element at the front of the building. This condition is not applicable for the property at 211 E. Hallam Street. 26.415.025.C. Aspen Modern Properties C. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen’s 20th century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. 1. Ninety-Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety-day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application. The ninety-day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting the 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 11 22 January 2015 P158 IV.d subject property during the ninety-day negotiation period. Within the ninety-day negotiation period, the following shall occur: a) The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. The applicant wishes to seek declaration of the existing studio as an AspenModern structure under the Aspen Modern provisions of the Land Use Code. The property would be eligible for negotiated benefits. Benefits requested include the waiver of City of Aspen fees related to the relocation and preservation of the historic resource, as well as the other proposed development for the property. b) The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. The property has been identified as eligible for AspenModern designation. The applicant will provide additional supporting documentation as may be requested by staff in their evaluation of the property. c) The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The applicant will attend and participate in negotiations with the City Council as appropriate. d) The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a “good, better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 12 22 January 2015 P159 IV.d defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to require the land use application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the property owner if said application or permit would have negatively affected the historic significance of the property. Once a property identified on the AspenModern Map is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, additional negotiation under this section is not allowed. The applicant is requesting that the studio be designated as an AspenModern structure. They have requested fee waivers of those fees under City of Aspen purview. The application as presented is believed to have no negative effects on the historic significance of the property and will, in fact, enhance and preserve the historic resource. e) If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected land use applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, or the property owner, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time. The applicant understands that in the event of a failure to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, the Studio structure will not be historically designated and may be demolished to permit other development on the property. 2. Voluntary review/Processing Advantages. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this Chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. The Community Development Director shall consider waiver or reduction of permit fees for the subject work. If this is not achievable within the City budget, the Community Development Director shall ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications except those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. At the time of this application submittal, the property is not included on the AspenModern Map. In the event that this application successfully achieves AspenModern recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission for the studio, the applicant will anticipate a negotiation for benefits allowed for an AspenModern designation, including the waiver of permit fees. 3. Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 13 22 January 2015 P160 IV.d Transferable Development Rights are not requested as part of this application, but may be considered as part of an Aspen Modern negotiation. 4. Removal from AspenModern Map. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be removed from the AspenModern Map. If the property owner indicates in writing that they have no interest in designation or negotiation, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map and the Community Development Director shall issue the owner a certificate documenting the removal from the map. Except upon the written request and consent of the owner(s) of the subject property at the time of the request, the subject property shall not be eligible for historic designation in the City of Aspen for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this certificate. The certificate shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. As the property owners are seeking an AspenModern designation for the studio, this provision does not apply. 5. Addition to AspenModern Map. Owners of properties not included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be added to the map by submitting a written request. The Community Development Director shall determine if the property is eligible, based on the designation criteria. The applicant wishes for this application, complete with written description of the historic resource value of the property and the structure included therein, to serve as the application for the Studio structure to be recognized as an AspenModern structure and for the property to be included on the AspenModern Map. 26.415.030.C. Designation – Aspen Modern C. AspenModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below: a) The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; The original use of the Studio structure was as a photography studio for famed local photographer Ferenc Berko. Mr. Berko’s work contributed to the recognition of Aspen as a unique resort destination. Moreover, his work has been widely recognized as having significant artistic value and has been the subject of exhibitions world-wide. b) The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 14 22 January 2015 P161 IV.d Ferenc Berko was the owner of the property when the studio was constructed, and Mr. Berko used the structure as his photography studio. As mentioned, Mr. Berko’s work contributed to the mid-20th century development of the City of Aspen. c) The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an adopted context paper; The studio structure most closely represents the Bauhaus / International style identified within the AspenModern program. It was designed by Ted Mularz, an architect profiled in the AspenModern program, and it was originally built in 1964. d) The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and The Aspen Historical Society recognizes Ferenc Berko’s work as an important piece of Aspen history. e) The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. The period design represents an exceptional example of the Bauhaus / International style. 2. Application. Only the property owner(s) may file an application for designation of an AspenModern building, district, site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: a) The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1., 2., 3., and 4. The applicant is Elm223, LLC. The applicant’s mailing address is: 1230 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, CO 81611 The applicant’s phone number is: (970) 925-3850 The street address of the property proposed for development is: 211 E. Hallam St. Aspen, CO 81611. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 15 22 January 2015 P162 IV.d The legal description of the parcel is provided in the Vicinity Map and Property Description provided as an attachment to this application submittal. The parcel identification number is 273707316007. The parcel ownership is documented in the Proof of Ownership provided as an attachment to this application submittal. A Vicinity Map is provided as an attachment to this application submittal. b) Site or historic district boundary map. The property’s context with regard to other properties designated as historic landmarks is included on the Vicinity Map provided as an attachment to this application submittal. The property is not located in a designated historic district. c) Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and/or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. The property at 211 E. Hallam Street was recently created by a standard non-historic lot split, which separated the fathering parcel into two lots. This separated the subject property with the Studio structure from the property to the east that includes an Aspen Victorian structure at the address of 223 E. Hallam St. The subject property is comprised of two townsite lots for a total of 6,000 SF. Topography on the lot is approximately flat, only slightly sloping downward toward the north-north-east. Currently the property has only one structure, a small studio-style single family residence of approximately 1,450 SF of floor area. Designed by Ted Mularz and constructed in 1964, this studio structure is an example of the Bauhaus / International architectural style identified in the AspenModern program. d) Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation This application for redevelopment will be submitted in conjunction with a request for recognition of the studio as an AspenModern structure. The following description of the historic resource is provided here: Designed by Ted Mularz and constructed in 1964, this studio structure is an example of the Bauhaus / International architectural style identified in the AspenModern program. A more detailed description of the historic resource represented by the studio is provided in the response to Land Use Code section 26.415.030.C., Designation – Aspen Modern. e) Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner requests be awarded at the time of designation and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent of the historic preservation program. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 16 22 January 2015 P163 IV.d The applicant hopes to realize several benefits afforded to properties with Historic Landmark designation as a result of achieving an Aspen Modern designation for the property. These benefits include: • Exemption from the Affordable Housing Mitigation requirements that would otherwise be required for the planned duplex development. • Waiver of development and impact fees that would otherwise be required for the planned duplex development. • Setback variances granted to historic properties. • Tree removal mitigation relief granted to historic properties. • Residential design standards variances. With respect to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent, the project promotes the retention and continued utility of the historically valuable studio structure, promotes appreciation of Aspen’s unique heritage by preserving Ferenc Berko’s photography studio, retains an architecturally significant historical structure, and sustainably reuses the historic studio structure. 26.415.070. Development involving designated properties (Major) No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. Not applicable. This proposed project is not requesting exemption from the development review process on these conditions. B. Certificate of no negative effect. 1. An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character-defining features of a designated property. An application for a certificate of no effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2: Not applicable. This proposed project is not requesting a certificate of no negative effect. This project requires a certificate of appropriateness for major development, sub-section “C” is therefore deleted from this application. D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 17 22 January 2015 P164 IV.d constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a) The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or The project is not located within a historic district. b) Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building façade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and/or The project will not significantly alter any of these elements of the building façade. c) The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or The duplex development will expand upon the existing studio by more than 250 square feet. d) Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. The duplex development will require major development. 2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. If a major development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. The applicant will comply with the review procedures as required by the Community Development Director. This application is being submitted for the conceptual development plan. 3. Conceptual development plan review. a) An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. The general application will be completed as required in Section 26.304.030. All required information is included within this application submittal. (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. A site plan is provided with the Architectural Plans and Renderings as an attachment to this application and a survey is included the Draft Platt of 211 E Hallam St. as an attachment to this application. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 18 22 January 2015 P165 IV.d (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. The plans submitted with this application include all required drawings to present a complete account of the intentions of the duplex development. Architectural Plans and Renderings are included as an attachment to this application submittal. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. Preliminary building material selections will are demonstrated in the graphics provided with the Architectural Plans and Renderings as an attachment to this application submittal. (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. Site context will is provided as photographs of the property and the neighborhood within one block of the property as a part of the Architectural Plans and Renderings as an attachment to this application submittal. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. The duplex development project will comply with all applicable requirements of the Residential Design Standards. Any variance requested from these requirements is called out in this application submittal. b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The applicant will provide public notice as required in Section 26.304.060.E.3. Paragraphs a, b, and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 19 22 January 2015 P166 IV.d review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. No response to this item is necessary. (3) 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. The applicant will proceed as necessary based on the results of HPC decision. (4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. The applicant will not proceed to a request for Final Development Plan approval without the City Council approval. c) The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan. The applicant will proceed with a Final Development Plan once approval is granted for the conceptual development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to make substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development approval hearing shall be required, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D.3. The applicant will prepare final development plans consistent with the conceptual development plans approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. If any conceptual design changes are made following the conceptual design approval, the applicant will submit a new conceptual design plan as required. (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Community 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 20 22 January 2015 P167 IV.d Development Director may grant an extension of this limitation if the delay has been caused by the application requiring additional reviews or similar delays that could not have been reasonably predicted by the applicant. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The applicant will conform to the required deadline for approval of the final development plan following the approval of the conceptual development plan. 4. Final development plan review. a) An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. The applicant will submit an application as required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. The final drawings will be submitted at a ¼”=1.0’ scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. Example imagery depicting final building materials will be provided as part of the final development plan. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. A written statement will respond to the conformance of the final development plan with the approved conceptual development plan. b) The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. The applicant will provide public notice as required in Section 26.304.060.E.3. Paragraphs a, b, and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 21 22 January 2015 P168 IV.d on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. No response necessary to this requirement. No action required of the applicant. (3) 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. The applicant will proceed as necessary based on the results of the HPC decision and Community Development Director development order. (4) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. A final set of plans will be submitted for record with the City prior to submitting an application for a building permit. E. Amendments, insubstantial and substantial. There are two processes for amending plans approved pursuant to a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness. All requests for amendments, insubstantial or substantial, must be in writing and accompanied by drawing(s) and elevations as specified below. Any amendments to the approved development plans will be submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section. 26.415.090. Relocation 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. 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. A. Application. An application for relocation shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. This application for relocation includes all of the required general information as defined in Section 26.304.030. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 22 22 January 2015 P169 IV.d 2. A written description and/or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. The structure proposed for relocation is a small studio style structure, currently used as a single family residence, located at the rear (South) of the property at 211 E. Hallam St. The studio structure is built with a partially sunken first floor. The finished floor elevation of the first floor is approximately 5 feet below natural grade. The first floor walls are constructed of reinforced concrete masonry unit blocks which retain the surrounding soil. The second story, with a finished floor elevation approximately 5 feet above natural grade is primarily a wood-framed structure which overhangs beyond the extents of the first story wall by approximately 2 feet on all four sides. The result of the overhang aesthetically suggests the second story rests on a pedestal provided by the walls of the first story. The structure is generally rectangular in shape with the long axis running generally East to West. The roof is mildly pitched with the crest of the roofline oriented along the short axis of the building slightly off center, dividing the roof into 1/3 and 2/3. The exterior walls of the second story are dressed in 4-inch-wide wood siding panels oriented about 35 degrees off of horizontal. The walls at the east and west sides of the building are inverted by approximately 10 degrees past vertical. In the building’s current orientation, the south wall includes the projection of a deck outside the primary living space. The deck is constructed with unperforated walls such that the exterior is clad with the same siding material as the rest of the exterior of the second story of the building. The chimney which is also on the South wall of the building extends from beneath natural grade several feet above the crest of the roofline. The chimney is positioned such that it is centered on the crest of the roofline. The “pedestal” appearance of the first story, asymmetric roof, and inverted east and west walls give the structure a unique appearance in general conformance with the Bauhaus / International architectural style of the AspenModern program. 3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site) and justification for the need for relocation. The relocation proposed will move the existing studio structure from the rear of the property (the south end of the property) to the front of the property (north) so it sits in line with the front yard setback. The relocation will pivot the structure 180 degrees such that the main living room on the second floor will provide views out to the street and the mountain ridge to the north. The relocation will include excavation to accommodate the first floor of the studio which in its current location is below grade to the same extent as proposed in the final location. The relocation is to be a permanent alteration of the building location entirely within the original property. Relocation of the studio will make it visible to the street and enhance the public benefit of this historic resource. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 23 22 January 2015 P170 IV.d 4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. A written report attesting to the feasibility of the proposed relocation of the Studio will be provided as an appendix to this Application. 5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. The architectural site plan, provided with the Architectural Plans and Renderings as an attachment to this application submittal, shows the orientation of the studio in its new position as well as the layout of the addition that will complete the duplex development project. The layout includes a survey of existing topography, property boundaries, utility locations, trees and other existing improvements. Planned improvements are indicated on the plan as well. 6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from t he site's property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. The planned relocation is on-site and the property is owned by the applicant. 7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. The applicant requests that this application for on-site relocation serve as evidence that the applicant is seeking the necessary approvals for the move entirely within the City of Aspen. 8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. The applicant has the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation, and repair of the historic resource. An appropriate bond or letter of credit will be provided to the City, if required. 9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. Neighborhood context photos and existing site conditions photos are provided as parts of as appendices to this application and offer an understanding of the context for the relocated structure on the property and its compatibility with adjacent properties. B. Procedures for the review of relocation request. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 24 22 January 2015 P171 IV.d 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. The applicant will present information relating to the proposed relocation to the Historic Preservation Commission at the designated public hearing. 2. Notice for the review of the relocation request shall include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The applicant will provide necessary public notice as required by Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b, and c. 3. If the relocation request is part of a major development project, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B. The duplex development will qualify as a major development project. The applicant understands that there will be a consolidation of the review process. 4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the standards for relocation approval set forth below, the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be 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 report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the standards for relocation have been met. The applicant will await the determination of the HPC and act in conformance with that decision. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. The applicant will await the determination of the HPC and act in conformance with that decision. 6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up" period of the City Council has expired. The applicant will not begin with any construction efforts associated with the building relocation until a building permit has been granted, which will be after the “call up” period has expired. 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 noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or The property is not located within a historic district; this standard does not apply. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 25 22 January 2015 P172 IV.d 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 Relocating the structure will not have an adverse impact on a Historic District as the property is not located within an Historic District. The impact on the property due to the relocation of the structure will not be adverse. Rather, the building relocation will improve the property as it will bring the property into general conformance with the neighborhood character by positioning the primary structure near the front of the lot as all the other properties in the neighborhood are laid-out. 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or Not applicable. 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; and While relocating the structure is not necessary for its preservation, once relocated the building will be better related to the historic Aspen Victorian located on the next property to the East. A high concentration of historically designated properties exist within a two block radius of the property at 211 E. Hallam St. and relocating the studio to the front of the lot will add to the preserved historical character of the neighborhood as a destination for those interested in the architectural history of the City. 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; A letter from an expert in structure relocation will be provided attesting to the ability of the structure to withstand the physical impacts of relocation. 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and The location at the front of the property is an appropriate on-site receiving location. 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 relocation plan is provide as an appendix to this application, and financial guarantees will be provided, if required. D. Procedures for considering request for relocation of properties under consideration for designation. While it is the intent of this Chapter to preserve properties of demonstrated significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 26 22 January 2015 P173 IV.d 1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures unless relocation approval is issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council. The applicant is seeking designation as an AspenModern property in congruence with the application for the relocation and duplex development. The applicant will not begin any relocation or construction without all appropriate approvals and necessary permits. 2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official. Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at that time to verify accuracy. The applicant will await notification and will not proceed with any relocation or construction without all appropriate approvals and necessary permits. 3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is taken on the application by the City Council. The applicant understands these restrictions and will not initiate any relocation or construction without all appropriate approvals and necessary permits. 4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An additional six month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cause. No response required for this item. 26.415.110. Benefits The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits. A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 27 22 January 2015 P174 IV.d zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. A lot split is not sought as in conjunction with this application. This requirement does not apply. It is worth noting however, that the property on which the work is proposed was created by a non-historic standard lot split which separated this lot from the lot to the East that has the Aspen Victorian residence. As such, neither the Studio structure nor the property itself is currently designated. B. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non-designated property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. Under regular allowances within the R-6 zone district, a duplex could be constructed on the property at 211 E. Hallam St. An Administrative Determination assigned duplex development to this property as part of the prior non-historic stand lot split. This item does not apply. C. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. 1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; The applicant requests a 2-foot side yard setback variance on the east side of the property to allow for a side yard setback of three (3) feet. The westerly side yard setback will remain five (5) feet. It should be noted that this setback variance is only for the second-level architectural extension. The foundation and first floor of the building will conform to the 5-foot setback. There is a corresponding requirement for a 15-foot combined side yard setback that would be reduced to eight (8) feet. A front yard setback variance is required for an existing small porch that would extend four (4) feet into the front yard. b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; This duplex development project will not require any variances related to distances between buildings. c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; A site coverage variance will not be requested for this project. d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. As this project is within a residential zoning district, the public amenity space requirements do not apply. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance: 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 28 22 January 2015 P175 IV.d a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or Relocating the studio structure to the front of the lot will maintain the character of the potential historic property, improve its relation to the adjacent historic property, and provide visibility from the street. b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. As stated, the relocation of the studio structure will enhance the relation of the property at 211 E. Hallam St. with the property to the East, 223 E. Hallam St. which includes a historic Aspen Victorian residence. Relocating the studio to the front of the property will improve the property’s relation to the pedestrian environment of the street and improve the contiguity of the historic structures in the neighborhood. D. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to contain the number of on-site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-in-lieu fees for parking reductions. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, 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. The duplex residential development in the R-6 zone district within the Aspen In-fill Area would normally require one space per bedroom and up to a maximum requirement of two spaces per unit. The required parking would therefore be four spaces. The applicant is requesting a parking waiver to provide one space per unit. These spaces would be housed in two separate garages. Permitting this parking waiver would allow for better utilization of the site for gardens and enhanced permeability. The proximity of this property to the commercial core and other services venues is such that it is unlikely that multiple car ownership would be required. E. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710. No conditional uses are being sought as a part of the relocation and duplex development project. F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; The duplex development will adhere to all applicable design guidelines, with the exception of those minor guideline variances noted earlier. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 29 22 January 2015 P176 IV.d b) The historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; Relocating the studio to the front of the lot will make the historic structure the primary feature to any passersby in the public right of way. c) The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; Restoration to historic appearance is unnecessary for this project as the historic studio structure has retained its historic appearance since it was originally built. d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; The addition required to complete the duplex development is designed to complement the historic studio. Materials have been carefully chosen to be compatible with the studio, and the overall massing of the addition draws inspiration from the form of the studio. e) The construction materials are of the highest quality; Construction materials used to construct the duplex will be of the industry standard. f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; Through the use of compatible materials, colors, and form, the addition will blend seamlessly with the historic studio. g) The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or The site does not include a historic outbuilding to retain. The historic studio will be relocated, but will be retained as the architectural feature of the project. h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. No notable site or landscape features exist on the property aside from the historic studio, which will be retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. Based on the criteria noted above, the applicant is requesting a floor area bonus of 500 square feet. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 30 22 January 2015 P177 IV.d 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection 26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. No development application that includes a request for a floor area bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. The applicant has met with the HPC in a work session at which several design alternatives were presented. This application is in accordance with an alternative that met with a favorable response from the HPC. 4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. The applicant understands the cumulative nature of the floor area bonus, which is requested to be 500 square feet. To date, the property has not received any floor area bonuses. G. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information. Relocation of an historic structure is exempt from the Growth Management Quota System per Subsection 26.470.040.4 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. H. Waiver of impact fees. Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information. The applicant would appreciate waiver of the fees listed here: • Park Development Impact Fee • TDM/Air Quality Impact Fee • Affordable Housing Cash-in-lieu Fee The applicant would appreciate full waiver or reduction of the fees listed here: • Water Tap Fee • Building Permit Fee • Tree removal mitigation fees I. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one-time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer-of-title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first. The historic structure has been reasonably maintained and should not require a loan for rehabilitation of any portion of the structure. J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that future development is limited. The five 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 31 22 January 2015 P178 IV.d hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation easement. The applicant does not wish to accept a “Conservation Easement” nor the benefits associated with one. K. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City-owned designated properties. This item is not applicable to the project. L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. Refer to Section 26.710, Zone Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs. The applicant is not seeking Transferable Development Rights; the allowable floor area will be used to its full extent. M. Tax credit applications. Community Development staff shall assist property owners in participating in State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining certification. A twenty percent (20%) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20%) Federal Income Tax Credit which may be available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The duplex is not intended at this time to be an income producing property. Tax credits are not applicable. N. Community-initiated development. The City shall consider opportunities to be involved in public-privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects that demonstrate good historic preservation practices. The applicant would appreciate any financial assistance the City would consider contributing to the project. O. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure. The project will modernize the historic structure to the maximum extent possible while maintaining its historic character and quality. The applicant would appreciate any flexibility in the International Building Code that would be afforded to the project. P. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other sources of funding. This item is not applicable to this project. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 32 22 January 2015 P179 IV.d Q. Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors, historic property owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen. The applicant would be willing to participate and cooperate with any efforts to include the property and its history into the tourism program. R. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City. If the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission were to present the project with a preservation award, the applicant would gladly accept the accolades. S. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may provide a historic marker of a standard design for any owner of a designated historic property who desires a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage program to recognize designated historic districts. The applicants will not pursue a historic marker, but would display one if it were provided by the City. 26.575.20 Calculations and Measurements A. Purpose. This section sets forth methods for measuring floor area, height, setbacks, and other dimensional aspects of development and describes certain allowances, requirements and other prescriptions for a range of structural components, such as porches, balconies, garages, chimneys, mechanical equipment, projections into setbacks, etc. The definitions of the terms are set forth at Section 26.104.100 – Definitions. No response necessary for this item. B. Limitations. The prescribed allowances and limitations, such as height, setbacks, etc., of distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual structural component. For example, if a deck is permitted to be developed within five feet of a property boundary and a garage must be a minimum of ten feet from the same property boundary, a garage with a deck on top of it may not be developed any closer than ten feet from the property boundary or otherwise produce an aggregated structural component that extends beyond the setback limit of a garage. The plans for the structure relocation and duplex development project do not attempt to aggregate or combine any distinct limitations that apply to the project. C. Measuring Net Lot Area. A property’s development rights are derived from Net Lot Area. This is a number that accounts for the presence of steep slopes, easements, areas under water, and similar features of a property. There are no steep slopes, areas of easement, areas under water, or similar features on the Property, which would reduce the net lot area of the resulting lots. D. Measuring Floor Area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 33 22 January 2015 P180 IV.d 1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the building or portion thereof. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior- mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. (Also, see setbacks.) When measuring the floor area of the building, the applicant will follow the proper procedure defined in this guideline. E. Measuring Setbacks. 1. General. Required setbacks shall be unoccupied and unobstructed within an area extending horizontally from the parcel boundary to the setback line and vertically above and below grade, excepting allowed projections as described below. Setbacks will be measured as defined in this guideline. A side yard setback variance will be requested for an eastern side yard setback and corresponding total side yard setbacks. F. Measuring Building Heights. 2. For properties in all other Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be measured according to the pitch of the roof as follows. See subsection 3, below, for measurement method. a) Flat roofs or roofs with a pitch of less than 3:12. The height of a building with a roof pitch of less than 3:12 shall be measured from the ground to the top-most portion of the structure. The new addition to the structure will have a flat roof, which will conform to the height limitations. The existing structure has a shallow pitched roof and also conforms to the height limitations. 3. Height Measurement Method. In measuring a building for the compliance with height restrictions, the measurement shall be the maximum distance measured vertically from the ground to the specified point of the building located above that point, as further described below: a) Measuring height along the perimeter of the building. At each location where the exterior perimeter of a building meets the ground, the measurement shall be taken from the lower of natural or finished grade. Building permit plans must depict both natural and finished grades. Building height measurements will be performed using the appropriate applicable guideline. b) Measuring height within the footprint of the building. For the purposes of measuring height within the footprint of a building, areas of the building within 15 horizontal feet of the building’s perimeter shall be measured using the perimeter measurement, as described above. In all other areas, the natural grade of the site shall be projected up to the allowable height and the height of the structure shall be measured using this projected topography. In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity, the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The Director may require additional 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 34 22 January 2015 P181 IV.d historical documentation, technical studies, reports, or other information to verify a pre-development topography. If necessary, the Community Development Director may require an applicant document natural grade, finished grade, grade being used within the footprint of the building, and other relevant height limitation information that may need to be documented prior to construction. Building height measurements will be performed using the appropriate applicable guideline. c) Measuring to the roof – The high point of the measurement shall be taken from the surface of a structure’s roof inclusive of the first layer of exterior sheathing or weatherproofing membrane but excluding exterior surface treatments such as shakes, shingles, or other veneer treatments or ornamentation. When measuring roofs to a point between the ridge and the eave point, the eave point shall be the point where the plane of a roof intersects the plane of the exterior wall. The roof and wall planes shall be of the nominal structure, excluding all exterior treatments. Building height measurements will be performed using the appropriate applicable guideline. G. Measuring Site coverage. Site coverage is typically expressed as a percentage. When calculating site coverage of a structure or building, the exterior walls of the structure or building at ground level should be used. When measuring to the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior-mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. Porches, roofs or balcony overhangs, cantilevered building elements and similar features extending directly over grade shall be excluded from maximum allowable site coverage calculations. The exterior surface of the nominal structure at the point at which it meets finish grade will be used for when measuring site coverage. The proposed development meets all requirements for site coverage, with a site coverage of 44%. J. Measurement of Net Livable Area. The calculation of Net Livable Area shall include all interior space measured from interior wall to interior wall, including interior partitions and inclusive of, but not limited to, entryways or lobbies dedicated to only one unit, finished or unfinished basements which are or can be made habitable, and storage areas, closets and laundry areas accessible from the interior of a unit. Net livable Area shall not include common circulation areas, common lobbies, common stairwells, common elevator corridors, or similar common spaces not intended or designed to be occupied by an individual tenant. Net Livable Area shall not include uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, stairs, unconditioned storage accessible only from the exterior, garages, carports, patios, decks, porches or similar spaces. When calculating the net livable area of the existing residences, the applicable method will be utilized. 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District is to provide areas for long- term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the center of the City. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 35 22 January 2015 P182 IV.d The residential duplex development contemplated in this application will comply with the purpose and intent of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) District. This district is specifically designated for duplex and single-family development. 26.610. Impact fees 26.610.030. Exemptions. This Chapter does not apply to: A. Development involving a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. This exemption is solely for an historic structure and its accessory structures. Development on an historic landmark property involving a non-historic or new building shall not be exempt. The duplex development will require construction of an addition to the historic studio. That portion of the project will not be exempt from the impact fees. The applicant is requesting that all impact fee exemptions be applied for this proposed development. Additionally, the application is requesting additional waivers as part of the Aspen Modern negotiation. 211 E. Hallam Street PID: 273707316007 Page 36 22 January 2015 P183 IV.d ATTACHMENT 2 –LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: GMQS Exemption Conceptual PUD Temporary Use GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) Text/Map Amendment Special Review Subdivision Conceptual SPA ESA – 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane Subdivision Exemption (includes condominiumization) Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) Commercial Design Review Lot Split Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion Residential Design Variance Lot Line Adjustment Other: Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Have you attached the following? FEES DUE:$_________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5” X 11” must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 211 E. Hallam 1230 Snowbunny Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-3850 Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. 412 N. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2323 The property consists of Lot 1 of the 223 E. Hallam St. Lot Split. Currently the small studio-style single-family residence is located on the rear of the parcel. Relocate the studio to the front of the parcel and construct an additionl single-family unit to create a duplex. One (1) attached garage, and one (1) detached garage will be provided. Applicant seeks AspenModern designation for the studio. 2,925 X X AspenModern XXXX 211 E. Hallam St., Aspen, CO 81611 (223 E. Hallam Lot Split Lot 1) 223Elm, LLC 273707316007 P184 IV.d ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (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:________ 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 Buildings Existing ________Required:__________Proposed:_____ Existing non-conformities or encroachments:___________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Variations requested: ______________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 211 E. Hallam 223Elm, LLC 211 E. Hallam St. Aspen, CO 81611 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) 6,000 SF 6,000 SF 0 0 1,429 3,600 3,600 16 25 25 0 25 14 0 4 4 11%50%44% 89%N/A 56% 64 Ft 10 Ft 10 Ft 15 Ft 10 10 Ft 79 Ft N/A 20 8.5 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 15 Ft 5 Ft 5 Ft 20 Ft None Side yard setback, secondary massing, entry door position, entry door covered porch. 12 Ft 10 Ft N/A 5 Ft 5 Ft 1 2 0 2 6 P185 IV.d P186 IV.d Cit y of Aspe n Pla nni ng an d Zoni ng Source s: Esri, HERE , De Lo rme, TomTo m, In te rmap , incremen t P Co rp ., GEBCO, US GS, FAO, NPS , NRCAN, Ge oBase, IG N, K adaste r NL, Ordnance Surve y, Es ri Japan, METI, E sri China (Hong Kon g), swisstop o, Ma pmyIndia, © Ope nS treet Map cont rib uto rs, an d t he GIS User Commun it y Aspe nGI S His toric D es ign ation Pa rc el Ha llamBluff_ESA Ja nua ry 19 , 20 15 0 0.035 0.0 70.01 7 5 mi 0 0.0 6 0.120.03 km 1:2,25 7 Subject Property - 211 E. Hallam St. Attachment 5 R-6 P187 IV.d 1/20/2015 Parcel Detail http://www.pitkinassessor.or g/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R021880 1/3 Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search    |   Assessor Subset Query    |   Assessor Sales Search  Clerk & Recorder Reception Search    |   Treasurer Tax Search Search  GIS Map    |   GIS Help Basic Building Characteristics   |   Value Summary Parcel Detail   |   Value Detail   |   Sales Detail   |   Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail  Owner Detail   |   Land Detail   |   Photographs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number Property Type 2014 Mill Levy 001 R021880 273707316007 RESIDENTIAL 33.542 Primary Owner Name and Address ELM 223 LLC PO BOX 360 ASPEN, CO 81612 Additional Owner Detail Legal Description Subdivision: 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT Lot: 1 Location Physical Address: 223 E HALLAM ST ASPEN Subdivision: 223 E HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT Land Acres: 0.000 Land Sq Ft: 6,000 P188 IV.d 1/20/2015 Parcel Detail http://www.pitkinassessor.or g/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R021880 2/3 2014 Property Value Summary  Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 2,580,000 205,370 Improvements: 20,000 1,590 Total: 2,600,000 206,960 Sale Date:  Sale Price:  Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential Buildings: 1 Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 0 Residential Building Occurrence 0 Characteristics FIRST FLOOR: 760 FINISHED BSMT: 669 WOOD BALCONY: 45 Total Heated Area: 1,429 Property Class: SINGLE FAM RES­ IMPROVEMEN Actual Year Built: 1964 Effective Year Built: 1973 Bedrooms: 0 Baths: 1 Quality of Construction: AVER T 11 Exterior Wall: WD SID AVE Interior Wall: DRYWALL Floor: BASE P189 IV.d 1/20/2015 Parcel Detail http://www.pitkinassessor.or g/assessor/parcel.asp?AccountNumber=R021880 3/3 Heat Type: FORCED AIR Heating Fuel: GAS Roof Cover: ASP SHINGL Roof Structure: GABLE/HIP Neighborhood: NORTH "WEST END" ASPEN Super Nbhd: CITY OF ASPEN Top of Page  Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 ­ 2014 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. P190 IV.d P191IV.d Customer Distribution Our Order Number: QPR62006417 Date: 01-14-2015 Property Address: 211 E. HALLAM STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Title Assistance KIM SHULTZ 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 970-927-0405 (phone) 970-925-6243 (fax) kshultz@ltgc.com Other HOWIE MALLORY Attention: HOWIE MALLORY 970-925-3850 (work) ihmallory@gmail.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Lender HOWIE MALLORY ihmallory@gmail.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail P192 IV.d Land Title Guarantee Company Property Report Order Number: 62006417 This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report. Prepared For: HOWIE MALLORY This Report is dated: 01-06-2015 at 05:00PM Address: 211 E. HALLAM STREET, ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description: LOT 1 , 223 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 IN BOOK 104 AT PAGE 38. Record Owner: ELM 223 LLC We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: 1. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 613990. 2. DEED OF TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 04, 2009 FROM GINA BERKO, DAVID M. FLEISHER AND ELM 223, LLC TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ALPINE BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $491,000.00, AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE TERMS THEREOF, RECORDED FEBRUARY 06, 2009, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 556295. MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED APRIL 02, 2014 AT RECEPTION NO. 609096. 3. DEED OF TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2012, FROM GINA BERKO, DAVID M. FLEISHER AND ELM 223, LLC TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF ALPINE BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $100,000.00 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 2012, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 592207. MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED APRIL 02, 2014 AT RECEPTION NO. 609094. MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 2014 AT RECEPTION NO. 614846. MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 2014 AT RECEPTION NO. 615958. ***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION ********************** P193 IV.d Land Title Guarantee Company Property Report Order Number: 62006417 PARCEL NO.: 273707316007 2015 LAND ASSESSED VALUE $205,370.00 2015 IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE $1,590.00 2014 REAL PROPERTY TAXES UNPAID IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,941.84. **************************************************************** P194 IV.d P195 IV.d RECEPTION#: 598069, 03/28/2013 at 09:18:04 AM, 1 OF 4, R $26.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE BERKO LOT SPLIT FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 223 E.HALLAM STREET, CITY OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-16-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Berko Family, c/o Nora Berko, requesting Lot Split review for the property commonly known as 223 E. Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS,the subject property is zoned R-6 (Medium-Density Residential); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a Lot Split review by the City Council and approval to divide the current 12,000 sq. ft. lot, comprised of four original townsite lots, into two 6,000 sq. ft. lots; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the lot split proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on March 11,2013; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 11, 2013, the City Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the City of Aspen and adopted Ordinance No. _, Series of 2013, approving Lot Split, which would allow the division of the 12,000 sq. ft. lot into two 6,000 sq. ft. lots at 223 E. Hallam Street; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the lot split proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the Lot Split request to divide the 12,000 sq. ft. property known as 223 E. Hallam Street into two 6,000 sq. ft. lots, as proposed. 1 P196 IV.d Section 2: Plat The Applicant shall record a lot split plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480,Subdivision,within 180 days of approval. Section 3: Subdivision No further subdivision may be granted for the newly created lots. No additional units will be constructed without the required land use approvals and growth management allocations. Section 4: Maximum Density A lot split approval allows for a maximum of three residential units of density to be shared between the two subject lots. Lot 1 may contain one residence. Lot 2 may contain two residences. No further units of density may be added to these lots. The current allocated density of the three units may be amended between the two lots through administrative,approval. Section 5: Parks The Parks Department will require separate landscape and tree protection reviews for each new lot upon the request for building permit. Staff will determine if an approved tree permit will be required prior to demolition or significant property changes. Tree removal mitigation will be handled through cash-in-lieu payment or by on-site plantings, such as street trees. Planting in the public right-of-way will be subject to landscaping in the right-of-way requirements. Improvements to the right-of-way should include new grass and irrigation. The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to design an appropriate trench box for any new tree plantings. Plans for tree plantings shall be completed and conceptually approved prior to building permit submittal. Section 6: Water[Utilities Upon future development of either lot, utility design shall be incorporated into plans that will address individual services and meters for each lot. Electric utility impacts should be similarly addressed by any future developer including, but not limited to, transformer capacity analysis and transformer locations. New transformers must be maintained on-site,but outside of the public right- of-way. Section 7: Vested Property Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3)years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: 2 P197 IV.d Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Berko Subdivision, Lots N and O, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No._, Series of 2013, of the Aspen City Council. Section 8• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 9• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 10: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 11 th day of March, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 11: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25th day of February, 2013. Attest: Kathryn S. Kj4ch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor U 3 P198 IV.d FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this 11'day of March, 2013. Attest: Kathryn S. ",City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor Approved as to form: Z James R. True, City Attorney 4 P199 IV.d P200 IV.d P201 IV.d P202 IV.d P203 IV.d P204 IV.d P205 IV.d P206 IV.d 232 BLEEKER LLC 2385 NW EXECUTIVE CENTER DR #370 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 AMATO JOSEPH A PO BOX 503 HIGHLAND MILLS, NY 10930 ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 200 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BERKO GINA 292 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHALAL JOSEPH B 1005 BROOKS LN DELRAY BEACH, FL 334836507 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC 6544 WENONGA CIR MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 DOMINGUE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 2293 WINTER PARK, FL 32790 FLEISHER DAVID M 292 GLEN EAGLES DR ASPEN, CO 81611 GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST 325 S FOREST DENVER, CO 80246 GSW FAMILY INV LP 1320 HUNSICKER RD LANCASTER, PA 17601 HAYES MARY E & JAMES L FAM LP LLLP 209 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HODES ALAN & DEBORAH 114 N ASPEN ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 HODGSON PHILIP R 50% 212 N MONARCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HOGUET CONSTANCE M 333 E 68TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10065 JEROME PROPERTY LLC 540 W MADISON ST CHICAGO, IL 60661 JOHNSON RICHARD & MONTAE IMBT 6820 BRADBURY DALLAS, TX 75230 KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST PO BOX 9994 ASPEN, CO 81612 LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP 801 BASELINE RD BOULDER, CO 80302 MADDEN WALTER ROSS 42.5% 218 N MONARCH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MONARCH HOLDINGS LLC 458 WALLS WY OSPREY, FL 34229 MONARCH HOUSE LLC 701 BRICKELL AVE #860 MIAMI, FL 33131 MOUNTAIN STATE PROPERTIES LLC 715 10TH ST SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34102 MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 57.5% PO BOX 12365 ASPEN, CO 81612 PENN PAUL E & SUSAN W 3830 E 79TH ST INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-3457 PUPPY SMITH LLC 602 E COOPER #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 RANDALL MIDDLETON/HALLAM LP FIVE POST OAK PARK #2580 4400 POST OAK PKWY HOUSTON, TX 77027 RODNEY JOHN W 8536 N GOLF DR PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SEGUIN WILLIAM L & MARILYN A PO BOX 4274 ASPEN, CO 816124274 SEMRAU FAMILY LLC 300 S SPRING ST #203 ASPEN, CO 816112806 P207 IV.d US POSTAL SERVICE WESTERN REGION SAN BRUNO, CA 94099 WATERS DANIEL E 8 COPPER BEECH RD GREENWICH, CT 068304034 WHITMAN RANDALL A 4845 HAMMOCK LAKE DR CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 P208 IV.d Roa r i n g F o r k R i v e r W MAIN ST N M O N A R C H S T E FRANCIS ST N A S P E N S T PUPPY S M I T H S T LIBRARY ALLEY RIO G R A N D E P L N G A R M I S C H S T E HALLAM ST E MAIN ST ALLEY E BLEEKER ST N M I L L S T JOHNSON RICHARD & MONTAE IMBT MOUNTAIN STATE PROPERTIES LLC MOUNTAIN STATE PROPERTIES LLC KELLY JONATHAN P & KARLA M TRUST LIGHT HOLDINGS LLLP RODNEY JOHN W PENN PAUL E &SUSAN W ASPEN COMMUNITY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH HODGSON PHILIP R 50% HODGSON PATRICIA H FAMILY TRUST 50% WHITMAN RANDALL A WHITMAN RANDALL A 232 BLEEKER LLC HODES ALAN & DEBORAH HAYES MARY E & JAMES L FAM LP LLLP JEROME PROPERTY LLC GETTMAN ROSA H TRUST KRIBS KAREN REV LIV TRUST CJB REALTY INVESTORS LLC MONARCH HOUSE LLC SEMRAU FAMILY LLC PUPPY SMITH LLC MYRIN CUTHBERT L JR 57.5% MADDEN WALTER ROSS 42.5% GSW FAMILY INV LP DOMINGUE FAMILY TRUST HOGUET CONSTANCE M 114 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASSOC HOGUET CONDO ASSOC MONARCH HOLDINGS LLC LE VOTAUX II CONDO ASSOC RANDALL MIDDLETON/HALLAM LP WATERS DANIEL E WATERS DANIEL E CITY OF ASPEN AMATO JOSEPH A US POSTAL SERVICE CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN BERKO GINA FLEISHER DAVID M /0 13065 Feet 1/21/2015 11:06:13 AM C:\GIS\temp\Jan15\211EHallamSt.mxd This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2015 Aspen/Pitkin GIS 211 E Hallam St P 2 0 9 I V . d P210 IV.d P211 IV.d P212 IV.d P213 IV.d P 2 1 4 I V . d P 2 1 5 I V . d 1 MEMORANDUM To: Amy Simon, Senior Planner From: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance Manager Date: May 4, 2015 Subject: Referral Comments, 211 East Hallam Utility Connection Permit Fee (Water Tap Fee) Waivers Background: The request is to waive water tap fees for 211 East Hallam, a property that is eligible for historic designation under the Aspen Modern program. The potential fee waiver in this individual circumstance are estimated in the approximate amount of $30,000. Of the $ 30,000 amount: • $ 5,795 is the existing structure base- approximately $5,795 (the amount associated with 1.0 ECU on file with the existing water account at this address) would account for tap fees associated with the existing structure as part of a “substantial remodel • $ 24, 205 is the new structure addition - the remaining tap fee waiver request is for the new structure and would equate to approximately 4.1 ECUs or $24,205. Existing Fee Waiver Requirements: The Municipal Code currently provides for tap fee waivers for 100% affordable housing projects as well as a sliding scale for projects that have a mix of affordable and free market homes. An assessment of the cumulative dollar amount of those fee waivers on a cumulative basis was part of City council’s direction at the time that the ordinance revisions were put in place. However, no such assessment has been prepared for the historic property designation incentive package. Purpose and Use of Tap Fees: Utility Connection Fees are collected to recover the majority of capital costs associated with the water system. When tap fees are paid, the property owner is acquiring an interest in the capital improvements necessary to provide a safe, reliable supply of water. Costs that go into the calculation of tap fees include water rights, the raw water collection system, the water treatment facility, the water distribution system including water storage tanks. To the extent that tap fees are not collected on a particular property, the associated costs to provide drinking water are not avoided but are then born by other water system users. Any significant loss in tap fee revenue places pressure on water rates and/or tap fees, an impact to all water system customers. Direct Impacts due to Fee Waiver Request: The direct impact to the water fund is the loss of revenue identified in the background section of this memo. P216 IV.d 2 Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative impact due to provision of tap fee waivers associated with Aspen Modern historic designations is variable based on program participation. For example, if 20% of eligible properties (approximately 8 properties in total) request a tap fee waiver and are similar in water fixture count (i.e. Equivalent Capacity Count ECU), impact of these requests would be approximately $208,000. If the fee waiver were limited to the existing water service count (i.e. crediting ECUs already connected as part of a “substantial remodel”), the expected impact would be reduced to $70,000. For comparison, total annual capital expenses in the water asset plan average approximately $2.4 million annually. Recommended Action: With respect to 211 E. Hallam, Staff recommends limiting the water tap fee waiver to the level of the existing structure base of $ 5,795, which is the extent of the current number of water fixtures connected to the system in the eligible historic structure. This amount provides a benefit to the owner of the property, supports the Aspen Modern Program, and manages the impact to the other water system customers. P217 IV.d 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Simon, Community Development Department FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager DATE: April 15, 2015 RE: REDEVELOPMENT OF 211 EAST HALLAM ISSUE : The owner of 211 East Hallam is requesting a waiver of the employee housing mitigation fee for the preservation of the Berko Photography Studio. BACKGROUND : The applicant will be requesting a redevelopment of the property at 211 East Hallam under the AspenModern designation. The owner plans on expanding the building along with preserving the space that is known as the Berko Photography Studio. Under the AspenModern designation, an applicant can request a waiver of fees associated with that expansion. The owner is requesting a waiver of the employee housing mitigation fee which is currently $14,700 for what is being proposed. All landmarks typically receive waiver of this fee through the existing code provisions, but has to be approved by City Council. DISCUSSION : It is APCHA’s goal to have development mitigate for the employees generated by an expansion or new project. Any time that mitigation is waived, the public sector is the only means to make up the difference. RECOMMENDATION : The APCHA discussed the application at their regular meeting held April 15, 2015 and recommended that the employee mitigation generated by the expansion of the 211 East Hallam building be satisfied via fee-in-lieu in place at the time of building permit and that the request for a waiver be denied. P218 IV.d P 2 1 9 I V . d P 2 2 0 I V . d P 2 2 1 I V . d P 2 2 2 I V . d P 2 2 3 I V . d P 2 2 4 I V . d P 2 2 5 I V . d P 2 2 6 I V . d P 2 2 7 I V . d P 2 2 8 I V . d P 2 2 9 I V . d P 2 3 0 I V . d P 2 3 1 I V . d P 2 3 2 I V . d P 2 3 3 I V . d P 2 3 4 I V . d P 2 3 5 I V . d P 2 3 6 I V . d P 2 3 7 I V . d P 2 3 8 I V . d P 2 3 9 I V . d P 2 4 0 I V . d P 2 4 1 I V . d P 2 4 2 I V . d P 2 4 3 I V . d P 2 4 4 I V . d P 2 4 5 I V . d P 2 4 6 I V . d P 2 4 7 I V . d P 2 4 8 I V . d P 2 4 9 I V . d P 2 5 0 I V . d P 2 5 1 I V . d P 2 5 2 I V . d P 2 5 3 I V . d P 2 5 4 I V . d P 2 5 5 I V . d P 2 5 6 I V . d P 2 5 7 I V . d P 2 5 8 I V . d P 2 5 9 I V . d P 2 6 0 I V . d P 2 6 1 I V . d P 2 6 2 I V . d P 2 6 3 I V . d Sara Adams From: Lynn Gurrentz <Iynngurrentz@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 2:11 PM To: Sara Adams Lynn Gurrentz Subject:' Base Lodges Dear Ms Adams, 1 am writing to you today to express our support for the new development of the Base Lodges across from Carl's. We have been coming to Aspen for 50 years and we are now part-time residents and homeowners. We were lucky to have parents that came here first and paid our way, otherwise we would never had be able to afford to come here on our own. Not everyone is this fortunate and we believe it is important for our beloved Aspen to have more of a mix of opportunities for families and young people who cannot afford the cost of most of the lodging currently available in Aspen for those on a small budget. The proposed development would help this imbalance and encourage new visitors. The parking problem is valid but totally addressable. Valet parking is a great option. First of all, patrons would rarely need their car as the entire town is walkable and there isn't much street parking anyway. And if they wanted to explore the other ski areas, we have a fabulous bus system in place for easy use. We believe this development is exactly the right kind of new addition Aspen needs to make it better, more diverse and family friendly. Thank you, Patrick & Lynn Gurrentz lynngurrentz(a�,gmai l.com 0770 Willoughby Way Aspen, CO i Sara Adams From: Erin Lentz <elentz@curated-mag.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 201513:26 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Base 2 Dear Sara, As expressed last week in Tuesday's council meeting, I'm a strong supporter of the Base 2 affordable lodging project. As an 18-year local, I've been fortunate enough to write about, speak about, and promote Aspen and how unique and diverse our community is. My concern is that we are losing affordable lodging options, and in turn, we risk losing that youthful energy.and ambition that is so vibrant to our community. When people ask me what makes Aspen so special, I like to explain that it's very rare to find a place where a Texas oil tycoon, a ski bunny, a young lift op, and a 30-something business entrepreneur.not only rub elbows, but find common ground in the appreciation of our town and it's natural backyard. But if eventually it's simply the oil tycoons (and bless them as they line all of our pockets!) town won't be nearly as colorful, and I imagine they would also say the same. Thank you for your consideration., Erin Lentz Erin Lentz Editor in Chief I CURATED Magazine by Exclusive Resorts Founder I TAG Media elentzncurated-mag cons 1970-309-3798 300 E. Hyman Ave. Suite 200 Aspen, CO 81611 1 Ryan Chadwick 426 E. Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 June 1, 2015 City Council of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 City of Aspen, l As a young entrepreneur of many local businesses, I fully understand all the benefits the Base2 will offer to the Aspen Community.The need for more affordable lodging in Aspen is at an all time high and Base2 would offer a fun, affordable.bed for tourists, while creating more revenue for the town in several different ways. I am confident that Base2 will be nothing but a success based on what the team has done-already. Tourists are struggling,to continue to visit Aspen as lodging prices keep growing and Base2 is a great solution. Thank you, Ryan Chadwick Founder, Grey Lady& Escobar Sara Adams From: Karrie Sims <karriesims@me.com> Sent: Monday,June 01, 2015 3:22 PM To: Sara Adams Subject: Base 2 I would just like to say that I'm in favor for the Hunt's project for affordable accommodations in Aspen. I think Aspen need more of these type places to bring in more tourism. I'm a small business owner in Aspen and have lived here for over 16 years and call it home.forever. Best - Karrie Sims Owner/Creative Director 970.309.1231 karriesims(@,me.com kl . 1 c� a> kZ r �4r �^rc •ao 5 I b 0. �O ADJACENT BUILDING ,a pm C)A = LODGE 00 ,a ( C a 1 F. D �.C C a'�O may. V [T1 � W z <a 0D m r r —{ > Ill O z Z 0 O m -< od _ C7 Z 3`- em Rl ` r, Z ALLEY SET13ACK oa till m ^ �- s I`7 '� � a• - w fu 11.50.10-F t00.0 � e o 0 30'•4' I NEW LANDSCAPE AR NEW LANDSCAPE AR SV 0• STREET LODGE PICK-UP LODGE PICK-UP LAIJDSCARNOSITE IRIANGLE PARKING C DROP-OFF DROP-OFF 241.01. —0 241.01. 24'-91 I NORTH MONARCH STREET 17/.07' R.O.},1 PAVED 130 MIN. zm PUBLIC PARKING pm I a �m y Mm A W yn co go = OO� G7 � z ;0 -� i D I0 S wz C r.a D � O G7 ;u DRAWING nTLE;SITE PLAN NO, _DATE BY _ DESCRIPTION —� SCALE: CAMBURAS JATHEODORE,LTD. Ram IONS ♦lawpt llua lltellrwul•Nhlalw ln•rallrnra.11mw II PROIeCT YO,; _ LOCATgN NO.: O ....�_—_...,.DRANTI SY: _.. � •rt.n.nn••ea tell Wrl lM�n1%1 _.... DATE: IAmIS 232 EAST MAIN ST- © RiNBAO ASPEN,CO TT —--- — I' , cu tD+s 111 Snw15 L.•tl1. Iiif1E11M1iL1ii.I IlNf I��•NiillUlt rnL{if 1i+I.L IIUUU�.1N1:;1LUv.rvr llr r .H...rnCl,l/r 61111:.LN lWt bE W,KCMCY.,,E114N p1j[143EDnirIIDUI IHI Hr rFU I-_ ".I Il:ni.Lll 111!.fir rLill t•(It: r.IttL'.'.1-Ili 5w-T .—� .—.• noortnr-. LJ -- .9YD - I :T;- I' i UTANSTER i' DUNPS,ER L__-__: E b � I BACK OF HOUSE TRASH AND 1\ UTILITY AREA , L170 ff .110. . --- --- --.. i `-• HOTEL GIFTSHOP ` 701 WOMEN'S ❑ 1 f' LOCKER_- .-_.__._._-._____ __.,..-_..._..._.. ' L1 4A �I •'•S• ^� ElCOAREDOR STAIR 9Rt I I LIBRARY b I� { (1� 6••�w• ..i• 1,01 111 'a- 1D3 STORAGE ' 11Ds 11 all � X _ ELEV.iH - ELEV.SI - L171 LOBBY m= -� O--- LOUNGE I HAMAM O j f I L,00 o 1505 0 V ELEV.#2 J i ELEV.it2STAIR 02 a Zi --I"--••-• �— RECEPTION t.-,.� ,\ W ,�+---' � 107 -. p l Y HOTEL CAFE STAIR 32 - - 1 \ El I � MEN'S LOCKER L106 s••4w• BAR \! i L102 Q N h o Lu Z g 0000000000 mN . N ¢J MECHANICAL i) c I1 i L107^i r. a � Z IL J`'7r114�t '~fir%f 1t\�� r{r}i11��� `rftt{1��' "'nI iP• •%JtI tt�`• I � ! I 8� ,,, f 2P•4f? �0•-4f? I - I rc ;q i I I I T U i F I t Im � E }LOWER LEVEL A>, FLOOR c �g x 8!•'16 =1'-0" t.�[�J Sf'16"=1••D,• I]!"� s `1 A-111 t-s 12• 17-olsnr a-ata' rate' t-sitar x.612' 7G'-O tY16' r-312' r.s Ur a-31I Room 20 Room 21 Room 22 Room 23 Room 24 320321 3Y1 i 323 ; 324 fRoom 1 Room 2 Room 3 1 Room 4 Room 5 I "" 7ti __202.... 1=_J ( y i b \ 1 17.21119• I 1, J , Ir-3 in$, Room 25 325 STAIR 81 �Room 6 1; i I Room 19 Room 18 Room 37 Room 36 STAIR 91 a 219 F216 1 j 337 0 6 lI 341 � I Room 26 _(E�L•�E22V4.tiJ2 1It RR1_o8o'Jo8onmmO5E97 207 1a-ssr ELEV.$n CORRIDOR 27Room CORRIDOR Room 8 327 ®-2W ELEV.iR r-3— J t+-r Room 28 r.a Room 34 Room 17 -34 STAIR l Roam 16 STAIR 1?Rom 35 - 217 iiItl� �I! E_"9 _F -- _=- 335 216 r•e• f7.3rnr a _ Roam 29 +'.sm9• 329 -1 Room 10 0 a I _ 210 r i I I I I _ Room 33 - i III b , .333 /r-3fnr - f k _ 9'.912• 1 1 z \ t J N m TERRACE Room 15 Room 14 Room 13 Room 12 Room 11 �lll(t ® 215 t Room 32 Room 31 Room 214 213 212 211 Q jr 30 H W io ..1111/ . 332 i L 331_i I. 330 1� m L _ 5P•G' 9a.r � - - IJ [D 310 FLOOR 2ND FLOOR -'3116"=1'-0' 1 3116'-1-0" (Nv, A-112 - i i of r I I b I I I I � �A> I I I Dn R I n e-e 16•-a ide• IV-11 TA• 1e'-01115• m in to 9 II I p ) o I� m ti I m I li I II i 1' I j ' --- -- --- __ -- ---- I , —_ __-_ -- 111-5 fir I � J it i I DRAWINGTITLE,ROOF PLAN CAMBUAAS b THEODORE,LTO, SCALE _ -- uwan.w pf wnntiauw.wxaunuu.rs. t - PROJFCTe10.: LOCATION NO.. j DRAWNBY: %a>rl fl4afRRSl,fISMJFVTA II Gq)e RA 6XTE _ _ ��;INat He.lf]f ..x lM lypelN 4,21.,E BASE 2 W REVIEWED: TT 232 E.NINN ST. roam ALLULf�Wglu MUWNiREN MATENNL111NEINGi:hSi'NUIEiHEOPaL'ULwI1D UIINUNLfinEDWUNA OF iNE N)CHDEL'I,Atl Di11E5AHE HAYIIOi EE 01J[LY%.aEU.u:EU Uw iri.ClU9ED Wi1M'1UI I�IEpN11/CN LO11s ENT fif flY:nFl Mttl.I L:)F.NIf/Il GInNUtNSLfHL'DWNE,Li4 FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: MAIN LEVEL:5,816.59 SF HOTEL ACCESSORY AREAL 3,390.16 SF sys _ NON-UNIT COMMON AREAL 930.68 SF(TRASH&ELEV.) NON-UNIT LODGE AREA:1,295,75 SF(LOBBY) -_ I v.v 2tr•1 tn• 2s.4 t¢' DEDUCTIONS 0 SF -AREA TOWARDS FAR:5,616.59 SF b T- 2ND LEVEL 5,268.27 SF I I LODGING AREAL 4,160.315E . TRASH AND NON•UNIT COMMON AREA:502.13 SF(STAIRSIELEVATOR)-- _ UTILITY AREA _ - NON-UNIT LODGE AREk605.83SF(CORRIDOR) NON-UNIT COMMON I b -- DEDUCTIONS 0 SF AREA 3;274.46 SF 110 BACK OF HOUSE (EXEMPT SUBGRADq I I AREA TOWARDS FAR:5, 8.27 SF COMMON AREA HOTEL'GIFTSHOP 1 3RD LEVEL* 25i 5 .72SF 2411.90 Sr tOt. I LODGING AREA:3,797.97 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:778.89 SF(STAIRS/ELEVATOR,TERRACE) = I NON-UNIT LODGE AREA:888.80 SF(CORRIDOR) DEDUCTXXV5:276.78 SF(TERRACE)WOMEN'S 4•.6• - I N AREA TOWARDS FAR 4,986.96 SF LOCKER I t ROOF LEVEL•4.003SF - I - NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:4,083 SF 1 NON-UNIT LODGE AREA,0 SF :'+ I DEDUCTIONS 4,063 SF PECK STAIRSIELEVA 1 n AREA TOWARDS FAR:0SF LIBRARY STAIR 91 1 LOWER LEVEL:5.975 SF s•ss a• L107 I Y03_ I NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:3,274.46 SF STORAGE NON-UNIT LODGE AREA::.2,700.54 SF i ..Lt I 4'-s- 108 . DEDUCTIONS:5,9755F BGRADEEXEM .......' . I I AREA TOWARDS FAR.0 SF - ' NON-UNIT..--I - �.. `-- - I �AMRMEA�- ..... I 1 TOTAL FAR:15,871,82 SF(Z 66:1 FAR) x-----• I 683.78 SF- I ZONING INFORMATION S CALCULATIONS: 9 `� 1 ZONING.IMU)MIXED USE M STAIR tq f I NET LOT AREAL 5,978 SF(59.67AO0') d p- 0 f I ZONING ALLOWANCE(21):11,952 SF(2x5,976 SF) d= z a L1f}6 LOWER LEVEL:0%EXPOSED WALLS(100%EXEMPT) 03 5 s 0 I � CALCULATIONS: c r W W= „ I GROSS FLOOR AREA: x`- \ \ ELEV.#1 I ELS' I W COMMERCIAL SPACE:3,390,16 SF i L111 1113$ - 2r-n eery (�' LODGING SPACE:13,247.28 SF t e Z I I LOBBY (I NON-UNIT SPACE:5,209.40 SF _ a` 6 b HAMAM LOUNGE 100 - b GROSS NON-UNIT AREA GROSS LODGE AREA- L, REA: $ L105 J L100 I = $ IST:930.68 SF(PURPLE) IST. 1, M75 SF F(BLUE) E&RED)BLU V 2ND:50213 SF(PURPLE) 3RD:4,464.63 SF(BLUE&RED I 3RD:502.13 SF(PURPLE) 4TH-O NOiV•UNIT COMMON NON UNIT COMMON ELEV.#2 NON-UNIT COMMON ) AREA 440.00 SF / AREA 2,260-54 SF I 108 AREA LODGE •� Q .3. SF 4TH;02 4.48 SF fPURPIEI LL: 2:700.54 SF(BLUE) c `(EXEMPTSUBGRADE)-" ELEV.#2 (EXEMPT SUBGRADE) I 6 1,295.75 SF - ��` L712 TOTAL'6,209.40 SF TOTAL'13,247.28 SF TOTAL GROSS UNIT FLOOR AREA(MINUS HON-UNIT): _ t { LODGE FLOOR AREA+COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA= V 4a3w ST13,247.26 13,247.26 SF+3,390.18 SF=18,63b425F L1O9 ! ( I TOTAL NON-LINK FLOOR AREA(MINUS BASEMENT)' d ISi FLOOR+2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR= Wim. --- - _� /\ I --- 930.68 SF+502.13 SF+602.13 SF=1.934.94 SF 3 PERCENTAGE OF USE CATEGORY PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA SI LODGE((13,24726116,637.42)x1IX1j=79.8296 _____ COMMERCIAL S[(3,390.t6116,637.42):t100]=20.3883 TOTALCOMMERCIAL �3 3 y LIP ^......� I AREA 3,390.16 SF w 4.•e. - RECEPTION I APPLICATION OF USE PERCENTAGES TO NOWUNIT FLOOR AREA: m + ....., - D:0:7:71 i LODGE:1,934.94 x 79,6296=1,340,60 SF = COMMERCIAL:1,934.94 x 20.38%=394.34 SF I -STAIR 02 1 FINAL FLOOR AREA: W TOTAL FAR FOR LODGE.E(13,247.26.2,700.54)+1,540.60)=12,087.32 SF(202:1) TOTAL FAR FOR COMMERCIAL 3,390.16+394.34=3,704.60 SF(0.83:1) f t; I CUMULATIVE:15,971.82 SF 2.66:1) 1 MEN'$LOCKER ti b ! HOTEL CAFE .r - 1106 � BAR2 I b ( � L102 NLu w 3 Z 000)0000 0 00 m � MECHANICAL L107 MI •� ,1 C `.� .moi`',�J �� , ���',q}, `` _ _--�_ � ��� _ = C � /7111\i` !•/!IA\ '•!I!Il\\ •ll!(9\\ 1jI!19\�' '�$!It\� _ —__ � V I 20r-411Y3C-412• U MAIN STREET s-x � 6 k r Fz fa !r c C N I¢ p } LOWER LEVEL-FAR CALCULATIONS ( s MAIN FLOOR-FAR CALCULATIONS FllR- 3J16"=1'-O' - r.' FLOOR AREA SUMMARY: MAINLEVEL:5.616.59 SF HOTEL ACCESSORY AREA 3,390.16 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA,930.68 SF(TRASH&ELNj­ NON-UNIT LODGE AREA:1,295.75 SF(LOBBY) ­ DE5`IJC—rN:0§­-0 SF '_ g-617 • AREA TOWARDS FAR,5.616 59 SP .... ...... .......... 2ND LEVEL:5,2685f—SF LODGING AREA:4,16D.31 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREALJ9211,§ELSIAIR§/�Lq�AMJR . _ ­_ 'WO'N.-ORIT—LO—OGE—A-R-,E,-A"-605.83 SF(CORR22RL­_ DEDUCTIONS 0 SF - I I AREA TOWARDS FAR:5,268.27 SF Room 20 Room 21 Room 22 Room 23 Room 24 Room I Room 2 Room 3 ti Room 4 Room 5 3RD LEVEL:5,263.72 SIP -- 202-] 1 204 LODGING AREA:3,797,97 SF 203 r 32-2 323 201 F F �s NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:778.89 SF(STAIRSIELEVATOR,TERRACE) NON-UNIT LODGE AREA:686.86 SF(CORRIDOR) tl DEDUCTIONS:27676 SF(TERRACE) AREA TOWARDS FAR:4.986-96 SF ROOF LEVEL:4.053 SIF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:4,083 SF NON-UNIT LODGE AREA,0 SF NON-UNIT COMMON NON-UNIT COMMON DEDUCTIONS.4, SF(DECK.STAIRNARWAiBRT AREA LODGE 686.86 SF AREA LODGE 6115 83 SF AREA TOWARDS FAR:0 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:3,274.46 SF NON-UNrr LODGE AREA:2700.54 SF Room 25 DEDUCTIONS:5,975 SF SUBGRADE EXEMPT) Room 6 AREA TOWARDS FAR:0 SF EIKI r-- 1 STAIR 41 LODGING AREA Room 19 Room 18 STAIR#1 TOTAL FAR.15,871.82 SF(2.66:1 FAR) LODGING AREA Room 37 Room 36 3,797,79 SF 219 E�D 4,16011 SF =41 ZONING INFORMATION&CALCULATIONS, DW-1 NON-UNIT NON-UNIT ZONING:(MU)MIXED USE COMMON AREA I COMMON AREA NET LOT AREA:6,976 SF(59.67x100 502.13 SF 7 iQ 602.13 SF ZONING ALLOWANCE(2:1):11,952 SF(2x5,976 SF) k Room 26 Room 7 1 ,, LOWER LEVEL 096 EXPOSED WALLS(100%EXEMPT) F207 10 Of CALCULATIONS' t GROSS FLOOR AREA: COMMERCIAL SPACE:3.390.16 SF m LODGING SPACE:13.247.26 SF c- EnLFNv4I NoN-umrr SPACE:5.209.40 SF ROOF AREA ii GROSS LODGE AREA GROSS NON-UNIT AREA' I ST.9M.68 SF(PURPLE) 1 ST.1,295-75 SF(BLUE) z 7. ROOF AREA CORRIDOR Room 27 c (EXEMPT) Room 11 rr BELOW t, 2ND.502.13 SF(PURPLE) 2ND 4 766.14 SF CORRIDOR (BLUE&RED) (EXEMPT) 340 208 3RD.502-13 SF(PURPLE) 3RD:4,484 83 SF BLUE&RED) 4TH.0 SF 4TR 0 SF .c LL: 3,274.46 SF IPURPLE) LL: 2,700.54SFIBLLIQ ELEV`..W TOTAL:13,247.26 SF TOTAL:6.2D9.40 SF ELEV.82 F-3417 TOTAL GROSS UNIT FLOOR AREA IMINUS NON-UNnT LODGE FLOOR AREA-COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA A i 13,247.26 SF+3,390.16 SF=16,637,42 SF Room 2e A......4- [--i28 Room 9 TOTAL NON.UNfT FLOOR AREA(MINUS BASEMENTI� 3 .209 1 ST FLOOR*2ND FLOOR-0 3RD FLOOR Room 34 Room 35 b 9W,68 SF+502,13 SF+SM.13 SF=1,934.94 SF STAIR#2 Room 17 FU2 I PERCENTAGE OF USE CATEGORY PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA 1 217 LODGE-[(13.247-26116,637.42)xIODI=79.62% Room 16 STAIR 02 N COMMERCIAL: 21-6 ((3.390.l6fl6,637.42)xl00j=20.38% F 4'-6• 1g-3111W w L APPLICATION OF USE PERCENTAGES TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA LODGE:1,934.94 x 79.62%=1,540.60 SP Room 29 IN Room 10 COMMERCIAL 1,934.94 x 20.38%=394,04SF 5 329 FINAL FLOOR AREA: TOTAL FAR FOR LODGE:((13,247.26-2,700-64)+1,540.601=12,087.32 SF(2021) Room 33tg- TOTAL FAR FOR COMMERCIAL:3,390,16+394.34=3,784.60 SF(0.63:1) CUMULATIVE:15,011.82 SF(2.66:1) ro 333 '=A3 NON-UNIT Room 1.5 Room 114 Room 113 Roomif2 Room 11 04 in COMMON AREA 214 ( 213 - 212 211 --1it I LLI z EXEMPT TERRACE F Room 3� Room 31. Room 30 LU E2 0 _ 1 Ki` z Ay vi I I V, 93 IN -c 1p—, J c3 t tr-at V-3fir 2ir-OW V-39n6• SAW t! LL sw-w l ;o z wig .2�13RD FLOOR-FAR CALCULATIONS 2ND FLOOR FAR CALCULATIONS "6 FAR-2 FLOOR AREA SUMMARY. MAIN LEVEL:5,616.59 SF HOTEL ACCESSORY AREA 3,390.16 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA 930.66 SF(TRASH a ELEV.) ———— — NON-UNIT LODGE AREA:1,295.75 SF(LOBBY) DEDUCTIONS 0 S ( AREA TOWARDS FAR 5,616.59 SF 2ND LEVEL:5,288.27 SF LODGING AREA:4,160.31 SF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:502.13 SF(STAIRS/ELEVATOR ' NOWUNIT LODGE AREA 605.83 SF(CORRIDOR) I DEDUCTIONS D SF AREA TOWARDS FAR:5,266.27 SF 3RD LEVEL 5.283.72 SF LOGGING AREA:3,797.97 SF 1 ROOF NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:778.89 SF(STAIRS/ELEVATOR,TERRACE) I 177 8 R NOWUNIT LODGE AREA 686.86 SF(CORRIDOR) DEDUCTIONS:276.78 SF(TERRACE) AREA TOWARDS FAR 4.986.96 SF ROOF LEVEL--4,063SF NOWUNIT COMMON AREA:4,063 SF - 1 NON-UNIT LODGE AREA:0 SF DEDUCTIONS 4,063 SF PECK STAIRSIELEVATO AREA TOWARDS FAR 0 SFSTAIR 01 01 LOWER LEVEL 5.975SF 401 I ' I NON-UNIT COMMON AREA:3,274.46 SF _ I NOWUNIT LODGE AREA:2,700.54 SF DEDUCTIONS:5.975 SF(SUBGRADE EXEMPT) NON-UNIT AREA TOWARDS FAR:0 SF COMMON AREA I 502.13 SF TOTAL FAR:15,871.82 SF 2.66:1 FAR) ( I ZONING INFORMATION 4 CALCULATIONS: I I ZONING:(MU)MIXED USE - - - ROOF T�E i NET LOT AREA:5,976 SF(59.67x1007 ZONING ALLOWANCE(2 x5 Y):11,952 SF(2 ,976 SF) ELEV..91 LOWER LEVEL-0%EXPOSED WALLS(10D%EXEMPT) ( 403 I I CALCULATIONS: o z S 3 O_ ( I GROSS FLOOR AREA: H S c -� MECHANICAL ROOFTOOP I COMMERCIAL SPACE 0,390.16 SF ry s f( I AREA TERRACE I LODGING SPACE:13,247.20 SF NON-UNIT SPACE'.6,209.40 SF ? e Y ELEV.02 NON-UNIT I f o { 17547 COMMON AREA I GROSS NON-UNIT AREA GROSS LODGE AREA: 1 % EXEMPT I 1ST:930.68 SF(PURPLE) 1ST:1,295.75 SF(BLUE) 2,383.87 SF 2ND:502.13 SF(PURPLE) 2ND:4,766.14 SF(BLUE&RED) i I 3RD:502.13 SF(PURPLE) :.43RD4,,484 .03 SF(BLUE&RED) 4TH:D SF I LL: 3.274.46SF(PURPLE) TOTAL 19,247.28 SF TOTAL:5,208.40 SF LL• 2700.54.2(BLUE) — I TOTAL GROSS UNIT FLOOR AREA(MINUS NON.UNIT): ( LODGE FLOOR AREA+COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA= 1 STAIR!)2 RAILING SYSTEMA TYP. 13,247.26 SF+3,390.16 SF=18,637.42 SF�`� IPB F-4-02--1 TOTAL NOWUNIT FLOOR AREA IST FLOOR+2ND FLOOR+3 OF(MINUS - I I 930.68 SF+502.13 SF+502.13 SF=1,934.94 SF 1 PERCENTAGE OF USE CATEGORY PER BUILDING FLOOR AREA: o LODGE((13.247.26116,637.42)x1OO)=78.62% COMMERCIAL((3,390.18/16,637.421000)=20.39% APPLICATION OF USE PERCENTAGES TO NON-UNIT FLOOR AREA- ;f LODGE 1,934.94 x 79.62%=1.640.60 SF COMMERCIAL 1,934.94 x 20.38%=39434 SF w I I FINAL FLOOR ARFJI• TOTAL FAR FOR LODGE[(13,24726.2,700.54)+1,540.60)=12.087.32 SF(202:1) I TOTAL FAR FOR COMMERCIAL 3,390.16+394.34=3,784.60 SF(O.S3:1) o i CUMULATIVE:15,871.82 SF(2881) g I � t o S ( g 04 N 9 o W z ( as a mw N O r I J fD Z V ROOF PLAN-FAR_CALCULATIONS FAR-3 LOWER LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name Number_T------Area ss•e LOUNGE L100 1561 SF COMMON SPACE — •� .,-. r•e' 2a-7 Or 2o'-<trz• LIRARY L101 1524 SF COMMON SPACE L102 978 SF CO MON COMMON SPACE _._ SPACE - — I --. •--_.----- -\ -\ WOMENS L104 - 244 SF C _. TRASH AND CO • UUTILITYAREA HAMAM - --L105 i I3 9 SF COMMON SPACE- 110 MEN'S- -_ L105 244 SF COMMON SPACE - LOCKER ] MECHANICAL L107 1431 SF COMMON SPACE b - STAIR 01 L105 jlZ7SF COMMON SPACE —~ BACK OF HOUSE ' •.i - L110 I I STAIR 02 L109 1127 SF COMMON SPACE HOTELGIFTSHOP - BACK OF L,10 870 SF COMMON SPACE y HOUSE _ 91 L111 52 SF COMMON SPACE NET LEASABLE AREA ELEV.tY2 L112 52 COMMON SPACE ! WOMEN'S I ; 6• CORRIDOR TOTAL AREA:5 L116 so SF COMMON SPACE LOCKER_. -" NO NET LEASABLE OR NET LIVABLE ON THIS LEVEL 104 L104 MAIN LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE f x f tv A Name ( Number Area EGR4 141 _ CORRIDOR R LOBBY- '100• 794 SF COMMON SPACE 1 _,I LIBRARY b 883 SF NET LEASABLE HOTEL 107 L701 111 ! STAIR 111 i GIFTSHOP - _s'-33r<' ..--- t i STORAGE HOTEL CAFE ]102 _2390 SF NET LEASABLE —:_� <'-4•_ 108 I STAIR 01 Ito3 1275E C.OMMONSPACE ...... ^_— 1, j STAIR 02 1104 127 SF COMMON SPACE _ ] ---•--• ( ELEV.#1 ]105 152 SF COMMON SPACE ._ ---_•• ELEV.#2 HOB 152 SF COMMON SPACE ..,1'.' I � RECEPTION 1107 1200 SF COMMON SPACE _ _1 -•+u _ I tt ^� STORAGE j108 12M SF COMMON SPACE aU TRASH AND 110 249 SF COMMON SPACE UTILITY AREA( _ L108 I i ( i EGRESSf 111 144 SF COMMON SPACEy _ a ! f CORRIDOR ( ' TOTAL AREA:5231 SF W � r i TOTAL NET LEASABLE 3273 S.F. ELEV.#1 ELEV.Fzr•nan4 15 K LOUNGE LOBBY HAMAM b, ELEV.0 ELEV.#2 106 5?-33W � w 1 E- � ;- STAIR 1f2 - _ -- _-i" -"- RECEPTION t._,_.. tw STAI < s ,07 I _ � t SUMMARY: t 1 E — I t -------- TOTAL BUILDING AREA:23.637 SF - h MAIN LEVEL:5.231 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE:3,273 SF M W t ' TOTAL NET LIVABLE:0 SF — �-, TOTAL COMMON AREA:1.958 SF n MEN'S LOCKER i T-11 HOTEL CAFE PUBLIC AMENITY:0 SF 702 , ` 2ND 8 3RD LEVEL:2ND•4,67O SF,3RQ4,550 SF L,OB I __ TOTAL NET LEASABLE:2ND 3 3RQ0 SF 6 4•-43u• BAR NET LEASABLE AREA b_ i TOTAL NET LIVABLE:2ND3,707 SF,39U73_,_374_'9F L102 TOTAL COMMON AREA:2ND-964 SF.3RD-1,176 SF Q N m i to _ PUBLIC AMENITY-2ND S 3RD-0 SF o W Z . _ ROOF LEVEL 4,063 SF (n TOTAL NET LEASABLE:0 SF Q 0,000000000 - TOTAL NET LIVABLE:0 SF m N TOTAL COMMON AREA:359 SF c" ..-__.__.,........_____. - ,_S9 ___ ,_.__._._ MECHANICAL ....,•.-�_,,,_, ' I PUBLIC AMENITY:2,348 S _ _Y L107 - - i LOWER LEVEL:5,123 SF �^F, TOTAL NET LEASABLE:0 SIF w - -- ----- —.------- NI C 1�••� `J -C 'FYI .a-1 !x 1�-�� � IU] ' i TOTAL NET LIVABLE:0SF m o �` r y �� +' \L!'Y" �'Y• TOTAL COMMON AREA;5,123 SF PUBLIC AMENITY:0 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA:9.580 SF ;TOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY:2.348 SFt TOTAL NET LEASABLE 3.273 SF .TOTAL NET LIVABLE-7,081 SF 2s•�trr 301•41ir Z - ----- ------------MAIN STREET-- - _------- --- -- - --- ----- U = i 2}LOWER LEVEL-NET LEASABLE-0 -0• MAIN FLOOR.NET LEASABLE N L-1 -- 3116"=T ' 3/16'=1' • ------ SECOND LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE Name I Number I Area s'.st2• _ s•.avr s'.s,,z• •.sant •.eta• +r-otsnr r.slir r-st2• v-s onr CORRIDOR 1200 604ASSF COIMAONSPACE-v � Room 1 1201 --- 163.41 SF NET LIVABLE --- Room 2 1202 240.07 SF NET UNABLE Roam 3 203 163.13 SF NET LIVABLE Room 4 204 163.38 SF NET LIVABLE Room 5 1205 1200 90 SF NET LIVABLE Room 6 208 193335E NET LIVABLE i Room 7 f207 166.08 SF NET LIVABLE t Room 8 1208 1188-08 SF NET LIVABLE Room 20 Room 21 Room 22 A Room 23 Room 24 R Roam 9 Roam (209 168.08 SF NET LIVABLE L20 r3� 322 I 323 324 �Raom t1 �R-oom�2 Room S� Room 4 Room 5� i L ROOF LEVEL ROOM SCHEDULE _ — — Name Number Area ------- IROOF-- ---�X00--- 2348 SF PUBLIC AMENITY _ TERRACE �'--- ----- - - - - -- STAIR 01 401 127 SF COMMON SPACE -�-— STAIR B2 402 127 5E COMMON SPACE __ ELEV 61 1403 152 SF COMMON SPACE ELEV 92 1404 152 SF COMMON SPACE - TOTAL AREA: 2707 SF NO NET LEASABLE OR NET LIVABLE ON THIS LEVEL _J ROOF .177&F. j STAIR#1 I ® 1 I I I I - I I - ROOFTERRACE ELEV.#1 400 ! I ¢i x I � 403 PUBLIC AMENITY 0. � € _ AERA I W MECHANICAL A! II AREA II @ 404 I rH RAILING SYSTEM,TYV. I I I 1 i STAIR#2 402 I I I J - r ' SUMMARY: TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 23,6376F MAIN LEVEL:5,231 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE:3,273 SF TOTAL NET LIVABLE 0 SF _ TOTAL COMMON AREA:1.958 SF PUBLIC AMENITY:0 SF 2ND&3RD LEVEL:2ND-4,870 SF,3RD-4,WO SF I TOTAL NET LEASABLE:2ND&3RD-0 SF _ o I _ TOTAL NET LIVABLE:2ND3,707 SF,3RM3,374 SF TOTAL COMMON AREA:2ND-964 SF,3RD-1,176 SF PUBLIC AMENITY:2ND&3RD-0 SF _ W Z ROOF LEVEL 4,053 SF -- -... �4 TOTAL NET LEASABLE:0 SF Q TOTAL NET LIVABLE:0 SF m N TOTAL COMMON AREA:359 SF N s PUBLIC -------------- -- - - -- PAMENITY.2,3485E LOWER LEVEL:5,123 SF � TOTAL NET LEASABLE:0 SF w =_ TOTAL NET LIVABLE:0 SF o TOTAL COMMON AREA:5,123 SF co PUBLIC AMENITY:0 SF a TOTAL COMMON AREA:9.580 SFOTAL PUBLIC AMENITY:2.346 SF TOTAL NET LEASABLE:3.273 SF OTAL NET LIVABLE:7,081 SF ` z u F ,� s n ROOF PLAN-NET LEASABLE '✓3M8' =1,4r o o a = NL-3 i i I I (Z) �A q 11 V bZ 9 C m n m m - —- -— -—-- — - - -— - - - -— - - I I 1 I I I I I II I I r I I I I RR-J C9s m a Z --------- - g co �a 0 I I �I I I I a I o IDAT o A -4 I S A O I m 0 — A m __ Li _ � I i N DTw m -0 w zabo co -4 i DRAWNG c nne:ROOFTOP PUBLIC AMEN17Y � CAMBURRS d THEODORE,LTD. SCALE: ..nn.uw Ix a...+,,lml.r�.mvan lmna«ex. PROTECT VO.: 10CA7gN MO.: DRAWNBY: RA -� It M:r1M.lilf rAFIMx IWNr}r w DATE' 4)22115 BASE 2 RRWEwEa 232 E.MAIN ST. tT ALLO—MM M OWPIREN MAI ENn 1101 LIx I.CN.ill, l[InLuxe�ryAL„NJur,:UNa'�«LUverf+r Urlrr•.{.';M1fi ELi f4pMr1::+�NEr,��1,01"L'EiiU,LX:AIEL,Ir_C.14n4r(;Lu.EDvr I«:]ui lxe 1ltlll l..:'r.L'ir Frxi nl(;x�iCCi-�r,..r:all raM4«er;r•«iUII+L,LI:i � � � � � � � - - i s- - - `_� Q SIL L I x iI�L � j ,� �I' ; ` � _ Illlllllllllllllllllh � � � � i ' o ;' II' � I �'� � ' �� .. � �� � � 6 - �._ _ �_ i � � ��� �: � � �! � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��� �� � = i .f '� ; f ; ;� �� I � E� -�I _l � '� _ �i . � � .� 3 �.... - err - � _® _�_ ��- _ - - — - i-- - — _ �_ �, psi���•�m ��i a _ 1� __—�i€- I �, � _ � � _ � �j / _ � � it ''f L, l :; ,� �` _ �� I �) "ten=.a,, �, Imo_ �' ',�,�'�. ' � -r- .. i i i i i i I 1 I i r� I — I I r rli rifffr ' 111— ♦i11 4 I If illlfll1 111— I�_Ilflf!!li(i Ill�� I U_ I( rlflrf!ll i Ifr=� fl � -�`I I I I i' tin II rl1 111111 I III= �j I i I■ I 'I �ss-n:nasacarg � c - � r ^� fi � r 1 i Iluh�R - J _ r..:, I r r rl lli rrI 111111 iMII JIM �` .trlrl!l 1111, I � �:: Illlllill Illi- � I _ � >�= � I1IflIIII fll1= � !11111111 111'_ '�'' 11111111 �' (tt Illllirll rrrl_ 1!!1111( 1 f 111 J111 J1 � �i { �. 4 r� I A I i r i f� �N - I r - i lllllllllllll Illllllllllllllllllll I ' i T 1' r' r r /if/ IIIIIIIIIiIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -- ' � ;����,j� 'Ji ii C` I ■�1! 3�0403H1 + Sb'�f18Wd� SZOZ ���� 1 i 1 � r �► t: 7 r ' ti - 1 J�•� -s ^p: mi'`'l , �'i• - ' - ��mor,ice��►' 1�� f izl" r � j j•14 , i r.lr it,,>�l rr s F.r'r" v I 4 um W- 1 9 f OM F1' Z.l VM IF CF IMMIILI It!JV_' -J� j Ism , i U-b 11fulrw.'Aw rldw 1 J �++ 1 d - - tea'#� � t" �►' ff, ._ Ok f 1 IF f 1 `v2 i T v. �Ilpl '•' /v^ it ,�•:. , , ` �� 2015 CAMBURAS + THEODU� RE PAGE 1 211 E. HALLAM STREET- NEGOTIATION SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION - m 500sf floor area bonus, setback Dimensional Variances YES $0 variances and Residential Design Standards variances Waiver of building permit fees NO -$100,060 Paid to City Waiver of tap fees NO -$23,180 Paid to City $5,795 Credit for existing home Waiver of impact fees YES $30,825 By right for all HPC projects Waiver of tree removal fees -all Approved Trees YES $60,241 For approved trees Issuance of tree removal permit for Tree#1 YES $0 Tree #1 - Mitigation Fee NO -$32,957 For appealed tree, paid to City Worth approximately $200,000 each, Issuance of TDRs 1 TDR $200,000 based on average of past 11 sales. Expedited permit review YES $0 5 years vested rights YES $0 Designation effective after HPC Final Approval YES $0 subtotal -$156,197 $96,861 $200,000 $140,664 NET INCENTIVE TO APPLICANT PAGE 2 211 E. HALLAM STREET- NEGOTIATION DIRECT COSTS OF OPTIONAL PRESERVATION Restorationandpreservationactiu�ity���������� ����������. Prep and relocation of Studio to showcase on Hallam St $ 72,000 Excavation and reconstruction of foundations/chimney per HPC $ 23,000 Restoration of exterior fagade cedar $ 14,000 Reconstuction of Studio on new foundation $ 35,000 Retrofit non-insulated Studio with insulation (roof&walls) $ 15,000 Custom replacement windows and large slider $ 17,000 Stitching together old and new construction $ 15,000 Contractor Onsite supervision and Markup $ 19,000 Preservation costs to be paid by applicant $210,000 - e Staff Recommnedation - 211 E. Hallam Street $140,664 NET INCENTIVE TO APPLICANT Direct Incremental Costs of Preservation -$210,000 $0 Disincentive to pursue DISINCENTIVE preservation and designation PAGE 3 211 E. HALLAM STREET- NEGOTIATION ESTIMATED COST TO CITY OF APPLICANT PROPOSAL U12 FRIM I 1 Dimensional Variances no cost Applicant is currently paying for HPC staff time 2 Building permit fees - capped at $30,000 -$70,060 Applicant pays $30,000 for review. City waives $70,060 3 Tap fees $23,180 Paid to City 4 Tap fee Credit for existing home ($5,795) already collected Paid when Studio was built Impact Fees commonly waived for involuntary HPC 5 Waiver of impact fees -$30,825 Projects 8 Tree removal fee & mitigation (Approved Trees) no direct cost $60,241 in forgone discretionary revenue 6 Issuance of Tree #1 removal permit no direct cost Administrative 7 Tree removal fee & mitigation (Tree#1) $32,957 Paid by applicant 9 1 TDR no direct cost Administrative 10 1 TDR Restricted to Snowbunny Lane no direct cost No impact on TDR market 11 Expedited permit review no cost No additional cost, project advances in queue 12 5 years vested rights no cost Administrative 13 Designation effective after HPC Final Approval no cost Administrative t Total { $44;748 Estimated Cost/ Investment by City to>realize;project . Total $13,923 Estimated Costto City excluding traditional HPC waivers May 26, 2015 Dear Mayor Skadron and Members of the Aspen City Council, We are sorry not to be able to attend the meeting tonight but we would like to share some thoughts on the 211 East Hallam Aspen Modern proposal. We've been really excited about this proposal because it highlights and saves an important part of Aspen history. Not only does Hallam Street gain from a wonderful placement of the Berko studio, but the plan also includes a beautiful modern addition that will be a wonderful new element on the street. Both are architectural gems. Aspen Modern provides a way to look at applications on an individual basis, based on the context of the particular property and the property's story. This property embodies an important Aspen story that will greatly benefit our community in the years to come. We admire the Mallorys for their commitment to preserving the Berko legacy and Aspen's character. It's not easy going through this daunting process. We are grateful that the Mallorys are making this challenging effort and we hope that the Council will support this application in full for the lasting benefit of our community. Sincerely yours, Barbara Reid and David Hyman May 26, 2015 Dear Aspen City Council, As Art Registrar&Curator at the Aspen Institute, I see the Institute proactively investing in its history and preserving its artistic heritage, namely by preserving and exhibiting the work of solely Herbert Bayer and Ferenc Berko. The Institute has decided that these two artists best represent their desire to preserve the rich, cultural history of the Institute starting in 1950. There is a permanent Bayer exhibition in the Resnick Gallery which I helped curate and give tours of regularly and Berko photographs displayed all over campus, including a recent installation of Berko photographs in all 97 Meadows Hotel Rooms. As I describe in my tour how Aspen inspired Bayer's work, his artistic influences, and design principles, it is so disappointing to have to report that Bayer's home and studio have been destroyed. Today they are only documented through Berko's photos of Bayer in his studio with his plethora of paint brushes and panoramic view of Aspen. Tonight, I hope that you will not miss the opportunity to preserve Berko's home and Studio. They represent a time and place in Aspen that is quickly vanishing and yet are part of our defining features as a community and as compared to other resorts. With regards to the tree, the Aspen Meadows' Reception Center is a beautiful example of AspenModern architecture. Unfortunately, none of the Meadows' guests, or locals, can see this building as it is concealed by enormous pine trees. By this building being so hidden, every day we lose educational opportunities to celebrate our town's architectural heritage.As proposed, the Berko Studio would be showcased on Hallam Street for the public to discover, let's not diminish its prominence with a towering tree. Beyond Berko, Aspen needs young people living in town! I am fortunate to live in an RO unit in Aspen. How many of our peers can live in town without your, the City's assistance?Very few. The Berko/Mallorys are not only voluntarily preserving a cultural resource but they are defying the trend and trying to find a way to keep young, working individuals in town. Please support this legacy making project. Respectfully, Lissa Ballinger May 26, 2015 Councilmen, Thank you for your time. My name is Ryan Elston, I am an Aspen native and partner with Aspen Associates Realty Group. Mirte and I grew up together and I am now neighbors with Nora and Howie. I know the Berko Studio well and follow real estate activity in the West End closely. When Mirte and Philip shared with me that their family had assessed all of their alternatives and made the decision to try and preserve the Berko Studio through the Aspen Modern program, and thereby voluntarily deed restricting their property in perpetuity, my first reaction was that they were "voluntarily" leaving a large sum of money on the table. If you know the Berko Mallory's at all, you have experienced their deep rooted passion for history; both their personal family history, as well as the history of our town. Understanding this, I was reminded that I was not having a typical conversation with a second home owner, investor or developer, but with a family trying to preserve part of their history, play by the rules, and keep the charm and unique character of the West End forever through a voluntary deed restriction. Below I am providing some context to put into perspective the magnitude,of their decision to pursue this route, in this neighborhood. What is the most valuable use for this property? Scrape what is exiting and build a high-end spec home with a large subgrade level and utilize all of the available square footage/TDRs etc. Within the last 12 months, within a one block radius of this property six potential development acquisitions have taken place for significant sums with few to no days on the market. A few transactions stand out: • 223 E. Hallam(6,000SF lot)—Nora's sister's house, sold in four days to a developer • 219 N. Monarch (9,000SF lot)—one day after listing, Bert Myrin had offers near or above ask from every active developer in town. It is currently under contract and scheduled to close. • 209 E. Bleeker (6,000SF lot)—The Hayes' home went under contract within four days of being listed to a developer and closed on 5/5/15. It subsequently has been relisted for sale for an additional $1,125,000 My point in sharing this context is that it would be a much more expedient and lucrative route for the Berko Mallorys to be part of this wave of sales to developers than to try preserving something meaningful and historic, and they should be incentivized to do so. Please do not overlook the financial implications of their proposed voluntary deed restriction of this family property. They should be thanked and rewarded with meaningful financial incentives. Hopefully, this helps set a precedent we will see in the future in our community. Sincerely, Ryan Elston May 26, 2015 Dear Mayor Skadron and Members of the Aspen City Council, We are sorry not to be able to attend the meeting tonight but we would like to share some thoughts on the 211 East Hallam Aspen Modern proposal. We've been really excited about this proposal because it highlights and saves an important part of Aspen history. Not only does Hallam Street gain from a wonderful placement of the Berko studio,but the plan also includes a beautiful modern addition that will be a wonderful new element on the street. Both are architectural gems. Aspen Modern provides a way to look at applications on an individual basis, based on the context of the particular property and the property's story. This property embodies an important Aspen story that will greatly benefit our community in the years to come. We admire the Mallorys for their commitment to preserving the Berko legacy and Aspen's character. It's not easy going through this daunting process. We are grateful that the Mallorys are making this challenging effort and we hope that the Council will support this application in full for the lasting benefit of our community. Sincerely yours, Barbara Reid and David Hyman