Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.205 S Mill.27A-87 - gordon restaurant commercial 4 . CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: r?"1/2787 PARCEL ID Able CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: , -, 0 . -: STA MEMBE' : 51.4-2., PROJECT NAME: 111 / ,jSi d," , L C I i // . ////. A. /. d1L Project Address: APPLICANT: t IL iAL 4,_ %✓ . Applicant Address• s %a /, 1W/CS! -.74 REPRESENTATIVE: 0,2 , i/ , Representative Ad• /ess /Phone: m7, '/. - a& 0/44 TYPE OF APPLICATION: PAID: NO AMOUNT: lit &La U° p(A ∎ ( `v\' ‘,, ■ c--ALL-1 ., r (AU v U. y 1 STEP APPLICATION: Pk a T p+ z P &Z MEWING DATE: t ,,- t _ _ PUBLIC HEARINNGcYES NO DATE REFERRED: ?hi INITIALS: OC�eS�� 2 STEP APPLICATION: CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District V City Engineer • Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas v' Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) v Aspen Water V Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Fire Chief V Bldg:Zon /Inspect ✓ Envir. Hlth. v Roaring Fork v Roaring Fork V Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. cc- Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 1V INITIAL fC City Atty ✓ City Engineer V Bldg. Dept. 17 Other: HOUSsnj Off,c,t FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: SI ia S Off t{ CASE DISPOSITION GORDON'S RESTAURANT EXPANSION (MILL STREET STATION) HPC: HPC reviewed the proposal for historic compatibility on July 27, 1987 and granted conceptual review approval subject to the condition that the applicant further address at final HPC review transparency of the addition and seating back the addition from Hopkins Street. On October 13, 1987 Final HPC review was granted to the proposal as presented subject to the condition that the mica slate tiles be replaced by plum slate tiles. P &Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the Gordon's application on September 22, 1987. The project received a score of 26 points, which exceeds the minimum threshold of 25.8 points. Also considered and approved by P &Z were the following special reviews: a. Bonus FAR: P &Z approved the request for bonus FAR subject to the conditions that: 1. The three studio employee units in the Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appro- priate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit . The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure property occupancy and rental rats. 2. The exterior staircase shall be constructed according to design option #8 approved by P &Z on September 29, 1987, containing all drainage within the staircase and channeling it into a single drain. b. Reduction in trash and utilities area: P &Z approved a reduc- tion of the trash and utilities access area subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to provide either a fourth trash dumpster in a configuration where it is physically possible to be filled, as determined by the Engineering Department, or a trash compactor. CITY COUNCIL: On October 12, 1987 City Council adopted Resolution 87 -24 (attached) allocating commercial GMP allotment to Gordon's Restaurant. sb.commquota2 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1987) A RESOLUTION GRANTING A COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENT TO GORDON'S RESTAURANT IN THE MILL STREET STATION BUILDING THROUGH THE 1987 CC /C -1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 11.5(a) of the Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for commercial development allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one application was submitted for evaluation in the CC and C -1 competition category, entitled Gordon's Restaurant Expansion, requesting 1,033 square feet; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on September 22, 1987 to consider the CC and C -1 GMP Competition, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project; and WHEREAS, the Gordon's Restaurant project met the minimum threshold of 25.8 points by scoring 26 points; and WHEREAS, due to exemptions from the commercial quota, there is less than thirty (30 %) percent of the original quota available in the CC and C -1 zone district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(k) of the Municipal Code, a minimum of thirty (30 %) percent of the original quota shall be available; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant in scoring the project and granting special review approvals for bonus floor area ratio and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves reduction in required trash and utilities service area, including but not limited to the following: 1. The additional space from the enclosure is designed primarily for additional waiting room in Gordon's and will allow for 34 bar seats and 113 seats in the restaurant, compared to the existing capacity of 4 bar seats and 105 restaurant seats. 2. Architectural features of the addition include a maximum height of 28 feet, significant transparency, setback from the existing masonry parapet surrounding the deck, and a new external staircase, as meet final review approval by the Historic Preservation Committee. 3. The exterior staircase shall be constructed according to diagramatic design option #8 approved by the Commission on September 29, 1987, containing all drainage within the staircase and channeling it into a single drain. 4. Energy conservation features of the project include: thermal insulation which exceeds the City's require- ments of R -20 in floors, walls and ceilings as specif- ied in proposed standards in the application, heavily insulated hot water lines, and water saving fixtures in the new restrooms. 5. Five (5) large planters filled with evergreen shrubs and flowering plants will be placed at street level in the setback area along Hopkins Street, as shown in the application. Smaller planter boxes will be placed on the second level deck area at the present entry. 6. A bicycle rack similar in design to the existing rack on the site will be provided and installed at the applicant's expense in a location where the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission has identified a need for one, as determined by CCLC prior to issuance of a building permit for the addition. 7. The applicant agrees to provide either a fourth trash dumpster in a configuration where it is physically possible to be filled, as determined by the Engineering Department, or a trash compactor. The trash arrange- ment shall be determined prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 r N4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 8. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit for employee housing cash -in -lieu to house 5.25 employees. An agreement shall be made, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit, stating the arrangement by which a cash payment shall be made by the applicant to house the equivalent of 100% of all employees generated, based on affidavits provided to the Housing Authority to verify the number of employees during the next two (2) years. 9. The three studio employee units in Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appropriate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. 10. The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Building Department a mechanized means for handicapped access to the second floor restaurant functioning during the hours of restaurant operation. ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the recommended Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scoring for this project does wish to grant the requested allotment to Gordon's. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that 1,033 square feet of the CC /C -1 zone district commercial quota is hereby allocated to Gordon's in the Mill Street Station building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that this allocation shall expire pursuant to Section 24- 11.7(a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans, specifica- tions and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves for the proposed expansion are not submitted on or before May 1, 1990. Dated: , 1987. William L. Stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a meeting to be held on the day of , 1987. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk sb.log 4 CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM STEVE BURSTEIN C 1 ivt1< � Ja-U rt it C1 vi u 1ft - Or i ��� *il���n, rum e i A `4 R f < ad M, y � ' - 94A 4 1 14 t M4` • Sum propos4 it/2y 9 _ j pi aro/ Tot nl ' 4;/ )T, K U,, 11144 A f,' Fh r Jh t 7r lhn 1( F' 1 rr Aspen /Pitkin Na ping Office 130 so lh=gale i street a s p e nclgxdo 81611 December 17, 1987 Mr. Jake Vickery Harry Teague Architects 210 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: Gordon's GMP Plan: Planters Dear Jake, I have reviewed your December 14, 1987 letter requesting an extention until May 15, 1988 to install the five planters as represented in the Gordon's GMP application and referenced in item #5 of City Council's resolution. You have asked us to allow you to post a bond guaranteeing the landscape improvements and to consider other landscape designs that may be more acceptable. We are willing to work with you on this matter. Since there was no reason that the landscaping could not have been installed at the same time as the building construction, and you have there- fore saved money, we would hope the landscape improvement will be of higher quality than that originally proposed. A Please submit to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the addition a cost estimate for installing the planters and vegetation and a bond agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney with the May 15, 1988 deadline for installation. In the agreement please state that the revised landscape proposal will be submitted by no later than April 1, 1988, and will be reviewed and approved by the City. The Planning Office will give staff approval to your proposal if we determine that the proposed landscaping is equal to, but prefera- bly higher in quality than what was represented in your GMP application. If there are any questions, please contact me. • Sincerely, • Steve Burstein, Planner cc: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Inspector Bill Drueding, Zoning Official Paul Taddune, City Attorney sb.g12 .r, a R R r T E A L G U E . AN A R C H 210 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 303 - 925 -2556 5' December 14, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Pitko /Aspen Planning Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 8 1 6 1 1 RE: Gordon's GMP — Planters Dear Steve; As per our phone conversation today, we herein request an extention until May 15, 1988 to install the five planters as required in item #5 of the resolution for Gordon's bar addition. Installing planters in the winter makes little sense; planting would die and empty planters would be detractive. We would be willing to bond an appropriate amount to guarantee our compliance. In the process of doing a detailed design, we have realized the planters may obstruct display windows and be objectionable to the other tenants. The requested extention would further allow us to reconsider this problem, in hopes of finding a better solution acceptable to your department. Sincerely; Jake Vickery �� oia . % k/ ar 7�� erit 7 L / -' A. #0tfr&t7420 ,4 )C4P 4 CONDITIONS OF DRAWING FUNDS AGAINST LETTER OF CREDIT In consideration for the granting of a commercial growth management allotment pursuant to resolution No. 24C1987 a copy of which is attached hereto. The City of Aspen, Colorado shall have the right to draw funds against this letter of credit under the following circumstances. On or before June 15, 1988 the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority shall make a determination of employees generated by Gordon's Restaurant located in Aspen, Colorado. This determination shall be made according to the provisions of the City of Aspen Resolution 24 and the City of Aspen Employee Housing guidelines, applicable to the project which allows Gordon's to satisfy the employee housing requirement attendant to such approval, by paying cash in lieu of actual housing for any new employees generated by the allotment up to 5.25 employees. Upon the determination of Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority that new employees were generated, the director of housing shall provide his written demand and certification to the bank based on a schedule of the dollar amount necessary to satisfy the cash -in- lieu obligation of Gordon's, and such funds shall be unconditionally released to the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authority on account of the City of Aspen, Colorado. CASE DISPOSITION GORDON'S RESTAURANT EXPANSION (MILL STREET STATION) HPC: HPC reviewed the proposal for historic compatibility on July 27, 1987 and granted conceptual review approval subject to the condition that the applicant further address at final HPC review transparency of the addition and seating back the addition from Hopkins Street. On October 13, 1987 Final HPC review was granted to the proposal as presented subject to the condition that the mica slate tiles be replaced by plum slate tiles. P &Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the Gordon's application on September 22, 1987. The project received a score of 26 points, which exceeds the minimum threshold of 25.8 points. Also considered and approved by P &Z were the following special reviews: a. Bonus FAR: P &Z approved the request for bonus FAR subject to the conditions that: 1. The three studio employee units in the Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appro- priate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit . The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure property occupancy and rental rats. 2. The exterior staircase shall be constructed according to design option #8 approved by P &Z on September 29, 1987, containing all drainage within the staircase and channeling it into a single drain. b. Reduction in trash and utilities area: P &Z approved a reduc- tion of the trash and utilities access area subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to provide either a fourth trash dumpster in a configuration where it is physically possible to be filled, as determined by the Engineering Department, or a trash compactor. CITY COUNCIL: On October 12, 1987 City Council adopted Resolution 87 -24 (attached) allocating commercial GMP allotment to Gordon's Restaurant. sb.commquota2 / A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 22, 1987 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1st Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff II. MINUTES September I, 1987 III. PUBLIC HEARING A. GMQS Code Amendment (cont'd) B. Gordon's Commercial GMQS Scoring IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Gordon's Special Review B. Marshall Lot Split V. ADJOURN MEETING * *PLEASE REMEMBER TO ATTEND JOINT P &Z /COUNCIL WORK SESSION REGARDING CODE ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 AT 5:00 P.M. A.COV MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission and Special Reviews Case #2737- 073 -38 -004 DATE: September 16, 1987 LOCATION: Mill Street Station, 205 S. Mill Street, Lots D through J, Block 81, Aspen Townsite. Gordon's Restaurant is located on the second floor of the building. ZONING: Commercial Core /Commercial Core Historic District APPLICANT: Gordon Naccarato, owner of Gordon's Restaurant, has prepared the application with authorization of Anthony J. Mazza, Managing Partner of the Mill Street Station Building. In effect, the owner of the building is the applicant. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Commercial GMP allocation of 1,033 square feet for the enclosure of the second - level deck and construction of a new exterior entry stair. Special review approvals for bonus floor area and further reduction in the trash and utilities access area are also requested. QUOTA AVAILABLE: Approximately 9,000 s.f. of the 10,000 s.f. in the annual CC -C -1 zone district commercial quota has been used up through GMP Exemptions to Elli's (about 8,500 s. f.) and Ute Mountaineer (500 s.f.) this year. According to Section 24- 11.3(k), 30 percent of the original number of allotments shall be available when exemptions reduce the number below that level. Consequently, 3,000 s.f. is available in the CC /C -1 zone district for the 1987 competition. Final tabulation of the quota will be made prior to the City Council meeting dealing with allocations. The Gordon's proposal is the only application in the 1987 Commercial GMP competition. PROCESS: The Planning Office will summarize this project at your meeting of September 22, 1987, review procedures with you, and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the application. The applicant will give a brief presentation of his proposal. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing, the Commission members will each be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1,2, and 3 amounting to 25.8 points to be eligible for a GMP allotment. A project must also score a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1 and 2 and provide deed restricted housing for a minimum of 35% of the employees generated by the project to be eligible for allocation. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category 2 = 3.0 points; and Category 3 = 8.75 points. Should an application score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a recommendation for you to consider. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explana- tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Availability Quality of Public Employee Bonus Total of Facilities/ Housing Points Points Design Services Commitment 10.5 5 15 -- 30.5 PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMEENDATION: According to the Planning Office's recommended scoring, the Gordon's Application meets the threshold number of points in each scoring category. Sufficient quota is available for the project. Positive features of the project include the placement of planters on Hopkins Street and the architectural concept of placing the addition in the middle section of the building. Problems with the level of transparency on the Hopkins elevation and exacerbating the existing trash problem may be dealt with through the special reviews for bonus floor area and trash and utilities area reduction, as discussed below. The Planning Office recommends that you concur with its point assignment to approve the project and recommend to Council the allocation of 1,033 square feet for the construction of Gordon's addition. 2 SPECIAL REVIEWS: I. Bonus Floor Area: The applicant is requesting special review approval to use the unutilized bonus floor area available to the building via the prior placement of on -site employee housing. As you know, with .3:1 FAR used for employee housing, 1.7:1 FAR may be used for commercial space in the CC zone district, arriving at a total FAR of 2:1. According to the applicant's calculations, 1,033 square feet remain available. The Building Department will need to verify the existing FAR and resultant FAR to insure compliance with area and bulk require- c v �F, ments prior to issuance of a building permit. The Zoning Official ' P stated that there is a violation in the use of one of the employee units for Gordon's office and storage. This violation was also confirmed in an inspection of the restaurant by an Environmental Health Officer. Not only does this change Mill Street Station's employee housing program but it effects the internal FAR ratio for calculation of bonus FAR. All employee units must be occupied for employee housing purposes as verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. Since this is not the first violation discovered of the occupancy of these units, we recommend that the leases of all of the employee units in the building should be reviewed every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. Section 24- 3.5(a) of the Municipal Code states the criteria that P &Z must consider in granting bonus FAR as follows: Criteria: (1) "the compatibility of the development with sur- rounding land uses and zoning, including size, height and bulk, proposed site design characteristics, including landscaping and open space and visual impacts such as viewplanes." Response: On July 27, 1987 HPC reviewed the proposal for historic compatibility and granted conceptual review approval subject to the condition that the applicant further address at final HPC review (1)transparency of the addition and (2) setting back the addition from the Hopkins Street facade. HPC was concerned with upsetting the existing low scale of Mill Street Station as viewed from Hopkins Street and overwhelming the scale of small Victori- ans on the block. Comments in the 1980 application and in the P &Z and HPC's reviews and scoring of the architecture focus on these same aspects of compatibility. The applicant's presenta- tion has also emphasized the concepts of transparency and setback from the existing masonry parapet. We suggest that these quali- ties of design be better realized. Staff finds the height of the addition and vaulted roof to be acceptable in terms of minimizing visual impacts. However, the view of Aspen and Shadow Mountain from Hopkins Street would still be affected. There was talk at the HPC meeting of using glass 3 bricks on the Hopkins Street elevation to increase transparency. This concept met with initial enthusiasm by the Committee and should be further explored. Set backs of approximately 2 -3 feet were also discussed and should be further considered. The applicant indicates that shifting the addition back on the deck is limited because of the need to work with the existing structural system. While no analysis of this factor has been presented by the applicant, Stan Stevens of the Building Depart- ment stated on September 16, 1987 that he would anticipate the need for a new rafter supporting system for the deck to support the load of a new masonry wall. Consequently, it may be as easy structurally to set the addition back 2 feet as it would be for the proposed 8" setback. Criteria: "(2) Whether the applicant has documented the availab- ility and adequacy of water supply, sewage treatment, roads, and parking facilities to serve the proposed development." Response: Staff is satisfied that the site has adequate public services available for the additional floor area. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the request for special review of bonus FAR subject to the following conditions: 1. The three studio employee units in the Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appropriate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. 2. a addition shall be designed with greater transparency and �t back farther from the Hopkins Street elevation to the satisfaction of the Historic Preservation Committee, as determined at final HPC review. II. Reduction of Trash and Utilities Area: The applicant is requesting, in connection with the increase of commercial space, reduction in the trash and utilities area requirement. It is argued that the existing trash area, noted to be approximately 13 feet by 14 feet (182 s.f.), is adequate for the trash generation caused by the expansion. Section 24- 3.5(b) states the criteria for this review to include consideration of the following matters: Criteria: (1) Adequacy of trash vehicle access. 4 y Response: Both the Planning Office and Engineering Department have noticed congestion in the alley due to parked vehicles and multiple service delivery vehicles. There may be an enforcement problem with illegal parking unrelated to this application. We have notified the Police Department and anticipate increased ticketing and towing if the situation does not improve. In general, we agree with the applicant that adequate trash vehicle access is available and not a constraining factor. Criteria: (2) Amount of trash likely to be generated. Response: The Engineering Department states in a memorandum dated September 16, 1987 that it does not appear reasonable to predict no increase in trash even if the bar area does not generate more trash. 20 to 30 additional meal seatings per day (winter) are estimated by the Engineering Department. Neither the applicant nor referral agencies have indicated an abundance of room for additional trash in the present set -up of three dumpsters for the entire building. The Engineering Department recommends an additional dumpster or provision of a trash compactor to accommo- date the anticipated additional trash. Criteria: (3) Unique measures provided for enclosed trash bins. making them easily moveable by trash personnel. Response: No unique measures are provided. Additional pick up service is not a criteria for reduction in trash area. Criteria: (4) Provision for trash compaction. Response: A trash compactor system for the building is one of the recommended options. Criteria: (5) Comments of Aspen trash and city engineering personnel. Response: Engineering Department comments have been submitted. Criteria: Utility placement and maintenance. Response: Access to utility meters appears to be constrained given the food locker in the trash /utilities area. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of a reduction of tFash and utilities access area subject to the condition that fourth dumpster be provided in the trash area in a configuration acceptable to the Engineering Department, (or that a trash compactor be installed) to be deter- mined prior to issuance of a building permit. YR tr . gordons 1J I fi ,L OS) , bt"114 5 j 476 "(-'I k# j v a �„ i, ,1.', CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: GORDON'S COMMERCIAL GMP DATE: 9/22/87 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 1.5 COMMENT:The deck enclosure and new entrance add bulk to the Hopkins Street elevation, which the applicant states has minimal visual impact because of transparency and set -back from the facade. However, brick and tile walls are not transparent, and an 8" set -back is not enough to maintain the integrity of the Hopkins Street facade, as viewed by staff and by HPC at Concep- tual Review. Maintaining a low scale of the building from the Hopkins Street elevation was one of the key concepts of the original design - to better relate to the Berko Building and other small scale structures on other side of Hopkins Street - highly scored by HPC and P &Z' in the 1980 GMP competition. This is somewhat compromised by the addition. Adding bulk to the middle part of Mill Street Station is more acceptable than adding on to the western side, further overshadowing Berko's. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. V L' � :`, RATING: 2 (l ^{ Tv 1 � r J Iii _ 0 ''.� tt , 6 nr oKS C crres, P t y COMMENT: Th addition of 5 pl__nters at street level in the setback area ;:.long Hopkins Street will improve the character of this open space area. It is not clear who has responsibility to maintain landscaping in planters. We note this will help compensate for landscaping not provided but shown in the original application. No improvements have been proposed for service vehicle access in the alley, which has been identified by the Engineering Department as a problem area. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The potential for further energy conservation is limited in this small addition, according to the Roaring Fork Energy Center. Thermal insulation of walls, roof and ceiling and air lock door are commendable. They appear to off -set heat loss of glazing. Higher R -value of glazing was suggested. Stan Stevens questions how masonry walls will achieve the R -value represented (R -30) and will review plans at building permit stage to insure compliance. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 COMMENT:Planters and commitment to install bicycle rack are amenities of this proiect for the existing development. These amenities are fairly standard and commensurate in scale with the proposal's size. The bicycle rack relocation. and installation should be determined through CCLC. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The relatively small addition at 28' height will obstruct a portion of the view of Aspen Mountain from Hopkins Street but this is not within an identified viewplane. Given the existing setback from the street and the backdrop of the Wheeler Opera House, the addition's impact is not great, but would be minimized by further setback. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. 2 • RATING: 1 COMMENT:The applicant states trash generation will be reduced because of the inclusion of a "gun" system in the full- service bar, eliminating some glass containers. Engineering Department accepts that there may be a reduction in bottles, but believes there will be additional trash from greater winter seating capacity. A fourth dumpster or trash compaction is needed. The existing trash and utilities area is noted to be cramped space for dumpsters due to the placement of a large cooler in that space. SUBTOTAL: 10.5 L 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. a =. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, consi- dering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: 1 COMMENT: Both the Aspen Water Department and Fire Marshal indicated this expansion may be handled by the existing level of water and fire protection services in the area. 3 b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: 1 COMMENT: Neiko Kuhn stated the Aspen Metro Sanitation District can adequately service the proposed expansion. c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposed expansion can be adequately served by existing RFTA bus routes. The small increment of new traffic generation can be accommodated by existing streets. d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposed expansion should create no change to the existing drainage facilities. Engineering Department found the drainage plans acceptable. e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: 1 COMMENT:No off - street parking is included in the proposal, nor required by Section 24 -4.5 for commercial development in the CC zone district. Engineering Department noted problems caused by the applicants' illegal parking in the alley. SUBTOTAL: 5 4 3. PROVIS.ON OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- sion sh.r11 assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24- 11.10. Points shall he assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: 15 COMMENT: The applicant has argued that no new employees will be generated by the proposed expansion. The Housing Authority concurs; therefore, 100% of all new employees would be housed and the maximum number of points should be given. Additionally, the applicant has committed to provide a letter of credit for cash - in -lieu to house 5.25 low- income employees. The cash payment would be made up to a maximum of 5.25 employees if the Housing Authority determines, based on affidavits, that an increase has occurred in the next two (2) years. The Housing Authority recommends approval of this program. provided that the applicant is responsible for housing all employees, even if more than 5.25 employees are generated. The applicant will clarify this aspect of the program at the P &Z meeting. 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: 0 COMMENT: The Planning Office has no recommendations for bonus points. 5 6. TOTAL POINTS: Points in Category 1: 10.5 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 5 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 15 (minimum of 8.75 points to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, 3 30.5 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: 30.5 -6 • Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office GORDONS.COMM 6 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Ot Date: September 16, 1987 Re: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. It appears that the submission might be procedurally incor- rect. The submission might need to be submitted as an amendment to the 1980 Mill Street Station Commercial GMP submission. The City Attorney will have to address this. If the application is not an amendment, we need to know if we can consider existing conditions versus promises made in 1980. 2. There were a number representations made in the 1980 upon which the project scoring was based, which representations were not provided as indicated. Although these discrepancies need not affect the scoring of the current application, they should at least be considered in case they affect the acceptability. a. An elevator was included in the 1980 submission but was not constructed. The Engineering Department has seen no indication that pedestrian use of the building has been adversely affected by this omission, although their scoring at that time was based on the idea of the elevator. The exception might be accessibility for handicapped persons. b. Landscaping was indicated in 1980 which has not been provided. Again, this was an item which figured into the scoring, but again, it might not be significant enough to detract from the current application. 3. Storm drainage - The project will not change existing condi- tions. 4. Trash - The existing utility area would have been large enough, but there is a cold storage locker which has been installed in it. There are currently three dumpsters located in the utility area. The Wheeler Opera House reported that tenants of the Mill Street Plaza Building have used the Wheeler dumpster when the Plaza dumpster is full. The discussion of trash generation in the submission was not well x ;a r.•OCk' 1' tEL ...:'k -'M >f- ... E ... .,. � ::..... :R1 5_ , K M E M O R A N D U M TO: Steve Burstein - Planning Department ��; FROM: Bill Drueding - Zoning Enforcement Officer (( RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission DATE: September 17, 1987 On September 11, 1987, I met with Jake Vickery, Architect, who represents the applicant. In lieu of detailed building plans I expressed the following concerns: - The new stairway be included in F.A.R. calculations. - The new stairway intruded into or reduced required open space. Mr. Vickery said that these concerns were being dealt with at this stage. I have been having a recurring enforcement problem. Gordon's has been using the adjacent designated employee unit as an office for the restaurant in violation of City codes. I have received a letter form Gordon's stating they will discontinue this illegal use. I would like any approval contingent upon further assurance of code compliance. WD:lo sbgcgmp.bd offices: mail address: 517 East Hopkins Avenue 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Doremus &weu s an association of land planners ° OCT 2 7 ❑ October 27, 1987 Mr. Paul Taddune, City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Paul, In order to comply with Paragraph 6 of City Council Resolution 24/87, having to do with resolving with the CCLC a bike rack location, I attempted to reach Jon Busch last week, to see if CCLC had previously established a priority list of locations. Jon was out of town and was unable to return my call until Monday. He confirmed that, while the CCLC had discussed the need for additional bike racks, no list of priority locations had been established. Since he was leaving town again immediately he didn't have time to poll the Board members; Jon did suggest, however, that in his opinion, the area most in need of a bike rack is in front of Carl's Pharmacy /Aspen Times Building. I asked Jon to place us on the next CCLC agenda (next Wednesday, November 4) to confirm that location or an alternative site. For the time being, I just want to confirm that the Carl's site is an acceptable location from our standpoint. /Joseph Wells, AICP JW /b cc: Steve Burstein Jon Busch, Chairman, CCLC 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone 303 925 -6866 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 1+Z RE: Caary -over of Unused Commercial GMP Quota DATE: October 26, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council direct us to prepare a resolution eliminating the unused 1987 commercial quota. BACKGROUND: City Council approved Resolution 87 -24 on October 12, 1987 allocating 1,033 square feet to Gordon's Restaurant in the Mill Street Station building from the CC /C -1 zone districts commercial quota. This used up all the available quota in CC and C -1 zone districts in 1987. Time did not allow discussion of carry -over or elimination of unused commercial quota in the other zone districts. Council directed staff to bring this item to a future meeting. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Quota which Council can either carrry -over or eliminate this year in other commercial categories are: Office Zone District* 3,905 square feet NC /SCI Zone Districts 7,000 square feet CL and Other Zone Districts 3,000 square feet * Addition of a 95 sq. ft. cooler at Little Cliff's was approved by HPC exempt from the Office GMP. The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to carry -over the unused 1987 commercial quota in the above categor- ies. Significant commercial development and redevelopment have occurred in Aspen during 1987. While that activity has been almost exclusively in the CC and C -1 zone districts, there is no apparent need to increase the quota in other categories for 1988. If you agree with us, we recommend that you direct us to prepare a resolution eliminating the 1987 commercial quota. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution eliminatin the unused 1987 commercial GMP quota in the Office, NC /SCI, CIC - 8 fl ) zone districts." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: - sb.q - del :14Ze44/(4?, Move to amend Paragraph 8 of Resolution 24/87 by changing the last 5 lines of the existing language to read "a cash payment shall be made by the applicant to house the equivalent of 100% of all NEW employees generated, based on TWO affidavits provided to the Housing Authority to verify the number of employees AT THE RESTAURANT. THE FIRST AFFIDAVIT SHALL VERIFY THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE YEAR PRIOR AND THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SHALL VERIFY THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION." RESOLUTION NO. 61 4 (Series of 1987) A RESOLUTION GRANTING A COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENT TO GORDON'S RESTAURANT IN THE MILL STREET STATION BUILDING THROUGH THE 1987 CC /C -1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 11.5(a) of the Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for commercial development allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one application was submitted for evaluation in the CC and C -1 competition category, entitled Gordon's Restaurant Expansion, requesting 1,033 square feet; and WILEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on September 22, 1987 to consider the CC and C -1 GMP Competition, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project; and WHEREAS, the Gordon's Restaurant project met the minimum threshold of 25.8 points by scoring 26 points; and WHEREAS, due to exemptions from the commercial quota, there is less than thirty (30 %) percent of the original quota available in the CC and C -1 zone district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(k) of the Municipal Code, a minimum of thirty (30 %) percent of the original quota shall be available; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant in scoring the project and granting special review approvals for bonus floor area ratio and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 8. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit for employee housing cash -in -lieu to house 5.25 employees. An agreement shall be made, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit, stating the arrangement by which a cash payment shall be made by the applicant to house the equivalent of 100% of all employees generated, based on affidavits provided to the Housing Authority to verify the number of employees during the next two (2) years. 9. The three studio employee units in Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appropriate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. 10. The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Building Department a mechanized means for handicapped access to the second floor restaurant functioning during the hours of restaurant operation. and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the recommended Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scoring for this project does wish to grant the requested allotment to Gordon's. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that 1,033 square feet of the CC /C -1 zone district commercial quota is hereby allocated to Gordon's in the Mill Street Station building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that this allocation shall expire pursuant to Section 24- 11.7(a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans, specifica- tions and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Alan FROM: Steve RE: Mill Street Station Noncompliance with Prior Approval DATE: September 22, 1987 Paul Taddune, Chuck Roth and I talked this morning about non - compliances of the Mill Street Station 1980 GMP applications and the relationship of those problems to the Gordon's application. Four areas of non - compliance have been identified: employee housing unit use, food locker in trash /utilities area, landscap- ing, and omission of elevator. Paul is taking the position that no approval should be given for further expansion of Mill Street Station unless compliance with the original application is achieved. We discussed this matter and arrived at the Planning Office position that prior errors on the side of the Building Department and Planning Office in granting building permits and C.O.'s should not be the grounds for denial or conditions of approval of this new application. Do you believe that the applicant should be put on notice of this issue tonight and that it should be brought to Council for their resolution? mss ((�� HS ( &vfh41:/{ 4 e4 t,(f),v6 ,J I500) D. 't 6: 16'- trite ite4- 41 I �� fllt� 144 4 t r1 b,iraj ' 41 �� 1 ti" ( i ?"m' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council p, THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Imo'\ RE: Resolution Allocating Commercial Quota to Gordon's and Carry -over of Unused Commercial Quota DATE: October 12, 1987 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council approve Resolution d21' allocating commercial quota from the 1987 GMP CC /C -1 commercial competition. REQUEST: The only application for commercial quota in the 1987 GMP competition was for 1,033 square feet for expansion of Gordon's Restaurant in the Mill Street Station Building at 205 S. Mill Street. QUOTA AVAILABLE: 9,000 square feet of the 10,000 square feet available in the annual CC /C -1 zone district commercial quota has been use up through GMP Exemptions to Elli's (8,500 square feet) and Ute Mountaineer (500 square feet) this year. According to Section 24- 11.3(k), 30 per cent of the original number of allotments shall be available when exemptions reduce the number below that level. Consequently, 3,000 square feet is available in the CC /C -1 zone district for the 1987 competition. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTES: HPC reviewed the proposal for historic compatibility on July 27, 1987 and granted conceptual review approval subject to the condition that the applicant further address at final HPC review transparency of the addition and seating back the addition from Hopkins Street. Final HPC review is scheduled for October 13, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the Gordon's application on September 22, 1987. The project received a score of 26 points, which exceeds the minimum threshold of 25.8 points. The scoring summary sheet for this project is attached hereto. Also considered and approved by P &Z were the following special reviews: a. Bonus FAR: P &Z approved the request for bonus FAR subject to the conditions that: 1. The three studio employee units in the Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appro- priate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit . The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure property occupancy and rental rats. 2. The exterior staircase shall be constructed according to design option #8 approved by P &Z on September 29, 1987, containing all drainage within the staircase and channeling it into a single drain. b. Reduction in trash and utilities area: P &Z approved a reduc- tion of the trash and utilities access area subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to provide either a fourth trash dumpster in a configuration where it is physically possible to be filled, as determined by the Engineering Department, or a trash compactor. CARRY -OVER OF UNUSED COMMERCIAL QUOTA IN OTHER CATEGORIES: The CC /C -1 zone district was the only commercial competition in 1987. There would be no quota in the CC /C -1 zone district available for carry -over after allocation to Gordon's. The quota which Council can either carry -over or eliminate this year in other commercial categories are: Office Zone District 3,905 square feet* NC /SCI Zone Districts 7,000 square feet CL and Other Zone Districts 3,000 square feet * Addition of a 95 sq. ft. cooler at Little Cliff's was approved by HPC exempt from Office GMP quota. The Planning Office believes once again that there is little rationale to carry over the unused commercial quota in the above categories. Significant commercial development and redevelopment has occurred in Aspen during 1987. While that activity has been almost exclusively in the CC and C -1 zone districts, there is no apparent need to increase the quota in other categories for 1988. If you agree with us, we recommend that you direct us to amend the proposed resolution to add a section eliminating 1987 commercial quota, for signatures by the Mayor. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Resolution .‘ . " CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 2 w 2 M 4 a ) 4 0 Ot— to 01 C • 3 0 .-1 ei ' 0 W 10 a) 4 1 a 0 0 0 " ro u 0 11 Z H my 5 .H Ch 4 d PA M 4 M V CO 41 Lk 0 M •.I . 1F . 8 to o c kH c ] - 1 1- 1 1 1 .1 cli i . 0 HI A M V r m • rn 1 . • N • N 4 ■ a) .. E v o ti 1) .M .M a) N „ 0 0 01 O N r.1 a) L4 c m y a) ..1 i) \ M 0 C 0 Itl 0 0 0 4 ° Cr a w a . .1 0 • 0 • 0 >I 0 a) a 0 a) 0 .. W O . .i .. .-1 44 ^ !a•• 4) TS C 4 . 0 4.1 p E a >I Q C S E i i • • y G N U N N 4 D 0 0 41 F u D • U 1 pa E N al .d Itl 0 >1 N CO 0) 0 01 CO 44 V) s.l G N (J � 47 yA — .1-) a/ r. 1.I ' 1 1 I 1 W •.4 0, ..1 It .0 •.4 U 4 0 .4 E •.i C � 0 01 u 0 i m ~ i .4 4 ).O0 W C O 2 W S >1 4 •M 0 E •M 4 O 4 IO W 7 41 it •.4 a W E 41 4 co til Q :> F 0 a) 3 V) 41 CO 04 N Z V Z .y .4 v) •.I N [.1 � co . . . , [ • • • • • 0 O F W O D d N N t•'1 a V1 b b H N M •V' N 0. co F 8 w a 41 • CO ti o ' :L l t-t7d'4' ,A-M - 71 ---- I navvsl ' 1 L.1 Qacr - 1..' >" � ,�° 1zS ° - 47 E 2. 11 ' "Aril , 51 _ 11 ---- lw+.. ` 1111___ _. ___ -, 1111 -� ....,„ ____ _v . i on), -ATIS '1 _,_, i ____ n ==..... ______ • ___.._ _ 1 ______ „Mil 1 !1313 (La., -vil .-, ttbsall . tell,l ' ^'r fci 4r . --4, / J /,' �.� 11 ° 1:101 Ilhlilhl1 ` . . - 1 111•_...-1..... -.--. - ■\ & 0. \ L'%rti • i . \ .1 •1_-75.1..j.tz-A.3:4 - - 1 -00----17.271---- -in VPrj_ --4 ,. 1 L. 1 cn cncr • 1: c ,v—i c..1 -7c .c=• - . . IP .11 I 1 R11 511 • 5 \ . '---- .: • ■■■■••■■■ 1 4 . I C 1 ' 1 1 — • . I ,e91) •A31S • 1 1 , I . _ I ..v." , I . , 1 c .- T_ . 1 ---4% ,,. ..:......,:.,;, . ...„ _ ..... lall <-______ • _ ' .0 . . • . . , - . „e '&315 • 1 I - [ '-,--- . ._.._ .. _ . .. . _ --- -- --- . Himilii -wqrld j 1.Q. ,. r ow- 1 , !E'lloy e 7 ---- • ‘ . •"+, -0 ---- : - ..101' 111Viat ;.• ‘ , Ni • • . ____ . . -- i - . c LI r i a MI MI MMES.! MIN MI MM. IM&I•11 ,, \ \ . , \ , , NM= Pr MI EMIll , 11111111. I 1 14MCC3 t L_ ' i \ --- 4ek. i , II 1,.'•:. - ‘: . s.. '.,',::. -, • • • • .• tiii,..„Iiiii, - „AL-7511174 1.4 o 1 1 -" .:: s n -ceri ,i, 4-4 <-7 1 L 1 a a .7 - .1..-> , - 7 , , ‘--ic: cl - el ' _ _ . AA 'A-111 " i ------- C 1- _, - , ..._ . .,,,,, •/\3 " . VA. . . 111= . 1 • , 12.=1 t 1 1‘ . ) ....- . 0 1 70, ...._ _ ._. .;.t, i• • .., r--- _ • "'am -.'.. • 1 ' 4.1:0A1 - 4I 1411c1 ' ! . ( 47 I ■ 1 yr 1 I . 1 \ . '.14' 11M at All I N Warr. I 1 \ No t 1 1 \ ji MOM \ \ . 111111111111 wme _ - L_ - - - - ~ _ _v 1 6.. i • 0 \ r -. , vo 1-4 oli..14r7 s n „%- 1- 1" =4 . i .,,. ., , L , cm Ocr - 1.1 -7 >,---- .\--1 .1--1':=' Z '1 1# ,'n 1 •Aril " . . _ = - ---,—, ..--..4 .4.■-.■ = ..•___ ........%„....., . , 1....... , , , _ . . . —................--- ...........— 1 . . ._.... __. . „e90 -A373 '1 r 7 . --------U__I . .... n ......--.. _.... _1 ... . ---4- ... ■ itbsa141 , 10 1 . . V . , sc\i//'. . ..• .,., . .., • ■_\ fb ..---....*-.. -.-.....-...r- • =1-11 -.....!__....._..-.._ . -__. _ _____., C 0.7 ,-.. Min 1 MEM ---P----- 111 VI i 1 . i 1 -■ i . C S -C 11°1-1-`141 .2 n vcriti t-4 i L i Cl CA cr " .1.0. =. -.- , .-.. l .' CI - a 4 ' '*7 _ -- --- _ - . t , . . ----F .■ -1 . • • . . .... . ----7—=x----,31., Fr' — . . . . . . pe . 9‘211 • t-4 . , . _ ni 1 i Z- ... .... „ib . ...__ . __•-.11-s. i*, .■ ,f, 1 ,. , , I 4/ ,.'• . . , / , LK, a, .-\\\,‘ .....,_ , 4 I, MIMI IIN NM MI I 3 0111111 .. \ i l a II \ 1011111111 Nmeto __ Inn -- I _ ,.... ---,/ i :, ',L--031` * t -r�'Q ` O1 i nvv ri �' It _ _. I L I QQCT '.L'' >' cr ,1--.1 - CJ ' r- { r' _ . It)//1 •n313 *1 .km1. i m e ______________ - .43: _ 1 - 1 - i . , .„ , , . _ ,.______ ______ . ____ ..__ _ ._,_ _._. . _._ __,_,._ __ _ H1,,, ,.,,, .,14 - 1-ArIci 4 ' • t . ______ ____/r_11 \ C \ \-\ \ \ -" \ \ ''7. Ni1■ II 1 kih.6. \ \ . 1 . NMan a d-1 �y1�3 -t 7 ' T o 11-= o a ,.. �' '�t i--.4 Q Q Q .1.f>"" �7 ,1-1 CA - ZS G i --I—' , } _ . jf 1 1 „ •ATIS •1 1 I e-- . 1/3” ! �, - ....... . _/- i ' iiii' ` - r NI 0 'A-115 .1-R --_-_:___ ---- F __________ _____: .---- i rt __ ____ . . . 4 yI} -- , ✓1,.A, 4 cam# • f / �� `i • 'M1W al ' - 'N v Mol OM lik4t 1.1"--.,) r ' ss: \ N C \ \ N \ s\ \ 1 6111119111 _ i .A.. i : . , k . 'Al:751=1 1 i . . i•'Im.°7an"r- S n vcr-oi i--4 1 L ...... ...■■.ft_ INOMIIMIPMMMOIMI .-.- .. ---- ' . • V. . IMINIMIMMIIMMO 1 1 L , , . (***** _ . ........... i 1 . „on), . A IS ' 1 . .,„ . . _ . • , "----- ti . _ . 11 ‘ 1\31 . 5 . t-4 _ _ __ _ ___ r Fr a y _ , 1 1 .....____ • ,A ----- .4 . f ' t ,-',.. .-'•,• - 4-1:100111 n °1 /I - WVIC1 4 e k_ , . r_.... 1 ‘ • . .. ., ' 4 ( p . -. ',... : e : 14 .- 1 4 nV i i --- - ifi • . • 'S . '4.. \ I ..p.• MI allM\ • I= 1 1 ---, d r simi1/4„ . 1 \ Emu 1 1111011=1 +4,-Acto . s , I , k \ __ • / .:„?... _ ., , , Qi c r 7, Yu I WP!''' /i, ii,-ri 5 X;it 611 IP' . lra n .. 'y. c > ni -i' n h,- 2t( +4,. i,, y: ,' J P; ; . ) . i < 4, o � • J.' t , _ , 1 d, , _ - i i i, I "}/ il4 , _. ; PETITION We, the undersigned, are tenants of commercial space in the Mill Street Plaza Building. We have reviewed the drawings for the proposed addition to Gordon's Restaurant as originally submitted. We believe the relocated restaurant entry stair will benefit all of the shop owners in the project and we urge you to approve the new stair location as shown in the submission dated August 1, 1987. Date Name of Shop Tenant Signature / /S ainti 4./ /'' ;'J � ff. s f _ el 7. 2Y /k SAN r Rcct r i, ftt., L , . 8 . Y < 7 `a is i /t / LLB. 4. . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. JW.18 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Mill Street Station Code Violations DATE: October 5, 1987 I want to bring to your attention a code enforcement matter that a food locker in the trash and utilities storage area of the Mill Street Station Building at 205 S. Mill Street appears to be in violation of the intended use of that space. My understanding is that the food locker belongs to Gordon's. This problem was brought up for the information of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the scoring of the Gordon's expansion plan on September 22, 1987. However, P &Z did not act on this as it is a prior violation. Initial research into building permits issued for the building did not turn up any building permit for the food locker. Other code violations are use of employee housing unit for office space, placement of an elevator in the building, and landscaping representations not installed. The employee housing unit use will be returned as part of a special review approval by P &Z for bonus FAR. Enforcement action for the other violations should also be considered. The Resolution allocating commercial GMP quota to Gordon's is scheduled before City Council for October 12, 1987. I am preparing this resolution for the Council packet due October 7. If you have any comments pertinent to the Resolution, please tell me before October 7. cc: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official P S8 2 5 ! P7„ Dore mus & WeLLS ! I` an association of land planners • September 25, 1987 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Steve: Since I am planning to be out of town from October 6 and won't be returning until shortly before the Council meeting on the 12th, I wanted to outline my understanding of Council's obligations regarding Gordon's Restaurant. Section 24- 11.5(f) states that "Subsequent to the conclusion of all protest hearings . . . , the city council shall by resolution and prior to November 1st of each year, allocate development allotments among eligible applicants in the order of priority established by their rank. Those applicants having received allotments may proceed to apply for any further development approvals required by the zoning, building or other regulations of the city . . . " Since there will be no protest hearings this year, we expect that City Council will simply allocate the quota of 1,033 sq. ft. requested in our submission for Gordon's without a great deal of discussion, since the award is mandatory. Following Council's award of our quota request,on the 13th, we will appear before HPC for their final consideration of our project under the guidelines for review of proposals in the Commercial Core Historic District. I will contact you to make sure I haven't overlooked something which might come up with Council. Sincerely, Joseph Wells AICP JW:j1r.19 • 608 east Nyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 n telephone; 303 925 -6866 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon's Staircase DATE: September 24, 1987 At your September 22, 1987 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the requested special review for bonus FAR to accomodate Gordon's deck enclosure. One of the conditions of approval was that the exterior staircase leading to the proposed enclosed area be further studied and presented again to the Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. The Commis- sion scheduled further discussion of the staircase for the next meeting (September 29, 1987). Attached is a letter by the applicant's architect and eight options for staircase location. Criteria that the architect has suggested for evaluation of each option are listed on pages 1 & 2 under "Additional points to consider regarding stair..." On page 2 of the letter, revisions of safety and aesthetics features are also proposed to address some of P &Z's concerns. The applicant continues to favor option #8. Staff believes that option #5 has many advantages in being internal to the project, reducing projection into open space, and minimizing impact on streetscape. We believe that the safety and aesthetics proposals, including (1) containing all drainage within the stair and channeling it into a single drain, (2) omitting vestibule, (3) reducing angles and curves, and (4) reducing projection into open spaces, all improve the project. The details of the design can be reviewed by HPC in their final review, provided that the concept meets P &Z's approval. The applicant will present the attached options for your consi- deration. Jake Vickery has also offered to show P &Z members the site if there is interest in arranging this with him prior to your meeting. We expect that P &Z members have had ample opportun- ity to visit the site, and are not scheduling a special site visit. gordonstairs H A T E A G U A R C N 1 T E C T S 210 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 303 - 925 -2556 • if � A'1 ii September 24, 1987 SEP 2 Q 1987 tit To Pitkin County Planning & Zoning: We appreciate the opportunity to review and revise the design of Gordon's stair in consideration for allotment of bonus FAR square footage as prev- iously presented. Considerations seen to fall into three categories as follows: 1. Location - function - visibility, blockage of view - projection into open space - attachment, appendage - shop windows 2. Safety - perception of safety, comfort - sturdiness, single pole - handrail - snaanelt, dripping - handrail, guardrail maintenance 3. Aesthetics-compatibility - shape - color - materials - overstated - pleasant approach Additional points to consider regarding stair are as follows: 1. required by code 2. internal to the project 3. serves only one owner, Gordon's, not the general building 4. minimize impact on existing brick work & shop windows 5. minimize impact on street scape 6. minimize blockage of view of Aspen Mt H A R R Y T E A G U E A R C H 1 T E C T S 210 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 303 - 925 -2556 AiL Page 2 Cont. 7. courtyard low utilization factor, rental spaces empty. 8. already approved by HPC, client, building owner, other tenants, building inspector. Revisions proposed regarding stair are as follows: 1. Location see attached sketches. 2. Safety -will meet or exceed all safety requirements. - drainage from stair will be contained within the stair. 3. Aesthetics -omit vestibule - reduce angles and curves - reduce projection into open spaces (see attached sketches) . __._.. . . . 44 . , . -,- \k, I \ , , ! bit't . ,c)..... ,..; ....4 • r MILL 1/4 , sc *fuem ,....ad ' : I San- Vis" . - , , t.;, .. '' ;5 . '',. ''.: s '.....,, !)'. — . M I F -E_ 1 in . -,-.- : H• tutv. Via: OM r-4 il . . . .. .... . . g.. E.L.EV. 11/66 , ,-, 1 . • . . t ----1,‘„1 ....„..1. • , : , . ,.... _____ r _ 1 I ....__ • i s . - e......,2_,;,,osie =,.. 2,„.) 17 1 c H Tsusaut Orris:" 1-4 44. I , „Atar-rse-ts ..-.... , . . . • ,Ir ... ., 1-lerkiH. ear. ---------- ..--- ---- x -... 0;1 ....„-, -- \ I , *El .. .n. , \\.:‘, , , , - 01\\ \ , ,,, , , ,.. .......=_—_ • mg" omiliting ,,,\: -,,, , ... .\\, 3 > . 1 N ; .'... , . , >. *. I - 'A it -,s • - ,''.4 . --1 4:1(tr' . j ' ■ IW ‘ n. -- 1 .. r . . fa ..7.,_: i 1 I 1 • . --- 7----- ''" •' i''''' .; ' ' N• waxy. Jim: _ 4 .:.z.e... .t.- t....1, •, . . 4 •-:t • .;• • . •,,. 0 .• 2 , ,..„-,,,,, • 4 MIIIP _ • k ..,, I . t • , lil:...l ';' g... ri.i.gv.. qt.' .. ,... , , ., • ..., .. ,, 1 I Ari ' '''' ..- • ^.. - • .tri;trk • • . 1 .--- r __ __. -.- • L ' `4,e..4. ;.',- •-• ' I - --., I I i I I F - 3 2 . 1 ' S - C. 0 la 0 CPS t =P...,s7.., _boo 1-r 1 Tsasur.. c;:rno r-4 41- 2 AtiTiCtri - - - I � X1111 cm" II 11 II i , , \ os=Ca \,,,,,, ,\,„ ,...„„, Lig*-2.7 v • • L rIAM- 'Jr• " r. - -J Il . H • RLN.. llw• • i t III �• LLEV...NIr' - . 1 a1 _I r - - - - - - H r i H_________ , I � _..„_ i .. _ 16.044,La vie tt; Go 2poH S L1 =f.T, _boo 1 7 1 c N } ,� a 1 UapkiH4 4(• 'r le • z- "" ° I * 4 ¢ 'r ti H • LL6Y. Vs: t �• 5s v Orr' • • • l I idiy. I W . Gv 2_0oH 1 s =0.../€...T. ADOl a4aaw� Taca.uc cirri ri # ,dam+ TWr4 —„– U°pklns 41. ( {, I ������ //I �� JJ� --�� yjp v I II I + LUMP ' \ \ \�\ - \ \ _ �_�__ \. \•. `\ \\. \-s-- P. np , I��M �r. let tram- i I — IF I L L L 11 • H • claw. 4w• +r• r i ■ I1 gr • ESE V• . ell • I I r _ s.,. yo.. - Go ¢ 0 oH ' 'S CE-oc..7. J/D0 I - T Ic• - • 1-1 }� . T'aee. p710N # .. - -. — �yeNlTCe.TS �' ' `� liopkl Hai t.. Y r _, _ 1 1 v- v v , ..41 iuuur K.4 . 1 4mn.si 1. ifi 44s. I b~ r7 " ,' r . . w 1 r in li I l' • %AY. r � s 1 i - IP ,*(4/4,,c,,,. i } e; ti Y S. L1LV. 416' . Go ¢ooH'S =E - -'T. -boo 1- ri c , N + � T TieauG or'71oN #!A .— i-ier fl 0 , 4-r• • i - ---- -*., 1 ..,. Diwti _Ilkul i 1 \' \\ •. x \•, ,, _ \ \ -, , - \‘‘ N \\N\ ..\ • • \\\ \\:\N\ •'.., :: '' : : \ 1 :,,•,,,...,, • \ \ \ \\ , \ , .. DP > " r_ 4 _ 414 • 1 • , • .-. ' .s....•.:se ' olgi . , iiPr ''. t '.,;1;••:" T ••••...2:: • "! ' -I ill . ' . i. _, ll ''' r. -------.. 1 • ......a.....1 I • __. ., . 1-1• ir.Lay. Vs' i ,..1 1 ,•: , , c I • g.• c.i.Ev. 'Ire • .. 1 ....... . , . --.-- t . ^ i r -____ 1 - r I ET . . ------- _ t. SLAV. 1 114 , " ' H 7 .....•, ,•i .4044-54:4;:i41- - 6.e>12-0.::11. 'S 'QE-T . _6 DC) I 7 I c•- 1.--1 14.6aa, arrleiN 44 " - - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission and Special Reviews Case #2737 - 073 -38 -004 DATE: September 16, 1987 LOCATION: Mill Street Station, 205 S. Mill Street, Lots D through J, Block 81, Aspen Townsite. Gordon's Restaurant is located on the second floor of the building. ZONING: Commercial Core /Commercial Core Historic District APPLICANT: Gordon Naccarato, owner of Gordon's Restaurant, has prepared the application with authorization of Anthony J. Mazza, Managing Partner of the Mill Street Station Building. In effect, the owner of the building is the applicant. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Commercial GMP allocation of 1,033 square feet for the enclosure of the second - level deck and construction of a new exterior entry stair. Special review approvals for bonus floor area and further reduction in the trash and utilities access area are also requested. QUOTA AVAILABLE: Approximately 9,000 s.f. of the 10,000 s.f. in the annual CC -C -1 zone district commercial quota has been used up through GMP Exemptions to Elli's (about 8,500 s. f.) and Ute Mountaineer (500 s.f.) this year. According to Section 24- 11.3(k), 30 percent of the original number of allotments shall be available when exemptions reduce the number below that level. Consequently, 3,000 s.f. is available in the CC /C -1 zone district for the 1987 competition. Final tabulation of the quota will be made prior to the City Council meeting dealing with allocations. The Gordon's proposal is the only application in the 1987 Commercial GMP competition. PROCESS: The Planning Office will summarize this project at your meeting of September 22, 1987, review procedures with you, and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the application. The applicant will give a brief presentation of his proposal. A public hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the hearing, the Commission members will each be asked to score the applicant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1,2, and 3 amounting to 25.8 points to be eligible for a GMP allotment. A project must also score a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1 and 2 and provide deed restricted housing for a minimum of 35% of the employees generated by the project to be eligible for allocation. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category 2 = 3.0 points; and Category 3 = 8.75 points. Should an application score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points to the application as a recommendation for you to consider. The following is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explana- tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings. Availability Quality of Public Employee Bonus Total of Facilities/ Housing Points Points Design Services Commitment 10.5 5 15 -- 30.5 PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: According to the Planning Office's recommended scoring, the Gordon's Application meets the threshold number of points in each scoring category. Sufficient quota is available for the project. Positive features of the project include the placement of planters on Hopkins Street and the architectural concept of placing the addition in the middle section of the building. Problems with the level of transparency on the Hopkins elevation and exacerbating the existing trash problem may be dealt with through the special reviews for bonus floor area and trash and utilities area reduction, as discussed below. The Planning Office recommends that you concur with its point assignment to approve the project and recommend to Council the allocation of 1,033 square feet for the construction of Gordon's addition. 2 SPECIAL REVIEWS: I. Bonus Floor Area: The applicant is requesting special review approval to use the unutilized bonus floor area available to the building via the prior placement of on -site employee housing. As you know, with .3:1 FAR used for employee housing, 1.7:1 FAR may be used for commercial space in the CC zone district, arriving at a total FAR of 2:1. According to the applicant's calculations, 1,033 square feet remain available. The Building Department will need to verify the existing FAR and resultant FAR to insure compliance with area and bulk require- ments prior to issuance of a building permit. The Zoning Official stated that there is a violation in the use of one of the employee units for Gordon's office and storage. This violation was also confirmed in an inspection of the restaurant by an Environmental Health Officer. Not only does this change Mill Street Station's employee housing program but it effects the internal FAR ratio for calculation of bonus FAR. All employee units must be occupied for employee housing purposes as verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. Since this is not the first violation discovered of the occupancy of these units, we recommend that the leases of all of the employee units in the building should be reviewed every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. Section 24- 3.5(a) of the Municipal Code states the criteria that P &Z must consider in granting bonus FAR as follows: Criteria: (1) "the compatibility of the development with sur- rounding land uses and zoning, including size, height and bulk, proposed site design characteristics, including landscaping and open space and visual impacts such as viewplanes." Response: On July 27, 1987 HPC reviewed the proposal for historic compatibility and granted conceptual review approval subject to the condition that the applicant further address at final HPC review (1)transparency of the addition and (2) setting back the addition from the Hopkins Street facade. HPC was concerned with upsetting the existing low scale of Mill Street Station as viewed from Hopkins Street and overwhelming the scale of small Victori- ans on the block. Comments in the 1980 application and in the P &Z and HPC's reviews and scoring of the architecture focus on these same aspects of compatibility. The applicant's presenta- tion has also emphasized the concepts of transparency and setback from the existing masonry parapet. We suggest that these quali- ties of design be better realized. Staff finds the height of the addition and vaulted roof to be acceptable in terms of minimizing visual impacts. However, the view of Aspen and Shadow Mountain from Hopkins Street would still be affected. There was talk at the HPC meeting of using glass 3 bricks on the Hopkins Street elevation to increase transparency. This concept met with initial enthusiasm by the Committee and should be further explored. Set backs of approximately 2 -3 feet were also discussed and should be further considered. The applicant indicates that shifting the addition back on the deck is limited because of the need to work with the existing structural system. While no analysis of this factor has been presented by the applicant, Stan Stevens of the Building Depart- ment stated on September 16, 1987 that he would anticipate the need for a new rafter supporting system for the deck to support the load of a new masonry wall. Consequently, it may be as easy structurally to set the addition back 2 feet as it would be for the proposed 8" setback. Criteria: "(2) Whether the applicant has documented the availab- ility and adequacy of water supply, sewage treatment, roads, and parking facilities to serve the proposed development." Response: Staff is satisfied that the site has adequate public services available for the additional floor area. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the request for special review of bonus FAR subject to the following conditions: 1. The three studio employee units in the Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appropriate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. 2. The addition shall be designed with greater transparency and set back farther from the Hopkins Street elevation to the satisfaction of the Historic Preservation Committee, as determined at final HPC review. II. Reduction of Trash and Utilities Area: The applicant is requesting, in connection with the increase of commercial space, reduction in the trash and utilities area requirement. It is argued that the existing trash area, noted to be approximately 13 feet by 14 feet (182 s.f.), is adequate for the trash generation caused by the expansion. Section 24- 3.5(b) states the criteria for this review to include consideration of the following matters: Criteria: (1) Adequacy of trash vehicle access. 4 Response: Both the Planning Office and Engineering Department have noticed congestion in the alley due to parked vehicles and multiple service delivery vehicles. There may be an enforcement problem with illegal parking unrelated to this application. We have notified the Police Department and anticipate increased ticketing and towing if the situation does not improve. In general, we agree with the applicant that adequate trash vehicle access is available and not a constraining factor. Criteria: (2) Amount of trash likely to be generated. Response: The Engineering Department states in a memorandum dated September 16, 1987 that it does not appear reasonable to predict no increase in trash even if the bar area does not generate more trash. 20 to 30 additional meal seatings per day (winter) are estimated by the Engineering Department. Neither the applicant nor referral agencies have indicated an abundance of room for additional trash in the present set -up of three dumpsters for the entire building. The Engineering Department recommends an additional dumpster or provision of a trash compactor to accommo- date the anticipated additional trash. Criteria: (3) Unique measures provided for enclosed trash bins. making them easily moveable by trash personnel. Response: No unique measures are provided. Additional pick up service is not a criteria for reduction in trash area. Criteria: (4) Provision for trash compaction. Response: A trash compactor system for the building is one of the recommended options. Criteria: (5) Comments of Aspen trash and city engineering personnel. Response: Engineering Department comments have been submitted. Criteria: Utility placement and maintenance. Response: Access to utility meters appears to be constrained given the food locker in the trash /utilities area. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of a reduction of trash and utilities access area subject to the condition that a fourth dumpster be provided in the trash area in a configuration acceptable to the Engineering Department, or that a trash compactor be installed, to be deter- mined prior to issuance of a building permit. gordons 5 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: GORDON'S COMMERCIAL GMP DATE: 9/22/87 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 1.5 COMMENT:The deck enclosure and new entrance add bulk to the Hopkins Street elevation, which the applicant states has minimal visual impact because of transparency and set -back from the facade. However, brick and tile walls are not transparent, and an 8" set -back is not enough to maintain the integrity of the Hopkins Street facade. as viewed by staff and by HPC at Concep- tual Review. Maintaining a low scale of the building from the Hopkins Street elevation was one of the key concepts of the original design - to better relate to the Berko Building and other small scale structures on other side of Hopkins Street - highly scored by HPC and P &Z in the 1980 GMP competition. This is somewhat compromised by the addition. Adding bulk to the middle part of Mill Street Station is more acceptable than adding on to the western side. further overshadowing Berko's. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 2 1 COMMENT: The addition of 5 planters at street level in the setback area along Hopkins Street will improve the character of this open space area. It is not clear who has responsibility to maintain landscaping in planters. We note this will help compensate for landscaping not provided but shown in the original application. No improvements have been proposed for service vehicle access in the alley. which has been identified by the Engineering Department as a problem area. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The potential for further energy conservation is limited in this small addition. according to the Roaring Fork Energy Center. Thermal insulation of walls. roof and ceiling and air lock door are commendable. They appear to off -set heat loss of glazing. Higher R -value of glazing was suggested. Stan Stevens Questions how masonry walls will achieve the R -value represented (R -30) and will review plans at building permit stage to insure compliance. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 COMMENT:Planters and commitment to install bicycle rack are amenities of this proiect for the existing development. These amenities are fairly standard and commensurate in scale with the proposal's size. The bicycle rack relocation and installation should be determined through CCLC. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The relatively small addition at 28' height will obstruct a portion of the view of Aspen Mountain from Hopkins Street but this is not within an identified viewplane. Given the existing setback from the street and the backdrop of the Wheeler Opera House. the addition's impact is not great. but would be minimized by further setback. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. 2 RATING: 1 COMMENT:The applicant states trash veneration will be reduced because of the inclusion of a "gun" system in the full- service bar. eliminating some glass containers. Engineering Department accepts that there may be a reduction in bottles. but believes there will be additional trash from Greater winter seating capacity. A fourth dumpster or trash compaction is needed. The existing trash and utilities area is noted to be cramped space for dumpsters due to the placement of a large cooler in that space. SUBTOTAL: 10.5 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, consi- dering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: 1 COMMENT: Both the Aspen Water Department and Fire Marshal indicated this expansion may be handled by the existing level of water and fire protection services in the area. 3 b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: 1 COMMENT: Heiko Kuhn stated the Aspen Metro Sanitation District can adequately service the proposed expansion. c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposed expansion can be adequately served by existing RFTA bus routes. The small increment of new traffic generation can be accommodated by existing streets. d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposed expansion should create no change to the existing drainage facilities. Engineering Department found the drainage plans acceptable. e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: 1 COMMENT:No off - street parking is included in the proposal, nor required by Section 24 -4.5 for commercial development in the CC zone district. Engineering Department noted problems caused by the applicants' illegal parking in the alley. SUBTOTAL: 5 4 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24- 11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: 15 COMMENT: The applicant has argued that no new employees will be generated by the proposed expansion. The Housing Authority concurs; therefore. 100% of all new employees would be housed and the maximum number of points should be given. Additionally. the applicant has committed to provide a letter of credit for cash - in -lieu to house 5.25 low- income employees. The cash payment would be made up to a maximum of 5.25 employees if the Housing Authority determines. based on affidavits. that an increase has occurred in the next two (2) nears. The Housing Authority recommends approval of this program. provided that the applicant is responsible for housing all employees, even if more than 5.25 employees are generated. The applicant will clarify this aspect of the program at the P &Z meeting. 5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: 0 COMMENT: The Planning Office has no recommendations for bonus points. 5 6. TOTAL POINTS: Points in Category 1: 10.5 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 5 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 15 (minimum of 8.75 points to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, 3 30.5 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: 30.5 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office GORDONS.COMM 6 MEMORANDUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: September 16, 1987 Re: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. It appears that the submission might be procedurally incor- rect. The submission might need to be submitted as an amendment to the 1980 Mill Street Station Commercial GMP submission. The City Attorney will have to address this. If the application is not an amendment, we need to know if we can consider existing conditions versus promises made in 1980. 2. There were a number representations made in the 1980 upon which the protect scoring was based, which representations were not provided as indicated. Although these discrepancies need not affect the scoring of the current application, they should at least be considered in case they affect the acceptability. a. An elevator was included in the 1980 submission but was not constructed. The Engineering Department has seen no indication that pedestrian use of the building has been adversely affected by this omission, although their scoring at that time was based on the idea of the elevator. The exception might be accessibility for handicapped persons. b. Landscaping was indicated in 1980 which has not been provided. Again, this was an item which figured into the scoring, but again, it might not be significant enough to detract from the current application. 3. Storm drainage - The project will not change existing condi- tions. 4. Trash - The existing utility area would have been large enough, but there is a cold storage locker which has been installed in it. There are currently three dumpsters located in the utility area. The Wheeler Opera House reported that tenants of the Mill Street Plaza Building have used the Wheeler dumpster when the Plaza dumpster is full. The discussion of trash generation in the submission was not well quantified. It appears that there may be 20 to 30 additional meal seatings per day, and it does not appear reasonable to predict no increase in trash, even if the bar area does not generate more trash. Given this information in conjunction with the insufficient existing conditions, it appears that the site should have an additional dumpster or provide a trash compactor. 5. Right -of -way improvements - The Engineering Department does not have indications that an additional bicycle rack is needed. The proposed planters would be an improvement to the streetscape, however it should be noted that streetscape improvements, including bicycle racks, are subject to CCLC review and street- scape guidelines. cc: City Attorney Director of Public Services CR /cr /caseload.14 CITY , . PEN ,,, I Y., , 130 reet asp r -- 611 I 2 1 „), SEP 1 1987 MEMORANDUM - -..._1 L__ DATE: September 1, 1987 TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: City Attorney RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission We recommend that this application be scrutinized with respect to the original approvals for the Mill Street Plaza, which, we believe, established permissible FAR /build out with respect to the project. Also, as we have repeatedly emphasized in the past, the application should be signed by the applicant. PJT /mc F7/.: ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT lK` MEMORANDUM L G TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: GORDON'S GMP CO MERCIAL SU M SSION DATE: AUGUST 21, 1987 The applicant states there is adequate capacity at the main to serve the existing an• expanded needs of this project without system extensions and upgrading. We concur that the Water Department can service this facility condition and predicated upon the applicant paying the required assessment fees as required by ordinance. We wish to advise the Planning Department that the current demand capacity of this restaurant is in excess of the demand paid for under the original water permit *122, issued October 22, 1982. We believe it is in the best interest of the City to require that the applicant resolve these problems prior to receiving any approval for additional commercial space. JM:ab MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Transit Zoning Official Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission DATE: August 14, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Gordon Naccarato requesting Commercial GMP approval in order to enclose the outdoor patio on the second level of the Mill Street Plaza Building and construct a new enclosed exterior restaurant entry stair for Gordon's Restaurant. Please review this material and send your comments to this office no later than September 2, 1987 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z. Thank you. I /4F /1 SPFh CJr- s Ji_, nAiei- Si\• rnt,a h's CA- SCrc' &IGII THIS p r a J r o tln /��19� /444, d�.� >CaInI� iFh ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDA� EQ© 81623 4 (303)963 -0311 59 1 1987 August 26, 1987 ' ` , , , TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office \ _ .._.____- FR: Steve Standiford 1. RE: Review Comments for Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission Energy Comments Due to the nature of the proposed work, we agree that the applicant is very limited in the energy conservation measures that can be implemented. For example, the large amount of required north glazing will greatly increase the heat loss of the addition. Having glazing of at least R2 will help decrease this loss. There are glazing options available with higher R values that should be explored to help minimize this heat loss. There are several positive energy features that are commendable, including: the high insulation levels for the roof, walls and floor; the attention to air infiltration; insulating the hot water lines; the new double door air lock entry; and, the water saving fixtures. Once again, it would help to define the water saving features (eg., two gallon /flush toilets). This is, however, a minor point for this project. The appendix indicates that roof- mounted solar panels were considered in the past. We wonder if any further consideration was given to this idea. e> i nfer R OARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY I � , `' ASPEN, COLORADO '' ' SEP 8 1987 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2, 1987 TO: Steve Burstein City /County Planning Department FROM: Bruce A. Abel Qc General Manager hJ RE: Gordons Commercial GMP Submission We have no comments to make regarding the above - referenced sub- mission as the applicants statements (p.14) adequately represent the situation as it relates to transit. pak ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM SEP 31987 TO: Steve Burstein, Planner 1Ltul FROM: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Office DATE: September 2, 1987 RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has the following comments on the above referenced submission. Sewage Disposal: Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewage collection system conforms with policies of this office. Water Supply Service to this project by the City of Aspen Water Department conforms with policies of this office. Air Ouality: There are no wood burning devices indicated in the proposal and no significant air quality impacts are anticipated with this project. Food Service: The increased seating capacity of the restaurant will require the addition of one (1) water closet and one (1) urinal for males and one (1) water closet for females to the existing restroom facilities. Plans for the new bar must be submitted to this office for approval and shall comply with the Rules and Regula- tions Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020 MEMORANDUM SEPI51987 TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE --- FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 26, 1987 RE: GORDON'S COMMERCIAL GMP SUBMISSION ISSUE: Are the employee generation calculations appropriate and is the affidavit acceptable to the Housing Authority? OVERVIEW: The applicant (Joe Wells) on behalf of his client, Gordon Naccarato, is requesting Commercial GMP approval in order to enclose the outdoor patio on the second level of the Mill Street Plaza Building and construct a new enclosed exterior restaurant entry stair for Gordon's Restaurant. The deck is currently used by the restaurant for outdoor dining during the summer season. When the deck is enclosed it will become a bar seating area and entry for the restaurant as well as a coatroom and 2 new restrooms. The excising entry stair will be covered with a new slab and enclosure will be built at the base of the stair. The applicant represents that the summer season is the peak season of employment for Gordon's. The restaurant presently serves lunch and dinner during summer; during the winter, only dinner is served. In addition, during the summer, the restaurant uses the deck for outdoor dining. During the winter, the restaurant has a peak seating capacity of 101 seats for dinner only; during the summer, maximum seating is 133 for lunch and 101 for dinner. Attached is a list of full time employees based on 2080 hours. For 1986, full -time equivalent employment was 26.1 employees and thus far for 1987 the figure is 28.4 employees. The figure for 1987 will be higher following conclusion of the summer season. The restaurant is closed 4 months of the year. The standards for the code for employees per thousand sq. ft. of commercial space is 5.25 maximum employees for 1,000 sq ft. (including the outdoor dining area presently used only a portion of the year the anticipated employee generation would be 24.3 employees. As the calculations of actual full -time equivalent employees indicate, this figure is already being exceeded in both winter and summer. The applicant represents that as a result of the proposal, full -time equivalent employment at Gordon's will decline. This will be the case because of two key factors first, food preparation and service is a significantly larger component 1 of the employee generation figures than is bar service; secondly, the number of seats available for dining will decline following construction. While the peak seating capacity in the main dining room will increase slightly to 113 the 32 seats for outdoor dining in summer are eliminated, so that peak dining remains the same year- round. In order to provide the City with adequate information to verify that there has, in fact, been non increase in employees at the restaurant following construction, the applicant proposes to leveldof the employment over the course of d the past year (proposed the proposedto use the period of September 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987) and to repeat the procedure again in September, 1988. In the event that following the second accounting there proves to have been an increase in full -time equivalent employment over the course of the year, the applicant proposes to make contribu- tions for the cash -in -lieu program for that incremental increase up to a maximum commitment of 5.25 employees. To assure payment, the applicant will provide a Letter of Credit to the Housing Authority upon final approval of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because the level of service is high at Gordon's the present employee count is over the requirement for the code, and staff is willing to go along with the affidavit. The bar should not generate as many employees year -round as the open deck restaurant seating. Therefore, staff approves the applicants proposal without the stipulation of a maximum commit- ment of 5.25 employees. If more employees are generated than 5.25 then the applicant should be responsible for their housing. HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff recommendation. 2 ASPENOPITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT SEP Lk) M E M O R A N D U M w TO: Steve Burstein - Planning Department ���� FROM: Bill Drueding - Zoning Enforcement Officer RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission DATE: September 17, 1987 On September 11, 1987, I met with Jake Vickery, Architect, who represents the applicant. In lieu of detailed building plans I expressed the following concerns: - The new stairway be included in F.A.R. calculations. - The new stairway intruded into or reduced required open space. Mr. Vickery said that these concerns were being dealt with at this stage. I have been having a recurring enforcement problem. Gordon's has been using the adjacent designated employee unit as an office for the restaurant in violation of City codes. I have received a letter form Gordon's stating they will discontinue this illegal use. I would like any approval contingent upon further assurance of code compliance. WD:lo sbecgmp.bd offices: mail address: 517 East Hopkins Avenue 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 4 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Transit Zoning Official Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission DATE: August 14, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Gordon Naccarato requesting Commercial GMP approval in order to enclose the outdoor patio on the second level of the Mill Street Plaza Building and construct a new enclosed exterior restaurant entry stair for Gordon's Restaurant. Please review this material and send your comments to this office no later than September 2, 1987 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z. Thank you. — (. 7 q- PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: (>04 n 1 a.� - fi I . pi (“ eta APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: ° "� %r } " � "dt °" 2. Describe action /type of development being requested: _rr/c ap/ fro IUD,,t f C41.-6.4 r. (,,«. f< o ey r. } o!lh2 alrwa1 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments L li 'y � ap,rn-' 1 -2J OJT A !nor; 1'_ iti 4' / x 1 :,.,l s.. r�.. r � .(11181 cr I) , r . AVFI :N of J +6 ,- 1 i,�u, in AA" 6,;1, .I?J» e p ib�tr, �:: h '-z w r ;., Odd n i l a T An At .. w;a )eetIL s:, ..I ( ) n <ro I YP. "• °tt(n )1./ . l ; I . !) Of j ft �t iv IhI$ p9: `lon } II Ptw {p f i , a %'_ .- i .'p -� l y p icYl! I , ) A)UllnA t�-�` 1.. (��� • C np- ^i -1 .tJr 1 LL) J 1-4" - AA,. .ly. 1 15 fiL4 I f 7k ' fl f' . Y ° , 16 /ii r l/ rt.s1 4. Review is: (PAZ Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (PAZthentoCC /BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) ;(NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: i' '3 �^ J 8. Anticipated date of submission: A /] ir1 t ; y ; �p,IS.1 a 9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS: 0 IP ' ff, °' - ,: reJui lon;r jJkaA 6 w L.t . / L � i n,, ,. � , {y l - ; -f' 1: — .! rat,lti /...,t,. . _ _ � x J= ..:_,y .�:fp:�.r �" p /br', }. sY�•' [Dwt 5 ( M .��- , �Y; ft /n,- Tyr P/ -L .. cal„IF ., < - 1.0 f -e119DkPi r4.. r J'i v. hYap — ('�/'- -'. .J• �- .a�� L:H .c/ LCffi i, +DV s.' -rte -r �.k� f� i ,..- n' -�:G ' — , -.h_ } n pr'o -, 1 1 te, � r),10 4 ( 'r..p±. "i Ir t,�.' -�! ✓z� 61I l, � „ U 1.; parnw 9,J MEMORANDUM TO: N City Attorney City Engineer `..Housing Director Aspen Water Department 'Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District `Parks Department Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Transit Zoning Official Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Gordon's Commercial GMP Submission DATE: August 14, 1987 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Gordon Naccarato requesting Commercial GMP approval in order to enclose the outdoor patio on the second level of the Mill Street Plaza Building and construct a new enclosed exterior restaurant entry stair for Gordon's Restaurant. Please review this material and send your comments to this office no later than September 2, 1987 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z. Thank you. ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925 -2020 Date: Sl /Wcr ( E Nyma n Es c, Elf RE: ( c'rcX flfl S C.Oeliin PKr /CC./ akinP Dear This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application_ We have determined that your application IS NOT complete. Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one Copy only needed) Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica tion Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ t/ A_. Your application is complete and we have scheduled it for review by the Pt Z on 9 /2a /S We will call you if we need any additional information prior to that date_ Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy of the memorandum.. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee_ _ B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call C 1 e Mt_ 3a/S /e /r) the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE PUBLIC NOTICE RE: GORDON'S RESTAURANT COMMERCIAL GMP SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 22, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the City Council Chambers on the first floor of City Hall at 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by Gordon Naccarato requesting Commercial GMP approval in order to enclose the outdoor patio on the second level of the Mill Street Plaza Building outside of Gordon's Restaurant and to construct a new enclosed exterior restaurant entry stair adding approximate ly 1,030 square feet. The property is located at 205 S. Mill Street. For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020 ext. 223. s /C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on September 3, 1987. City of Aspen Account. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cie> /A,* 1 4 HIGH ALT ITUDE 1 CUISINE. 1 1987 Commercial GMP Submission 1 1 s as s a r Y ? ' . MS - 1987 Commercial GMP and Special Review Submission August 1, 1987 s ft Submitted To: The City of Aspen ■. Planning and Community Development Office 130 South Galena Street Yr Aspen, Colorado 81611 Applicant: Mr. Gordon Naccarato Owner of Gordon's Restaurant *� 205 South Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -7474 Architecture: Harry Teague Architects 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 it (303) 925 -2556 Prepared By: Joseph Wells, AICP a an association / planners 608 e. hyman avenue aspen, cdlorado 81611 phone: 303925 -6866 PS OS Table of Contents A Page ■. I. COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 r SUBMISSION A. Description of Proposal 1 she B. Commercial GMP Evaluation Criteria 8 1. Quality of Design 8 a. Architectural Design 8 -- b. Site Design 9 c. Energy 10 ger d. Amenities 11 e. Visual Impact 12 f. Trash and Utility 13 « Access Areas 2. Availability of Public Facilities 14 am, and Services �. a. Water Supply /Fire Protection 14 b. Sewage Disposal 14 ° c. Public Transportation /Roads 14 d. Storm Drainage 15 e. Parking 15 3. Provision of Employee Housing 16 II. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES 19 r A. Bonus Commercial Square Footage 19 f" B. Reduction in Trash and Utility Access 20 Requirements r r laa ges r III. APPENDICES r A. Council Resolution No. 20, Series of ' 1980, Awarding 20,500 Sq. Ft. Commercial Allocation to Mill Street Plaza and Council Action Exempting + the Employee Housing from GMP r B. Selected Information from Original GMP Submission C. Gordon's Seating Analysis and Employment Information D. Owner's Letter of Consent to Make Application to .M i, NM W r ft m' S1 r a a "" I. Commercial GMP Submission A. Description of Proposal r r This submission, filed on behalf of Gordon Naccarato, owner of Gordon's Restaurant, requests Commercial GMP approval to permit the enclosing of the second -level deck and the construction of a new exterior restaurant entry a stair at the Mill Street Plaza Building. The deck is a currently used by the restaurant for outdoor dining during the summer season, as anticipated in the original GMP submission for the complex. .� Upon approval and completion of the enclosure, a new bar seating area and entry for the restaurant as well as a W new coatroom and 2 new restrooms will replace the existing exterior dining patio. The existing entry stair will be covered with a new slab and an enclosure will be built at a the base of the stair. In 1980, the City approved a commercial GMP alloca- tion of 20,500 sq. ft. in order to permit the construction a of the 28,550 sq. ft. Mill Street Plaza Building (see Appendices A and 8). The breakdown of square footages is as follows: GMP Allocation 20,500 sq. ft. Replacement Sq. Ftge. 6,500 sq. ft. a Bonus Employee Housing 1,550 sq. ft. r _ Total: 28,550 sq. ft. The Mill Street Plaza Building site is six city lots a (Lots D through J, Block 81, Aspen Townsite) located in i the CC zone district. Therefore, a total of 27,000 sq. NPR r 1 NPR e ft. of commercial space is permitted by right on the 18,000 sq. ft. site. In addition, Mill Street Plaza Associates received special review approval (see Appendix A) to build 1,550 sq. ft. of on -site restricted housing under the bonus provision that permits special review consideration of an w it additional .5:1 bonus floor area, including .2:1 commer- cial space if .3:1 of the bonus square footage is re- P ER stricted housing. Mill Street Plaza Associates did not seek approval to construct the 1,033 sq. ft. of bonus commercial space permitted by special review as a result of the bonus restricted housing constructed. It is that bonus commer- cial square footage for which we are currently seeking approval. It is important to note that it is the intent of this -' proposal to provide a more gracious and comfortable bar .. area so that guests arriving for their reservations will have a comfortable place to wait for their tables. This is not a proposal directed toward expanding the res- taurant's dining facili ' s, but rather is intended to resolve some functional conflicts presently being ex- . perienced at the restaurant. At present, the waiting area for guests arriving for lunch or dinner is limited to a small bar with four stools and a cramped entryway. There is no bar table seating for couples or bigger parties. In addition, coatroom and restroom facilities are inadequate. rr The enclosing of the patio will, for the most part only resolve, these problems. Because of the accessory rr 2 sae r uses included in the plan, seating in the main dining room r r 4 can only be expanded with the addition of 3 tables and a total of 12 seats; at the same time, the outdoor dining r area which includes seating for 32 will no longer be available. e Commercial GMP Procedures request information 'N covering nine areas of concern, as follows: 1. Water System. Water will continue to be �. supplied by the existing 6 inch City water main in Hopkins. Estimated increased demand will be minimal as .. only two small restrooms are anticipated; water service to the new bar will simply replace service to the existing w bar. 2. Sewer System. The project is served by the ` existing 12 inch Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District line in Mill Street. Impact on the system resulting from ... the additional two restrooms is negligible. Y. 3. Storm Drainage. Storm drainage will be largely unaffected by the proposal. The amount of impervious surfaces will not increase. Roof drainage will r be piped to the existing 48 inch storm sewer in Mill Street. - 4. Development Summary. With the exception of increased FAR square footage, elements of the proposal impact only in a very minor way the area and bulk require- ments of - - tFie Code. Open space areas for the existing protect as originally approved include the main level walkways, the lower level courtyard and the 9 foot setback area on the north side of the project; the total square ✓ footage equals 5,306 sq. ft., or 29.5% of the site. Areas 3 WM NM which must be deducted from open space calculations as a r result of this proposal are the area under the new std (approximately 180 sq. ft.) and the area underneath the as north deck which replaces the existing entry stair (ap- proximately 200 sq. ft.). The remaining open space square es footage therefore, exceeds 5,220 sq. ft., or over 29% of r the site, still well in excess of the 25% open space requirement. a The increase in FAR square footage will be r limited to no more than 1,033 sq. ft. Lot coverage is unaffected by the proposal. Existing landso�ing_is unaf- y, ;N ca , 4 a4 ,• fected by the proposal with the exception of the reloca- tion and addition of pots of evergreen shrubs and flower- ing plants. 5. Estimated Traffic Count Increases. In order to estimate increased traffic (peak hour) on adjacent streets resulting from the proposal, we have made the following assumptions, which we believe are conserva- tive: o Peak capacity in the bar of 34 har patrons. o rcent of bar patrons assumed to be patrons who would be eating at the existing r restaurant in any case. r o Because of location, only 50 percent of new e , bar patrons would drive. o Ridership of two persons per car. O 100 percent occupancy of bar at peak times. 4 r i • an Increased traffic at peak times would therefore equal 4.25 new peak hour trips, as follows: w ' 34 (patrons) x 50% (new customers) x 50% (driving) = 4.25 2 (persons /car) • ill No new vehicles will be stationed in the building as a result of the proposal. Deliveries and trash pick -up are actually expected to decline because of w the addition of a gun system in the new bar (presently all drinks must be mixed from individual bottles). .. At peak times, the restaurant will continue to serve lunch from 12:00 P.M. to 2:00 P.M. and dinner from 6:30 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. during the summer season. During the winter dinner only is served from 6:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. Provision of off - street parking is discouraged by Code and no new on- or off - street parking will be provid- - ed. All RFTA bus routes are within one block of the .. proposal; the Rubey Park transit center is 3 blocks away (see Vicinity Map on following page). No bike paths are W , provided through the Commercial Core. The location of the project continues to be the greatest disincentive to auto use. The site is within comfortable walking distance of the majority of accommoda- w tions in the City's lodge districts and is a popular stop �+ for shoppers in the area. w w 6. Proposed Uses. At the present time it is • anticipated that all of the space associated with the proposal will continue to be utilized for restaurant- s related purposes for the duration of the 20 year lease • period. w • 5 • OM Ictif --� --- --� - �onnt,� cam tog 9iSr zcr ovt«2LA•{ --- — - ZOgitta ptSTtICt eOSIt:AitIES • • - TT 1 5Lvt0j j_tv yip 44 w � w 1 � r J w 1 1 11 N M 1 1 A A OM related purposes for the duration of the 20 year lease period. 7. Effects of the Proposed Development. This r proposal will unquestionably have a positive effect on the adjacent uses in the Mill Street Plaza. We believe the whimsical architectural statement which is made with the "' addition and the new stair will add visual interest to the courtyard and encourage a higher level of pedestrian activity in this area. Because the addition is on the ,., north side of the courtyard, no further shading of the courtyard occurs as a result of the proposal. Gordon's, as one of Aspen's most popular res- . taurants, is a strong anchor for the immediate neighbor- . hood; improvements to the restaurant further strengthen ° the viability of the other commercial uses in the area. ., The proposal has been limited to the deck area .. internal to the complex; enclosing of the deck in the northwest corner of the complex has not been considered because of the visual impact on the Berko Building. The overall height of the proposal, which has .. been limited to 28 feet, is well under the height limit "` established for the block, as established by the zone "' district regulations (40') and the Jerome viewplane (approximately 45'). 8. Proposed Construction Schedule. Upon ap- proval, construction on the project will begin immediate- ly; the project will be completed in one phase, with ow completion currently anticipated by Thanksgiving of this year. 6 r i so 9. Employee Housing Proposed. An analysis in ✓ support of our position that the number of persons employed at Gordon's will not increase as a result of this - proposal is included in Section I.B.3., page 16. Briefly, the reason this will be the case is that the outdoor dining presently used during the summer season will be replaced by the bar and other support uses included with this proposal. Food preparation and service generates more employees at the restaurant than does bar service. • r NM 1*1 • MIR • 7 e a r 111 US B. Commercial GMP Evaluation Criteria 1. Quality of Design ° a. Architectural Design. By virtue of the proposal's location in the center of the existing complex, in an area where the buildings have been set back from the property line, the project's impact on neighbor- . ing developments, themselves a variety of architectural �. styles, is relatively minor. The height of the bar, ., approximately 28 feet, is well below the 40 foot height limit in the zone district as well as the Hotel Jerome viewplane,.which is some 45 feet above grade at the site. The key design concepts for the project W, 1. center on the transparency spar` y of the enclosure and on maintaining the integrity of rig detailing of the " 1 building (see architectural drawings on following pages). is i+:it� In order to maintain as much transparency as possible, a glass box is proposed above and set �,. r from the existing masonry parapet which surrounds the deck. The horizontal articulations in the proposal reflect on those of the existing complex. The eave height .. is the same as that for the existing roof and the existing parapet line is maintained throughout. The parapet covers the lower portion of the proposed structure so only approximately si et of new construction is exposed above it. Flexibility to shift the addition in relation to the deck is limited because of the need to work with the existing structural system. me a The vaulted roof form is derived from the r arched form chosen originally to define the entryways into the shopping areas and presents a minimum aspect to the 8 viewer from Hopkins Street. The vault will be reflected on the interior of the space for added visual interest in the bar area. Building materials will be the same as, or l compatible with, the material specified originally for the complex. The metal roof will be detailed like that of the existing ones and will therefore have a very similar appearance. The brick and tile used originally will be .. reused in those areas where glass is inappropriate. An `L} additional material which blends with the expanse of glass may also be specified. Colors will be selected from the palette for the existing building, including charcoal grey, r sienna, black and sandblasted metal. Exterior illumina- tion will be compatible with the present lighting scheme for the restaurant. The existing restaurant signage will be relocated; no new signage is presently anticipated. b. Site Design. While open space provided with the original project exceeds Code require- .. 7 ments, we believe the appearance of some of these areas � ,. „, )1 Tnainfi can be improved upon with the addition of large planters MN filled with ev- • -en shrubs and flowerin. • -. Five , ; of these will be placed at street level in the setback Tkh So JIM {.� ?" area along Hopkins Street, as shown in the plan, with a n .. a3 () sixth at the base of the existing entry stair. Smaller r planter boxes will also be added to the second level deck area at the present entry, similar to those already in ✓ use. ✓ All of the utilities presently serving the project are underground and this will continue to be the case with the new project. ✓ 9 r We believe the construction of a new entry stair for the restaurant will not only improve pedestrian circulation for the project but will also provide in- , creaced aafetV. The more central location and higher visibility of the new stair location allows patrons r walking to the restaurant from the east to quickly identify the access to the restaurant. The present stair is steep and sheltered from the sun. The new stair will -� have a more generous riser /tread relationship and will also receive sun during winter months. r c. Energy. When the Mill Street Plaza Building was submitted for GMP review in 1980, a number of NMI commitments were made in regard to energy conservation r b.rtn f�i 6 vi which exceeded Code requirements at the time (see Appendix 8). The existing system is a forced air system dis- tributed through ceiling diffusers; a separate system of air chilled with swamp coolers is also available (see Appendix B). To a degree, the applicant is limited in the �. energy conservation measures which can realistically be undertaken because of the necessity to extend the existing system to the space and also by design considerations. For instance, the desire to maximize the transparency of r the building dictates increased glazing on not only the south side of the space, but the north side as well. In order to assure that the project is an efficient one in terms of energy conservation, we propose to incorporate the following elements into the construc- t tion documents for the project: o A new double door airlock entry will r replace the single door currently in use. 10 • r I as ✓ j '`' o Thermal insulation which exceeds the , Cityl_a_ eguirement of R -20 in floors, "0".' walls and ceilings will be required. p � Proposed Standard: 3 I 'F 24174 y t !! ° F' N i R7 / A A H �,ti� 4 iti Roof R -40 h d , f-, ✓ SG ^1�J� ��ti,,� nu r e'" " Un Exterior Walls R -30 e Low E Glazing on north side with a minimum value throughout of -- R -2 1t 1rt i i 7 Floor (as stated in prior submission) R -38 o Expandable foam insulation will be ✓ utilized at all exterior door and window frames to reduce air infiltra- tion. Hot water lines, which must be _ extended relatively long distances, will be heavily insulated to increase efficiency. o Water saving fixtures will be speci- fied for the new restrooms. r d. Amenities. Open space provided originally with the proposal exceeded significantly that w required in the zone district (29.5% of the site); while it is not possible to improve on this commitment, open space reduction has nonetheless been limited to less than sai .8% of the site, so that open space still exceeds 29 %. With regard to open space improvements, the 11 r r emphasis has been on improving the appearance of the r existing open space areas in the vicinity of the res- taurant by adding large planters, as discussed previously. Pedestrian access in and around the project appears to be more than adequate; bicyclists are required r to use the streets through the commercial core, as no bike trails are anticipated in this area. Because the existing ' bike rack installed originally at Mill Street Plaza is •^ clearly sufficient to meet the needs of both the project and the immediate neighborhood, we propose to install a h&`f' bike rack similar in design to the original in an alter- nate location where the City has identified that there is a need for one. e. Visual Impact. The height of the proposal has been established to not only relate the ' addition to architectural elements of the existing building but also be minimize the visual impact of the project. Because construction is limited to generally the center portion of the Hopkins Avenue facade, in an area where the original building mass has been set back some 9 _ feet from the property line, visual impact on neighboring properties is relatively minor. We have avoided additions in the northwest corner of the complex in order to not impact further on the historic Berko Building adjacent to the property. r It is important to note that the maximum r height of the bar area (approximately 28 feet) is well r below the 40 foot height limit in the CC zone district. In addition, the Hotel Jerome Viewplane, one of a number r established to protect from obstruction mountain views from designated parks and other public places, is higher ' than the zoning height limit when it crosses over the site 12 r -- some 45 feet above the ground plane. This is the only NMI viewplane which extends over the protect site. r We believe the project is totally consis- tent with established community goals relative to visual compatibility as evidenced by the height limit established for the area and the absence of other limitations on height established through the creation of viewplanes. f. Trash and Utility Access Areas. We have included an analysis of trarh /service area require- "! ments for the Mill Street Plaza Building and a comparison .. to the actual area provided in ection II.B., page 20, where we are requesting approval of a reduction in r required area. While the overall area available appears to meet that required, the area set aside for trash facilities, approximately 14 feet by 13 feet, does not .. meet the minimum requirement of the Code, which is 25 linear feet with a depth of 10 feet. The owner of Mill Street Plaza has stated .. that he has previously received special review approval _ for a reduction and it seems logical that such an action has been taken by P &Z since the building was built with a reduced trash storage area. It should be noted that the ^ trash area requirement is the same with the proposed .. expansion as it is for the existing building. a The addition of a full- service bar will .. permit the inclusion of a gun system, with interchangeable tanks, for all mixers. At present, all drinks must be mix @d from bottles; this contributes greatly to the trash generated by the restaurant. Bottle trash generation will r be significantly reduced by this proposal. 13 ON Historically, the owners have scheduled ` extra trash pick -ups at additional cost during those very few peak times when trash generation is a problem. PIM r 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services r a. Water Supply /Fire Protection. The r Aspen Water Department has confirmed that adequate capacity exists to provide for the needs of the project .. without system extensions or upgrading. Water service will be provided through the existing 6 inch City water IBS main in Hopkins. Estimated increased demand will be minimal as only two small restrooms are being added. The ..4 applicant commits to the payment of fees associated with the fixtures added as a result of the project. The Aspen Fire Marshall has reviewed the drawings for the project and has agreed that service to .. the project can be provided without the necessity of _ upgrading facilities. The Fire Department is one block from the project and response time is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes. r b. Sewage Disposal. The Aspen Con - . solidated Sanitation District has confirmed that the capacity of the existing sewage collection system is w adequate to accommodate the project. Sewer service will r continue to be provided through the existing 12 inch District line in Mill Street. The applicant commits to the payment of any fees associated with increased sewer service. c. Public Transportation /Roads. The project is within one block of all RFTA bus routes and 14 • i within three blocks of the Rubey Park Transportation Center. The site is also little more than one block from Aspen's pedestrian mall. err As the analysis of estimated traffic count increases on page 4 suggests, the increase in peak hour demand resulting from the proposal is expected to be very slight, less than 4 cars. r d. Storm Drainage. As a result of this — proposal, an existing concrete patio will be replaced by a .� metal roof with built -in gutters. Because there is no ., increase in impervious surfaces, the impact on the existing storm drainage system will be negligible. Storm drainage from the new roof will be directed to the ex' Ling internal drainage system in the building and then into the 48 inch storm sewer in Mill Street, as at present. 1hrt, y Engineer has requested and we have consented to maintain the existing rate of flow for storm water runoff and avoid shedding additional ,. water onto Mill Street or Hopkins Street. e. Parking. Consistent with current auto - disincentive goals and parking requirements for the CC zone district, no off- street parking is included in the proposal. The restaurant is within comfortable walking distance (1,500 feet) of the majority of accommodations in • the L -1 and L -2 zone districts. In addition, as stated previously, the project is within 1 block of all RFTA bus • routes. Because of increasing congestion in the commer- cial core as a whole, a growing number of Gordon's patrons • arrive and depart the restaurant by taxi. • 3. Provision of Employee Housing As we have discussed 15 • is previously, the intent of this proposal is to permit better support facilities to be constructed for the main dining room at Gordon's, so that dining patrons may wait for their tables in a more comfortable setting and so that r some of the conflicts that presently exist because of the present layout of the restaurant can be eliminated. These •• include the Juana associated with arrival at the res- taurant as well as with bar service and the occasional "bar- only" patron and the inadequacy of the restrooms and ✓ their location away from the bar and waiting area. The summer season is the peak season of employ- " ment for Gordon's. The restaurant presently serves lunch o ✓vf iv'`' "'" and dinner _ducin- - -summer during the winter, only dinner �. r_ ) is served. In addition, during the summer, the restaurant uses the deck for outdoor dining. During the winter, the 1 restaurant has a peak seating capacity of 101 seats for dinner only; during the summer, maximum seating is 133 for r lunch and 101 for dinner (see Appendix C, Table 1). We have included in the second section of Appendix C the restaurant's listing of full -time (more than 30 hours a week) and part -time employees for the 1987 .. summer season and the 1986 -'87 winter season, which .. demonstrates that summer employment is considerably _ higher. The restaurant employed 45 persons full -time and 7 persons part -time during the winter 1986 -'87 season and presently employs 51 full -time and 14 part -time this ✓ summer. • Because the restaurant is closed roughly four +� month of the year, the number of full -time equivalent employees is considerably lower, if the Housing Office's MO standard of a minimum of 2080 hours worked on an annual basis is used as a basis of calculations. The third OM ei 15 OM section of Appendix C is a listing of full -time equivalent employment by restaurant department for calendar year 1986 — and a second listing for the first six months of 1987. r Total hours worked in each department have been divided by _ 2080 hours to determine full -time equivalent employment. r For calendar year 1986, full -time equivalent employment was 26.1 employees and thus far for 1987 the figure is 28.4 employees. The figure for 1987 will be higher following conclusion of the summer season. In this format, these calculations do not permit comparison between the summer and winter season; they do, .. however, allow a comparison to the standards normally utilized in the Code for employees per thousand sq. ft. of commercial space. The restaurant presently leases 4,620 sq. ft. in the Mill Street Plaza;._ Main Dining Room and Kitchen 3,000 sq. ft. Bakery !, 620 sq. ft. Outdoor Dining 1,000 sq. ft. TOTAL 4,620 sq. ft. r .. Using the maximum standard of 5.25 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable), and including the outdoor dining area presently used only a portion of the year, anticipated employee generation would be 24.3. As the calculations of .. actual full -time equivalent employees indicate, this figure is already being exceeded in both winter and summer. r As a result of the proposal, full -time equi- valent employment at Gordon's will decline. This will e the case because of two key factors -- first, food Int 17 a r preparation and service is a significantly larger com- ponent of the employee generation figures than is bar service; secondly, the number of seats available for dining will decline following construction. While the r peak seating capacity in the main dining room will ,. increase slightly to 113, the 32 seats for outdoor dining Ali in summer are eliminated, so that peak dining remains the same year- round. In order to provide the City with adequate information to verify that there has, in fact, been no increase in employees at the restaurant following con- /PM struction, we propose to provide the City with an af- fidavit regarding the level of employment over the course mmi of the past year (we propose to use the period of Septem- ber 1, 1986 through August 31, 1987) and to repeat the procedure again in September, 1988. In the event that following the second account- - ing there proves to have been an increase in full -time equivalent employment over the course of the year, we propose to make contributions under the City's cash -in- lieu program for that incremental increase up to a maximum commitment of 5.25 employees. To assure payment, we will provide a Letter of Credit to the City upon final approval of the project. We believe the provision that permits an applicant to demonstrate that there will be no increase in r employment was incorporated into the Code as a relief Ji‘1 valve for minor applications such as this which do not r ' qualify for the 500 sq. ft. GMP exemption but nonetheless have limited impacts on the community and limited ability r to bear the burden of a significant employee housing r 18 mum exaction. In this case, a cash -in -lieu contribution for 5.25 employees would approach the dollar amount budgeted for construction of this project. r r Yr r INN INN r 19 r r r II. Special Review Procedures A. Bonus Commercial Square Footage r Y As discussed earlier, when GMP approval was granted k " in 1980 for the existing Mill Street Plaza complex, r Vii' ✓d "' / approval was also given to 1,550 sq. ft. of bonus area for (i11�t? restricted housing under the provisions of the Area and r 1 Bulk Requirements (Section 24 -3.4) for the CC zone ,J 2 district. I� �1 {/ � f1 " Those provisions permit up to .5:1 bonus floor area by special review, of which up to .2:1 can be additional commercial space if the balance of .3:1 is committed to restricted housing. The construction of 1,550 sq. ft. of .. bonus restricted housing permits consideration of addi- tional bonus commercial area of 1,033 sq. ft. Such a request was not included with the original GMP submission. r Under Section 24 -3.5, the criteria to be considered by P &Z in order to judge the appropriateness of a Special Review submission relate very closely to various GMP — scoring criteria, discussed previously, as follows: r 1. Compatibility of the proposal with sur- rounding land uses and zoning (considering a number of listed elements). Please refer to the GMP Quality of a Design Sections I.B.1.(a), (b), (d) and (e) as well as the "' Development Summary, Section I.A. ■■ 2. Availability and adequacy of public ■■ facilities and services. Please refer to the GMP Public Facilities and Services Sections I.B.2.(a) through (e). i■ i■ 1111 20 IMO 'S B. Reduction in Trash and Utility Access Require- . ments A minimum of 40 linear feet (with a minimum depth of 10 feet) for a utility /trash service area is required under current code provisions (Section 24- 3.7(h)(4)) for the existing complex of , 27,000 sq. ft. of commercial — I Cl' enialAtv7 space, 1,550 sq. ft. of employee housing and the 1,000 sq. ft expansion (total of 29,550 sq. ft.). Of this area a minimum of 25 linear feet must be reserved for trash .. facilities. The utility /trash service area as constructed is 44.5 linear feet with a depth generally of 13 feet. The area reserved for trash, however, is limited to 14 linear feet. a+ thl (4. k :� The owners of the complex recall having previously; - received special review approval pursuant to Section 24- — 3.5(b) to reduce the area for trash facilities; the trash area requirement would be the same with the expansion as it is for the existing complex. To date, we have been unable to locate a record of such an action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Therefore, we have included with this submission a request for special review + consideration by P &Z of the adequacy of the utility trash ri service area to serve the proposed expansion. ' The review criteria to be considered by P &Z in its +. consideration of the appropriateness of a reduction in trash and utility access requirements are as follows: 1. The adequacy of trash vehicle access. The r, alley behind the Mill Street Plaza Building is perhaps the ' most orderly of all the alleys in the Commercial Core, due to the effectiveness of off -alley trash storage require- *■ ment for new construction. There are presently no trash 21 ,r storage containers or other significant encroachments into the alley right -of -way to interfere with trash vehicle access to the site. r 2. Amount of trash likely to be generated. Presently, because of constrained bar facilities at Gordon's, all drinks served in the restaurant must be mixed from bottles. The addition of a full service bar will permit the inclusion of a gun system, thereby allowing the restaurant to convert to a system of inter- changeable tanks for all mixers. This will cause a significant reduction in bottle trash generation, which is , a significant component of the restaurant's trash genera- tion. 3. Unique measures to facilitate trash removal. The existing trash storage area is well or- r ganized, protected from the elements and elevated to minimize ice buildup. Three 6'8" x 3'6" trash containers .. )4yswtiof presently serve the needs of the complex adequately. At peak times, increased pick -ups are scheduled at an additional cost to the owners in order to handle trash requirements for these limited periods. r. 4. Provisions for trash compaction. In recent months, the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission have been investigating trash compactor systems which might be A. appropriate for the entire Commercial Core area. Such a system is only feasible if all the building owners in each block are prepared or required to participate in the cost of such a system. it 5. Comments of City Engineer and Trash Service r � Personnel. In an initial conversation with Engineering, Jay Hammond has confirmed that he is unaware of any rr r r problems in the area; this will have to be confirmed with a site specific review, however, following submission. 6. Adequacy of area for utilities. A portion of the existing area was set aside for transformers and other utilities equipment for the building. We believe r these facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the complex for the foreseeable future. No additional equip- ment or service is necessary to meet the needs of this project. w GOR.APP • rr • 11111 23 e H ‘ „5.5.„ ‘,,,,,,,--\,. \\ \ \<,,,,,,,,,,,,___ \ % v 11 r 2 n ( tv. CI \\ -r 1 LC V J //\ \ � M I y e . - > 7 / /, 1 ! \ > -_. i I mo .. G 1 o r r .1 el 1 / J r Z. li (` 1l 0 � L � i o I a '' n > a I I r. � I I' I 11 1 I. I 1 ■ I 1 I i i 1 1 1 -i i — — — — 1111' -- (1 1 ..-- , ,-- ,--- IC \ % \.„...- 8 \ .--• --. 1 1 + ) ' I ■i r - t , gl _ [ \ IA I , _ ,..., // `,. i / 14 li ‘1 1 . 71 r--- II D Er / > / \.‘ k-- t ,./.. 1 7 , \ / i / ‘[..%....\\A\ :> ' 5 \ to \ \/'' = ..,,,... / l , I-- I — i 1 ifi I _ / \ ' / ,› e i /: ' ,, 1 _ ..... . \ N ; 1 \ I ' ■ 1 -...--., 1 , ; 1 — r.: 1 ----_ I , _„... •-.... I -.... \ , \ ■ , , _ .,., , . , \ :.,., ■ , , .,'„,,,, , . \ 1 , !ILiiLiA 4 c 4 0 i \ i A , 1 , , ; 1 a. N-- c..... 3 1 , 1 ... ..., i \ 1 • T a. 1 i ,A ..... le 1 ...„ , [ • . ii 4' I 1 1 1 1 ■ Z j i i 1 1 , 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 \\Ik U 1 J 1 1 I I \ A.. X i 1 , , 1 , t 1 ` I , i {ii - � • liri i , . , t ! i , - .rla 1:uU • ,11 !,, a 1 I ' I -l • — I1 . I ( � I . 1 1 : 1 y 1 1' w '1 -+L- �yi x i S 1 i ti gyp � \;.,:4-1-11 ' Cpl „�,..a \ L1 � • 1.,,,,,.....::4:p - I _ 1 � � O I 4's,' 1 y 1 g Yllt w Meru _. .+ 1 ' E 1 1 �� Iy ,v1 II 1 -_ 1 * 11 �t, II" !' . MIIP ; °ll ��!I' , 1 rd mil '�� �, I' ,, omit t il l 1 r it ... 9 , 1 . �1 I�AIl II i sa i)1I I �iil,,, I, 11 I , I, , lli ,..��p, a�, (r i; I I ! ,�I, I II Il I. x ,.. . ,.. A...., ,21 „i ' I' '�) ! !1 ! 1' _ . � ; ., /fi 111111,un a��i I ;, II \ I i • L, � , , , _ I, iI ! -- Iii ,, 1 _____ ..___ 1 , 1 I •" — .1, l liaiii W. 1.13 C , , •: , ::„-Lv ,0 f . tit....-..4t# ,,, i ,„ , ! ;!,! • Hi 1 , :]! ; ! l i 1 , 4 - ' l * : . ! t ri . •ilo /' 4 I ! '; 1,[i i ii 1 11 1 'I. l' :A I .' 1MIIN "1 I I I I 1 11 1 • ' ' ' 1 '4 11 I ' I I .. ..... i — •■•••••■••■•! - ' ,.'„ 1, , • i ',ere° ' i f-I . ll . 5.41 • 1111-91 Oi k, ,„ e 11 4_ c* &, 111 ( ; :, 41 AIL 11 ,-: /z :.t : ' ,I L'il) ;4 :; 11 ' - , I 11 7,---- — r...,-1 •C 1 , . •. ' 7 II I 1 .144. 11 ey, 1 ;,1„:„ I ..... .... II s e !I : \., \ ' \I - ------ . - I- 't L'i ‘ . 0 r-- .... .• _I 1 , 1 A uk 1 • r , z , _ L _ 1 1 , i e . , E. 1 I i I 0 1 " . i 1 , cn 1 I I 1 , I 1 I 1 --- _ 1 1 1 II • t f irj-r ' 19 ,iii � i It 1 1 'i _ 1 ��1I 1 i 1191 1 Iua�ur� nl .. 1 � I�Ir i ill 1 1 INN 4,\_ t N'-'-'s: N'-'-'s: ' ;lai I „ 1 F I lY � � �' $y`` 1 ∎ !III I I I `t • III -- – — { 1 1. i it: 44 Ill � II � r ` H e; t* I I I II a I � , N. ; I 'it l i b a r =z �I. �y 4' 1 F. I I ll . it O I � _I -- I t .� nr .� :v.aas ! -- 1 YMI+ 'I, � 1 II- + 111 w. p E �r • 1 I!I 1 4 11111111 ;,k ¢' SI MI 1 N. . , 1. `� 11 _ ' /4,),1•1 � 1 :7 0 VI II 1 W w III. Appendices Ass Yams • Appendix A 2997 • — /1 hs �Jfl•/ in � / W / ss Regular Meeting / Aspc City Coun rl November 24. 1980 Councilwoman Michael pointed out the Council is Constantly put the position of sitting and judging whether to protect staff or not. Councilwoman Michael asked Grueter to address the question of reliance. Grueter said the document of reliance says you have to 4 be fair; if the city tells someone they can do something, the city cannot come along in the middle and change their hind. Grueter told Council most of the cases in Colorado deal with situations where a building permit was issued. Grueter told Council he had not read all the Colorado cases cited by the applicant's attorney. Grueter said the applicant 4K is relying on the expenditure of funds for architects, etc. along the line. Grueter opine_ they have not gone far enough through the process to rely on detrimental reliance. Grueter said there are two ways this can go; the applicant may get sent back to square one or the city can try to negotiate. Councilman Behrendt said if the applicant would not change to 50 year decd restrictions, his vote would be to deny. Councilman Parry pointed out the 1 city approved the project with a five -year restriction and that is how the applicant continued to plan. Hecht pointed out to Council if an applicant comes in under GMP and does not have to go through subdivision, they are home free. SW Councilman Behrendt moved to table; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. • RESOLUTION 120, SERIES OF 1980 - 1981 Commercial GMP Allocations Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution 020, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman • Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Behrendt and Collins. Motion so carried. RESOLUTION 420 • ow (Series of 1980) WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, September 1, 1980 was established as a deadline for submission of 1981 applications for commerical and office development within the City of Aspen, and ■s WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance, three commercial projects, totaling 40,420 square feet of commercial and office space, were filed for the 1981 commercial allotment of 24,000 square feet, and OM WHEREAS duly - noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on September 23, 1980, and before the Planning and Zoning no Commission on October 7, 1980, to consider the Growth Management applications and evaluate and score these applications in conformance with criteria established in Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commissio; WM did evaluate, rank and score the projects submitted in the following order: ✓ P and Z HPC Average Average Total on Park Place Building (8800 square feet) 18.6 12.6 31.2 Ur Ajax Mountain Associates, 42 (11,120 square feet) 19.5 11.5 31.0 Mill Street Station Mall (20,500 square feet) 18.7 11.7 30.7 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 10.3(a), the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended, and City Council concurs, that additional commercial square footage in the amount of 6,000 square feet be added to the 1981 commercial quota, and PM WHEREAS, City Council also wishes to utilize 10,420 square feet of prior years' unallocated quotas in order to approve all three projects, so NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, hereby allocates commercial development allotments to the Park Place Building in the amount of 8,800 square feet, to Ajax Mountain Building, 02, in o w the amount of 11,120 square feet, and to Mill Street Station Mall, in the amount of 20,500 square feet, and that these projects are authorized to apply for any further development approvals required by the City of Aspen to secure building permi• Om AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 4,719 square feet of addtional commercial construction authorized in accordance with Section 24- 10.3(a), in conjunction with the 1980 allotments, be subtracted from the remaining unallocated quotas of prior !• years. M Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution 420, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Collins and Behrendt. Motion carried. • ORDINANCE 454, SERIES OF 1980 - Nicholson Rezoning to RB MI ■ Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Fdel closed the public hearing. Sunny Vann, planning office, pointed out the Council had requested the unit be deed restricted tc "low income "; this has been changed in the ordinance. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance 054, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilwoman ✓ Michael. All in favor, motion carried. IryIry'' ORDINANCE 054 (Series of 1980) MO 1 AN ORDINANCE MENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF TIIE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SEC. 24 -2.2 BY CHANGING TIIF ZONING OF LOTS C, D, AND THE WEST 1/2 OF E, BLOCK. _ 61, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, INDEPENDENCE SUBDIVISION FROM R /MF to R /MF RE — • 311 r Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 22, 1981 r _. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Epicurean • orm Jack Johnson, planning office, told Council this is a segues t to condominiumize 21 spaces in the Epicure building. The Epicurean received a commercial GMP allotment for 10,041 NO square feet in 1979. This allotment will expire in September if the applicant does not submit plans sufficient for a building permit issuance. The engineering department has y noted this is not an adequate condominiumization plat, and the applicant will need to 411 i resubmit a plat. Johnson told Council there is additionally 1,959 square feet of employee housing space divided into three units. The applicant is proposing this housing be - - restricted to the middle income category. Johnson told Council the planning office has reviewed this and has recommended that six month minimum leases apply to the three housing units. The P & Z reviewed this and recommended middle income guidelines. The applicant is requesting that the three parking spaces that would be required for the employee units be waived per the review criteria on NM the basis of the proximity to public transport and the closeness of the downtown core. The two studios will rent for 5412 and the one bedroom for 5635. These are 550 square feet and 850 square feet respectively. Johnson told Council the basement will probably 1 be used as restaurant space; the second floor will be 8 units; the third floor 9 units and the top floor the employee housing. !I Ow D The is special review required for the waiving of the parking requirements. Johnson told Council the engineering and planning departments are in support of auto disincentive in the commercial cial and support this application; however, they would like to bring to the mo ; attention of Council, as the city continues to exempt the residential component of the • commercial core, this is compounding the parking problems in the downtown. Johnson said m as future applications come through, the staff will start looking more critically at i parking association with the residential aspects of the downtown. Councilman Parry said • _ he would like agreement from applicants to join in a parking structure sort of like a sidewalk district. ow I The planning office recommends exemption of the employee units and approval of the no parking request. The employee units should be restricted to the middle income guidelines , 1 with a six month minimum lease restriction. Mayor Edel acain strongly opposed the W. ! middle income guidelines; the city is getting no affordable units if they are all to be middle income. I ! r Councilman Parry moved to approve the application for subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumizing theEpicure Plaza building subject to the following conditions:' (1) compliance with the engineering department comments, (2) deed restrictions of the on three employee units at the middle income price guidelines, (3) restrictions to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year on the three employee ✓ 1 housing units: seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with-the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. AM Councilman Parry moved to approve the Epicure Plaza request for exception from GMP for the three employee housing units and approve the request that no parking be required for these: ow guidelines subject to the following condition: employee units restricted at the middle income , guidelines with six month minimum leases and no more than two shorter tenancies; seconded : by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. • ..+ SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Brandt o j Councilwoman moved to approve the Brandt subdivision exception for purposes of condomini- umization subject to the following conditions; (1) submission of a condominium plat showing : each units, common elements, parking, etc., to be signed and recorded following construe - tion of the second unit; (2) deed restriction on both halves of the duplex to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; seconded by Councilman r Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel requested a work session discuss the issue of the pricing of employee units... This was scheduled for June 24, , 1981, , noon. at noon. Ma EXEMPTION FROM GMP FOR EMPLOYEE ROUSING - Mill Street Shopping Plaza s Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is a request to use a .5 FAR bonus for employee housing; exemption from GMP for employee housing , and exemption from the parking' oft requirements for the employee housing. This is located in the CC zone. This project went through GMP in September 1980 and was alloted 20,500 square feet in addition to the • M retention of 6500 existing square feet. Three employee apartment are included in the plan and are part of the FAR. One of these units will be substandard in size. Ms. Penne told Council the present plan reflects some changes, one is that the existing Mill street • w : station is being removed. This has been reviewed and approved by IIPC. There will be three studios, two at 548 square feet and one at 530 square feet. The employee units are part of the .,. if.R bonus and the applicant did not select to take advantage of the • bonur for the ' souare footage. P & A r,o:rmended approval of the exemption of the employee units from GMP, conditioned, upon them being deed restricted, and voted to waive the parking requirements. i! Councilwoman Michael moved to exempt from GMP the employee units in the Mill Street Shop- ✓ ping Plaza subject to the following conditions: (1) deed restricting the employee hous- ing units as per Section 20 -22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, (2) that these deed restrictions • be for the low income category of the housing authority guidelines, (3) that these deed restrictions be recorded prior to the receipt of a building permit; (4) that the parking requirements for the employee units be waived; seconded by Councilman Parry. d !,I Councilman Parry pointed out these should be middle income units like the previous applica- tions. Tony Mazza, representing the applicant, agreed he would like to receive what the other applicants have gotten. Ms. Penne explained she had taken this application to P & 2 OM i' with no guidelines recommendations. P & Z recommended low and said they wanted to recom- mend low auir clines from now on. Nayox Edel requested that P d 2 attend the study session Om on June 24. All in favor, motion carried. Appendix 8 w 41/t .S_, cioHH Mill Street Shopping Plaza ,. Growth Management Plan Submission APPROVAL REQUEST The enclosed GMP submission is based upon the re -use of all of the commercial space located on the property at the S.V. corner of Mill and Hyman. Because of this, application NIS is being made fora GMP allotment, commercial section, for the difference between the existing square footage and the proposed total square footage. All areas devoted to employee �+ housing have been exempted from the allotment request, in accordance with Section 24 -10.2 (f) of Ordinance No. 48 (Series of 1977). Proposed total commercial space 27,000 G.S.F. Existing commercial space (less) 6,500 G.S.F. Requested commercial allocation 20,500 G.S.F. This Application, then, is for 20,500 G.F.S. of commercial . - space, as defined in Section 24 -10.5 of the above Ordinance No. 48. Applicant is building approximately 1,550 square feet of employee housing, which consists of three studio units. Applicant is not requesting any commercial for the employee units which it is constructing. w Oil w all INN Mill Street Shopping Plaza Growth Management r Plan Submission INTRODUCTION 1. PROJECT NAME: MILL STREET SHOPPING PLAZA 2. LOCATION: Mill Street 3. PARCEL SIZE: 18,000 S.F. 4. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial Core, City of Aspen Zoning Code ZONING UNDER WHICH Commercial Core, APPLICATION FILED: City of Aspen Zoning Code MAXIMUM BUILDOUT 27,000 S.F. (Commercial) UNDER CURRENT 9,000 S.F. (Bonus Provision) ZONING: 36,000 S.F. 5. TOTAL BUILDOUT 28,550 S.F. (Finished Structure) PROPOSED: -6,500 S.F. (Existing Structure) 22,050 S.F. 6. BONUS AVAILABLE: Applicant is building 1,550 s.f. ass of employee housing, which is .. part of the proposed .5 bonus ratio. This entitles Applicant to a bonus of 1,000 s.f. of commercial space which Applicant is not taking advantage of. 7. SPECIAL REVIEW Employee Housing Units will be REQUIRED: subject to special review by the City Planning E Zoning Commission. HISTORIC DISTRICT For alteration of existing exteriors a. REVIEW: and addition, and new building. UN NMI ON Mill Street Shopping PP� 9 Plaza Growth Management Plan Submission ^ PROGRAM NARRATIVE: Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses .. Map No. 1 locates the project in the Commercial Core (CC) zoning district and the Historic Preservation District. Surrounding zoning is predominately CC, with some park and IMO public uses in a three block radius as well as several indivi- dually designated historic structures. The latter includes the Wheeler Opera House adjacent to the side to the north. r Surrounding land uses are a six of commercial (retail and office) and upper -floor residential apartments with some .. undeveloped land. Immediately adjacent structures are the Wheeler, Sabbatini Sports, Aspen Supply (Sardy's), the Isis Building, The Bank of Aspen, Berko Studio and the Mother Lode Building. PROJECT NARRATIVE: Development Outline ISO Existing commercial space 6,500 S.F. r Existing space to be removed -0- Net existing commercial space 6,500 S.F. New commercial space 20,500 S.F. New employee housing 1,550 S.F. New total (commercial & housing) 28,550 F.S. Open space & landscaping 27% .. Lot coverage 73% r Total 100% (18,000 S.F.) r A r Mill Street Shopping PP� 9 Plaza i Growth Management Plan Submission • .. Energy sos Project evaluation is focused on the ability of the project , its spaces and uses, to maximize conservation of energy. r+ Insulation Based on the current standards of City Ordinance 45 (series 1976) for thermal insulation, the project will improve upon required standards significantly, as follows: THERMAL CODE (MIN) PROJECT STANDARDS r ., WALLS R -20.00 R -25.00 r ROOF 25.00 38.00 GLASS 1.43 1.82 PERIMETER 10.00 12.00 FOUNDATION Design r The architectural design will incorporate flat roofs with high insulating performance to take advantage of the insulative .- qualities of accumulated snow. Awnings on southerly exposures, combined with decidious trees, will minimize potentially uncomfortable heat gains and cooling requirements. Conservation Devices Plans for the project include the use of roof - mounted solar in collectors on the third floor roof where they will not be visible MI Si # Mill Street Shopping Plaza Growth Management Plan Submission # from below. Final determination of collector use has not been made yet, but they will be utilized to their complete economic potential, most likely for hot water heating and snow -melt - assist. Heat recovery devices will be used wherever possible to reduce space and water heating requirements. Automatic- reset thermostats will be used in all spaces to reduce night- ,. time heating requirements. Thermo - syphon loops will be integrated wherever feasible so as to avoid use of recirculat- ing pumps. If any fireplaces are used for the apartments (none are .. presently shown) they will use complete outside air ducting and heat recirculation devices. Amenities .. The evaluation is focused on provisions of usable open space and bicycle paths. The project will provide more than the minimum required .. open space *; this will benefit both the pedestrian passing .. by as well as project users. Through provision of awnings and permanent protection from sun, rain, and snow, in addition to completely landscaped court and sidewalk pedestrian paths designed for safety and user convenience, the project provides amenities in proportionate excess to its enclosed floor area. • Bicycles would not be designed for within the complex, however, racks will be provided on the grounds at the various entrances to the project. .. * 4,883 S.F. of open space is 40.6% of the undeveloped lots. s• # aa. • pre. PPM Ass Appendix C APPENDIX C Table 1 i GORDON'S RESTAURANT Seating Analysis HOURS OF OPERATION: Summer: Lunch from 12:00 P.M. - 2:00 P.M. Dinner from 6:30 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. Winter: Dinner Only 6:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. EXISTING SEATING (PEAK): Main Dining Room: 41 0 —'1'6 Tables for 4 64 - 3 Table for 5 15 1 Table for 6 6 2 Tables for 8 16 a4 � 1 Total 101 Seats ■ �oC Bar Seating: 1 Bar Stools Total 4 Seats ■ Outdoor Dining (Summer Only): r 8 Tables for 4 Total 32 Seats PROPOSED SEATING (PEAK): Main Dining Room: .� 19 Tables for 4 76 3 Tables for 5 15 1 Table for 6 6 2 Tables for 8 16 — Total 113 Seats - Bar Seating: 12 Bar Stools 12 7 Tables for 2 14 Stand -Up Tables 8 _ Total 34 Outdoor Dining: m None Total 0 r - c�90/c/ 5 ✓ L z r .mom /987 - r - r `/ r MN r r pl • Su} \M M. 17, 1987 14: ey 'o.:ad e..da. GORDON'S ? 07/25/87 P11.r. 1 - '° 1 II 1)0 °• -S': EMPLOYEE LIST CY DEPARTMENT 65. SOC SEC EMPLOYEE NAME TELEPHONE :11 810 DEPARTMENT - 28 -552 RST -F• /R SERVE DAR 410 ANDERSON, STEVEN W.YNE 307 -975- 3342 04-12 -81. 302 -56 -7399 DALDWIN, PAULA S. 303- 915 -41'" ^' I6-86 w � 522.25-3218 DILL, CROOKS ANDREW(r) 303- 925 -4509 06-24-07 Yr 484-72-5262 DUDE -AU, ERIC DAVIII(p) 303- 920 -121/ 22 II-87 561.71 -8261 DUFTON, ANTHONY PAUL 303 -725-9457 07-22-85 575 -62 -5228 CHOCK. FRANKLIN GEE YING 303 -9 ' :' t'; 27 11.25 019.1,0.7929 COLEMAN, STEPHANIE P. 303 -925 -3366 06-21 -87 NW 489 -52 -7487 EMERY, SHELDON 303 -9.. '_ 352-44-1986 S 1 r K -92`-41 11-22-85 wm 3 5 11 -22 •)OR Ti D, SUSAN KAY •0,3 .., - 137-64 -4259 KING, IAN MALCOLM 303 i 3 1 .24 - 043 -48 -1633 LYONS, STEPHEN .303- 975 -1733 07-12 -84 571 -27 -3231 MALLET, FRANK T. 303- 725 -5473 2 6 JO -87 ^. 004 - 1,2 :0150 MCHUGH, JOHN JAY 303 -920 -1697 65 -28 -85 261 -95 -4570 MEARS, GREGORY JOHN(p) 303 -927 -4229 0;- '12 -87 ✓ 461.49 -5829 MOLL.ICCHT, PHILIPPE 703 -920 -3135 05-2185 524 -31- 4655 NELSON, DARRARA SEARS(p) 303- 925- 7272 'x-IR 187 mow 064-40-0187 PAUL ITT, KENNETH V. 303-925-5017 05 -28-85 ✓ 471 -70 -9070 PETERSEN, KIRK ALLEN 303-9 - - . "i u:7-117 560 -63 -8481 SMITH, DFREK CUTLER 303 -945 -4917 06 -19 -87 - 028 -44 -8282 TYE, MARK 303 -9;" /•../ 01H2 578.66-8930 WALLACE, RONALD 703 -925 -4297 04-30-87 561- 96-0834 WILLIAMS. RODERT 6p) 303 11 10.87 .. 5/1 -78 -5705 WIILTAMS, CHRISTIAN JAY - - 07 -10 -87 .. COHNF 23 rl� .. L 5 ret b44° spo afrttheleed II' - 41; 144 C- 1:)=-The S- 4e Icesi:avrcwb. • UORDON'S 07/25/87 PAGE 2 EMPLOYEE LIST BY DEF•ARTMENT r SUC SEC EMPLOYEE NAME TEIEPHONE HIRED IA DEPARTMENT - 22-574 RST -P/2 CLEANING 321 -65 -4997 DURAN, JOSE Cr) 5 , 4 o N r s 303-927-3219 22_ ,.. 7-R�3.. f41RR,., B.Yr. 03-s:7 -3.:19 11 -. -, DS 555 -02 -0827 LUIS, JOSE F 93 :17 elm 560 -20 -871.4 1.1115. ANTONIO()) - - 02 -14 -27 r 593 -91 -6795 F'ERE7, RAMON 303 -9: ■.. '22.25 14 524-36-4821 SANCHE7., MATIAS 303 -920- 2738 12-10 -86 P' 523-95 -4431 TOPETE, RAFAEL CONTRERAS 303 -920- 2238 06 -22-37 COUNT 7 4/I' "6;2) a. r 11 GORTON'S 07/25/87 P,AGC 3 s r EMPLOYFE LIST BY DEPARTMENT SOC SEC EMPLOYEE NAME TELEPHONE ,+!2.0 DEPARTMENT - 28 -578 RST -P /R FOOD PREP ✓ 273-56-2662 EALDWIN, R N4I.T JAMES 303-925- 4159 12 -15 -84 094 -62 -0291 BEH, CHRISTOPHER 303 -923 -3073 06-1/-17 a 525 -53 -1171 BRIDGMAN, .LANE - - 06 -26 -87 523 -47 -5135 D.iEWEY, JASON 303- 923 -5037 0! 01.17 N. 118.0-1115 FERTIG, EDWARD I. 303-925 -4958 12 -07 -84 526 -06 -9340 GORTON, JOEL Cr) - 257-78.1698 HUNT, CAROL ANNE 303 -925 -8757 12 -04 -86 • 279-54-4743 JOHNSON, JEFFREY 303-9/2 t.r" I'93 06 373-57-0872 KONRADT, GERRY 303 -925 -4958 06 -18-87 ▪ 066 -42 -1149 MCELDERRY III, .JOHN D. 303-it : l .M-16 261-79 -3763 MURRAY, GEOFFREY ROBERT ,303 -927 -4020 11 -19 -86 537 -62 -6196 NACCARATO, GORTON S. 1 '.6 040 ., 579 -60- 0435 NACCARATO, REBECCA V. 303-920 - 1466 07 -10 -84 465 -60 -8502 PENA, VICTOR 303-920-30;9 • 710 -64 -3055 OGNFT, MICHAEL HOLMES'p) 303 -925 -6034 06 -30 -87 554 -21 -7736 RUIZ, FILEMON 303 -9:': "./.1 ',' 2 -34 ▪ 24L72 -.9740 SINNTCKS, SUSAN ANN 703 -920 -3156 12 -10 -84 r 083 -52 -4430 STEIN, MATTHEW ROBERT 303- 925 -5281 4 527-41-1141 T'VEITC, ERIK BERN 703-925- 1677 06 -27 -87 ▪ 462 -06 -6795 WILSON, JEFFREY P. 303- '"1? 04- 24.87 r COUNT 20 I I 'Pt b 1 MO }uuv O m Y ^ SO MU in UM r W s GORDON'S 07 /25/87 PAGE 4 EMPLOYEE LIST DY DEPARTMENT rr SOC SEC EMPLOYEE NAME TELEPHONE PO Am DEPARTMENT -28 -584 RST -P /R GENERAL 192-10.7201 BUTLER, MARGARET MARY({4 303-920 -3114 02-23-87 536-62-27.35 COULTER, WARREN LEE '^ I: 20 -46 r 107 -44 -7522 PANICLE., MAf;IO 303 -963 -1840 12 -24 -84 378-70 -7886 DANIEL.-, ROBIN KAY 303-9,"% 29 ?5 r 489.52-7471 EMERY, DORIAN (p) 303-925 -5192 06 -12 -86 551 -76 -6738 LITTLE, RICKI LYNN (p) 303-7. ` 1-1 <; ? 6 • 5 4-06-9327 MCLAIN, PAMELA R.(p) 703-923 -4945 07 -01-07 555 -19 -5621 MOUNTAIN, HAGGIS 303 -9s', 12-N, 546-80. 4300 SCHUBE.RT, JANJCE M. 303 -925 -5572 07 -10-84 ✓ COUNT 9 IMP IN r w 0. CONDON.'S 07/25/87 FAMF 5 EMPLOYEE LIST PY DEPARTMENT 808 8FC EMPLOYEE NAME TELEPHONE HIRED Pm DEPARTMENT - 29 -589 F;'8 -P /R DAKERY • 283 -50 -3395 I:RADRICK, LINDA 303 - 923 -55T '''S J/-81 527 - 99-9170 DROWN, FLIJADFTH FAY 707- 925 -7 06-22-57 527-29-9795 FRANCKEN, LAURA DF.TH(O 303 -925 -779' -'1.87 279-46-4274 MANCHESTER, JEAN FOWLER 307-925-9650 11-20 -86 gm 006- 60-9130 SMITH, JEAN DWYER 303 -963 - ';i °' 1' -S4 5: TOWNFR, TIMOTHY MICHAEL. 707 -920 -1466 07 -31 -94 COUNT 6 - fug . tfivei r •-t gim eas r go a MI - r - LOItT )86 ) - I eTMr ` - d erJ nj 3 /07- exa le � � o S SeNi c2 E »ar c l each `mod pre a __ £a k St AhxandQ .lUfan; .lI Tato H3. le-f (F) Pka r►• aWal turcln,12 , ewe () r y an'r le H. SVAan - Arc/en-an Lui s, 0'. 'Diet la,,, / ‘ le, ?. Sb ., r ' r olOVm, 1• Luis, A. CO -}i cm,/ (t9 TaVne' l'er CZ t' irs C A I 0 C IKd mi V e Z - . 5 INvvo n N om4 COL4 Rer Sr'. clEZ Lo 13 ;1( -}w.c- i"t1,� hC1 G1 \.�n0n 4: 11. r Mart�6 7 c'�I' UNcv i 04 5-co. iwe., fri 2.64.frAtta - MG {-+1 , 5 -.2 Wft . Hurry Taal / V I I Naccarrc - }o ) 6 - /elersen N T. i r �c -Conan Sena — — rye TUz . W srA- C���, S,n,Cxs u �eavy — as ,�.�p� —17 - — 18 IG -ril. -hiuo I7 "Jr i � ' 1 �t ta m _ j. r net to Cm >Iveci -Evi . 4€ Cit �Av"�. • Tu 414/1 - 2 �3 rat .. J J s - - / - 60ZA/5 5a,2 a + y `osed 2 A'oN - _ zp/ or-in � "Ais. 0T #/�. 7ot0 /ts. 1 9, D / 8. : 5/ 7 /M. 5 3 no 2 3. Pc?' -�j� aAel = /D, //7 /o, 765.3 /O aeaeva/ 3 3753 . 3,3753 3. Z - 2 7e6.6 2 /F3 Z,ii 70 rT ENv ZP. r ( g 4 % aN - V ane.). woks av64fee -,td/ 2Of0 %oor5 _ ie-/m /h /�cronv 'minor e0 lows ceirs7Yer r & SUS e el/ 1/ JUI. 3, 1927 21156107 ✓ GORDON'S pp 07- 01 -97 per\ 1 ' Q PAGE 1 REGISTER YEAR ENDING (04-10:174 6 MardAS 0 I 0"J T � Ci�OSSi cQ runt - Ls ✓ REG 0/T DIT S/C -TTPS V /II/S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET ▪ ALEXANDER, JEFFREY 152 -56 -0654 HRS -RED 577,25 0/T 20.95 D/T .00 MEALS £ 0.00 DFCL TIPS £ 2250.00 OM 1916.77 145.60 0.00 0.00 0.011 0.00 ;312.37 317.75 308,33 105.70 0.00 0.00 U 10.52 • ANANALT, FRED 5.55 -43- 732.1 HRS-RE6 322.20 0/T 10.90 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0,00 DECL TIPS £ 1100.00 1079.20 54.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2234.01 264.22 157.73 61.54 0.00 50.00 599.52 r ANDERSON, STEVEN HAM 440 -70 -5556 IM-REG 570.30 O/T 13.50 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIE'S $ 2400.00 1910.24 67.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4378.12 593.81 313,04 96.24 0.00 259,87 7E1.46 F:ALD4IIN, PAULA S 302 -56 -7359 HRS -REG 513.85 D/T 1.40 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 5700.00 ✓ 172t.18 7.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7028.22 306.72 502,52 180.77 0.00 0.00 71.21 st DELL, WOKE ANDREW C22 -25 -3219 HRS -RCG 6.10 0/T .00 DIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DFCL TIPS $ 0.00 20.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.43 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 (8.9; m BURTON, ANTHONY PAUL 551 -71 -9961 H2S -REG 420.25 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 0EC.!. TIPS $ 7300.00 917,53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8217,53 106.79 587.55 63,53 0.00 109.74 19,92 r CHOCK, FRANKLIN GEE Y7J12 575-62-5222 HRS -REG 407.75 0/T 36.20 D/T .00 MEALS £ 0,00 DECL TIPS £ 5225.00 �- 990.03 109,30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9314.33 136.92... 665.97 131,48 0.00 50.00 1. ?1•76 ✓ COIEMAN, STEPHANIE P. 047 -60 -3929 HRS -REG 11,20 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 OFCL TIPS $ 0.00 37.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 37.51 0.00 2.58 0.00 0.00 30.00 1.83 ✓ CL'UL.TER, 'HAREEM LEE 536-62 -2735 HRS -REG 432.80 O/T 12.80 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 4400.00 2795.99 33,65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7231.54 378.00 517.28 10.6.22 0.00 427,02 1386,12 EMERY, SHELDON 499 -52 -7497 CRS•REG 35.00 0/T .00 DR .00 MEALS $ 0.00 MCI. TIPS $ 0.00 117.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.23 1.22 8.38 0.17 0.00 30.00 77.46 �.. HOGGI.N, NTH SCOTT 265-90 -5764 HRS -RE0 240,85 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 450.00 906.75 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 1256.75 50.65 99.86 15.60 0.00 0.00 610.64 - JORSTAD, SUSAN KAY 350 -46 -172.6 HRS -REG 535.65 0/T 26.70 R/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 9290.00 1076,30 000.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10446,91 171.44 74.6.95 103.95 0.00 101.58 32,99 u KINC, IAN MAL.COLM 137 -64 -4259 188 -REG 635.10 0/T 37.95 D/T .00 MEALS £ 0.00 DECL TIPS 1 2250.00 u m 2130.71 190.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4571.06 0.00 326.83 138.44 0.00 414.57 1411.22 w LYONS, STCPHEN 043 -42-1633 H88 -REG 540,25 0/T 10.50 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 9954.00 s 1025.55 31.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10071.25 104.37 720.09 132.56 0.00 0.00 160.2( rr MALLET, FRAt:'; T. 571 -27 -3231 HRS -REG 26.60 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 09.11 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 89,11 0.00 6.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 8'.74 PK ,r MCNUSH, JOHN JAY 004 -62 -0150 HRS -EEG 551.40 0/T 21.50 DIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 7550.00 1108.00 55.21 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 8723.21 168.47 623.72 64.1? 0.00 91.45 .25,16 em MCLLIC.CCT., PHILIPPE. 466-49 -5829 188-2E0 237.35 0/T 5.60 D/T .00 MEALS £ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 4010.00 ✓ 476.90 16,90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4503.80 75,90 322.02 17.09 0.00 55.31 23,13 r • s mm GORDON'S 07 -01 -87 PAGE s P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (06- 30 -87) ✓ REG 0/T D/T 8/C -TIPS V /HIS OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET sr PAI11. III, KENNETH W. 064 -40 -0183 HCS -RE6 202 .75 0/T .00 DIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1000.00 mm 1001.87 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2001.87 142.21 143.13 37677 0.00 313.51 365.0: MO PETERSEN, KIRK ALIEN, 471 -70 -9070 HRS -REG 238.90 O/T .00 DIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 450.00 800.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1250.22 108.34 29.39 27.16 0.00 60.00 515•1 mm • SECKMAK', DONALD KEITH 337 -54 -1045 HRS -CEO 501.10 0/T 5.60 DIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 4750.00 1678,46 22.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6456062 529,17 4.61,65 155,98 0,00 0.00 559, mm SMITH, DEREK CUTLER 560 -63 -8481 P,RS -REG 24.60 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 MW 82.41 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 82.41 0.00 5,89 0.00 0.00 30.00 46.5; min TYC, MARK 02B-44-0282 CRS -REG 517.90 0/T 1.30 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 2600.00 2960.74 12.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5573.41 723.35 398.50 173.84 0.00 0.00 1657.7: WAKING, PRUL ANTHONY 137 - 57-3416 HRS -RE.G 513.95 0/T 20,60 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 5025.00 1261.41 127.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6413657 03.36 458.57 115.17 0.00 216.73 514,74 v WEAVER, WRY ALLEN 560 -43 -5071 4f;S -REG 519.10 0/T 58.10 DIT .00 MEALS f 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1900.00 1738.80 292.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 3931:02 432.02. 281.07 75.52 0600 210,00 1012.3! mm WILLIAMS. RODFRT 561 -96 -0034 HRS -F'EB 126.30 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 300.00 423.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 723.06 0.00 51.70 0654 0.00 40.00 330.82 POIM ✓ DEr'T 20- RESTAURANT SERVICE 11 BAR CRS -REG 0784.50 0/T 299.60 D/T .00 28215.40 1268.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 108988.66 4724.83 7792.68 1844.36 0,00 2499.78 12623701 mm DURAN. JOSE 321-0-4987 CRS -REG 255.90 0/T .00 DIT .00 MEALS £ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1535.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1535.40 0.00 109.78 21.10 0.00 0.00 1401.52 mm n.+ a REYES 522-49-0232 IR8- 2 5 LS £ DU RAN, � . I kCCi 685...0 O/T Jv DR .00 MEALS O�CO DECL TIPS $ 0.00 a• 4111.20 186.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4297.95 0.00 307.30 132.17 0.00 0.00 .Yo' ✓ LL118, JOSE 555 -02- 0887 HRS -EEG 420.45 0/T 2.25 D/T .00 MEALS £ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 0.00 2522,70 20.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2542,95 77.26 181.82 65.81 0.00 0.00 2218.06 £r LUIS, ANTONIO 560 -20 -0714 HRS -REG 140.10 O/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 833.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 888.60 0.00 63.53 10.04 0.00 0,00 814,23 gmm MOLINA A DERTO 456 -78- 9123 HRS -RE6 247.30 0/T 3.55 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ✓ 1483.80 31.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1515.75 61.71 108.38 44.01 0.00 0.00 1279.83 mm MOITNG, LO EN7O 538 -25 -4673 1185 -REG 94.95 O/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 0.00 mm 569.70 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 569 .70 0,00 40.73 7,71 0.00 0.00 521,2E AM PEREZ, RAMON 593 -91 -6295 HRS -REf, 647.70 0/T 70.40 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 3386.20 631.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4519.80 232.85 323.17 137.77 0.00 0.00 3026.01 OM r mm Mm e r GORDON'S 07 -01 -07 PAGE 3 P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (06- 30 -07) ✓ REG O/T P/T S/C -TIPS V /H /S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT CDT OTHER NET • RAMICCZ, JORGE 559 -60 -4241 HRS -REG 276.75 0/T 2.30 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0,00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 g ., 1660.50 20.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1681.20 25.64 120,21 39.01 0.00 0.00 1475.54 ▪ SAMORA, GONZALO 519 -08 -6572 HRS -REO 107.75 O/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1126.50 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1126.50 13.65 80.54 27.50 0.00 0.00 1004.31 ow ✓ SANCHEZ, MATIAS C24 -36 -48.21 HRS -EEG 677.30 0/T 69.20 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DFCI. TIPS $ 0.00 4033.80 622.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4656,60 244,27 332.95 143.31 0.00 0.00 3936.07 pm TOPE.TE., RAFAEL CONTRERAS 523 -95 -4431 HR0 -E;EC 15,30 O/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 o w 91.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.80 0.00 6,56 0,00 0,00 0.00 35„24 wm DEPT 23 -574 RESTAURANT CLEANING HRC -REG 3651.70 0/T 163.45 D/T .00 r 21910.20 1516.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23426.25 657.30 1674.97 630.83 0.00 0.00 20'd3.'17 +� DALININ, RONALD JAMES 273-56-2662 HRS -BEG 600.15 0/T 47,55 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 650.00 5392.25 575.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 7124.17 1053.32 509.38 237,96 0.00 847.79 3325.22 PM BEN, CHRISTOPHER 094 -62 -0291 CRS-REG 8.70 O/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ow 52.20 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 52.20 0.00 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 48,17 DuWE.Y, JASON 523-47-5135 HRS -REG 193.60 O/T 2.25 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ✓ 1101.60 20.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1221.85 57.35 07.36 15.93 0.00 5.36 1055,05 DIERLAM, KYLE 050 -68 -0759 H.RS-REG 207.75 0/T 3.40 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 r 1222.50 30.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1253.10 0.00 89.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 1163.50 FCRTIG, EDWARD I. 118 -60 -8105 HRS -EEG 703.00 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 600.00 10350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 11950.00 1686.42 854,43 453.60 0.00 0.00 33•,5.15 ow HUNT, CAROL ANNE 259 -70 -1698 HRS -REG 649.05 O1T 48.40 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 100.00 ma 4451.50 466.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 5268.45 502,70 376.69 157.30 0.00 197.44 3934.32 ow JOHNSON, ,ICFEDEY 279 -54 -4743 HRS -0CG 667.90 O/T 74.00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 99.00 4007.40 666.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 200.00 4972.40 616.67 355.53 143.25 0.00 0.00 3752.75 EM KONRADT, FERRY 333 -52 -0872 HRS -REG 42.00 O/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 252.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 252.00 18.87 18.02 4.62 0.00 0.00 210.49 o w LOPICCOLO, RITA ANN 433 -21 -3247 1n5 -REG 296.00 0/T 0.90 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS t 50.00 o n 1776.00 80.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 2106.10 210.62 150.58 54.22 0.00 0,00 1640.68 g o MACKINNON, NEIL 944 -41 -0116 HRS -F;EG 103.00 0/T 2.65 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 o w 1102.80 17.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1190.65 3.83 04.41 30.13 0.00 0.00 1O'.23 on MACIHO, FRM1 THOMAS 556 - 51 - 6054 HHOS 75.45 O/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS S 0.00 BELL TIPS S 0.00 452,70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 452.70 0.00 32.37 0,00 0.00 0.00 420.33 m o w n o CORDON'S 07 -01 -87 PAGE 4 9/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (06- 30 -27) SO Rr( 0/T IVT S/C -TIPS V /H /S OTHER CCOSS FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET no in HCEITIFRRY I1I, JOHN D. 066-42 -1849 H S -un 653.30 0/T 66,70 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 100.00 on 3919.80 600.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 4370.10 547.25 348.21 140.28 0.00 14.00 3720.1: ▪ MURRAY, GEOFFREY ROBERT 261 -79 -3763 MRS-EEG 732.80 O/T 61.35 D/T .00 MEALS t 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 259.00 5626.80 736.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 6872,00 620.72 491.35 171.63 0.00 485.54 4843.7! w . ,! ✓ NACCACATU, GORDON S. 537-62 -6196 HRS -REO 104400 TUT .00 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 15000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15000.00 63.00 1072.50 514.93 0.00 680.50 12669.0: NACC6RAT0, RrDErCA V. 579 -60 -0435 H ;S -REG 1Qy4.00 11 'T .00 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 "' 15000.00 0,00 0100 0,00 0.00 0.00 15000.00 0.00 1072.50 347.52 0.00 275.00 11344,70 no PENA, VICTOR 465.60-0502 HRS -REG 645.85 0/T 117.80 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0,00 DF.C,L TIPS $ 250.00 ✓ 3875,10 1060.20 0.00 040 0.00 250.00 5435,30 304.19 388.62 166.60 0.00 0.00 4325.02 .., REISS. ADAM SCOTT 067 -54 -4467 HRS -REG 196.80 0/T 22.20 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1100.80 199.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1330.60 150.31 98,71 40.77 0.00 0.00 1'90.11 2U17, FIIFMON 554 -21 -7786 H8S -8E0 632.80 0/T 77.85 0/T .00 MEALS t 0,00 DECL TIPS $ 650.00 6328.00 1167.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00' 9145.75 .69.91• 653.92. 340.65 0.00 73.04 7358.23 ".fCFIC III, LOFEN70 556- 90 -6861 RF:S -RFC 20.90 O!T 20.20 DR .00 MEALS S 0.00 DECL. TIPS $ 0.00 125.40 181.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 . • 0.00 307.20 0.00 21.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 215,71 • � SINOICKS, SUSAN ANN 246 -72 -9940 HRS -REG 656.45 0/T 88.45 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 r'cci TIPS $ 600.00 5833.00 1120.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 8053.35 759.25 575.81 282,66 0.00 150.00 5685.63 ✓ STEIN, MATTHE1I R•n•DERT 003-52-4430 HRS -REG 783.00 0/T .00 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 800.00 10350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 12150.00 1405.49 868.73 509.73 0.00 579,47 5016.53 .. UP SON, JCFFRE.Y P. 462-06-6995 H8 ;-8E0 5.50 0/T .00 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DFCL TIPS $ 0.00 .1 33.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 2.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.64 Io 7.60 a. DEPT 20 -573 RESTAURANT FOOD PREPARATION HRS -REG 10552110 0/T 647.70 TUT .00 97433,85 6984.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 5500.00 114080.92 8070.40 8156.77 3.616.83 0.00 3218.14 96860.78 r on ✓ MILER, MARGARET MARY 192 -40 -7701 HRS -RCG 95.15 0/T .00 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 601.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 608.90 19.55 43.54 5.21 0.00 0.00 540.60 on DANIELC, MAF.10 107 -44 -7522 ERS -REG 783.00 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 4913.00 S it 10125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6113.14 21151.14 3787.74 1512.31 905.34 0.00 518.35 9514.40 on r 398 -7 n r MEALS r TIPS PANICLE, RODIN KAY 0-70 „6 HRS -REG 6.5.40 0/T .00 UT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIE'„ f 0.00 - 5687.50 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 6187.50 520.64 442.41 206,11 0.00 3.5.00 4913.34 nn EMERY. D08i.N 482 -52 -7471 IRS-018 276.55 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0,00 DECL TIE'S $ 0.00 2224.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2224.10 259.26 159.02 43.35 0.00 0.00 1752.47 on MO s ✓ ▪ GORDON'S 07 -01 -07 PAGE 5 ^ P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (0.6- 30-87) PEG 0/T BIT S/C -TIFS U /H /S OTHER 008055 FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET LITTLE, RICKI LYNN 551-76-6730 HRS -REG 215,60 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1509.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1509.20 0.00 107.91 26.19 0.00 0.00 1375.10 Mr;NTA.IN, HAGGIS 555 -19 -5621 HDS -8E6 335.55 O/T .00 IVT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DFC,L TIPS £ 0.00 2516.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2516.60 211,80 179.74 50.83 0.00 316.18 1757.80 Y SCHUBERT, .LANICE M. 546 -80 -4300 HRS-REG I044.00../T .00 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 15000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 16000.00 42.57 1144.00 103.80 0.00 960,00 13747,63 137625 ▪ DEPT 22-554 RESTANRANT GENERAL. HRS- REG .201.25. O/T .00 DIT .00 r. 37671.30 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7613.14 50197.44 4941.56 3589.13 1340.29 0.00 1929.53 33693.34 A.. Pm DRADRTCK. LINDA 283-50-3385 HRS -RFG 37.05 D/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 240.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,82 17.20 17.22 4.25 0.00 0.00 202.15 .. BROWN. ELI7ADETH FAY 527 -99-9170 HRS -RFC, 7.25 0/T .00 DIT .00 MEALS £ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 Pm 39.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.87 0,00 2,85 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,02 FRGNCKEN, LAURA DETIM 527 -27 -9796 HRS -REG 11.10 b/T . .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 .. 61,05 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.05 0.00 4,37 0.00 0.00 0.00 56)69 ^ HE88IDE8, DEBORAH LYNN 399 -56 -4729 HRS -REfi 54,00 0/T 5,90 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 432.00 70,80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 502.80 58.00 35.75 15.30 0.00 0.00 373.55 MAHCRESTrR, JEAN FOWLER 279 -46 -4274 HR -O,CC 634.25 O/T 50.75 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 100.00 3541.69 419.65 0.00 0,00 0.00 200,00 4260.34 361.75 304.61 111.07 0.00 0.00 3332.69 5f KATHLEEN ANNE 214 -66 -1493 HRS -REG 138.05 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0,00 DECL TIPS $ 90.00 .m 777.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 897.67 78.29 63.47 19.11 0.00 0.00 636,90 as SMITH, JEAN DWYER 006 -60 -9130 HR:S. -8E6 653.35 0/T 67.45 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 530.00 7072.10 1061.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,00 9189,27 1040.B4 657.08 365,27 0,00 5.00 ;,571.43 ^ • 0Tr1N, BBUNA M. 134- 48-4740 HRS -REfi 190.15 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS 4 0.00 DECL TIPS £ 175.00 1521.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 1876.20 67,94 135.58 32.10 0.00 0.00 1425.69 n TOWNFR, TIMOTNY MICHAEL 535 -72 -7951 HRS -REG 605.50 O/T 62.45 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 MCI TIPS £ 450,00 4452,05 687.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 6090.00 544.86 435.44 172.17 0.00 353,96 4133.57 Pm DEPT 29 -500 REBECCA'S REBECCA'S BAKERY HRS -REfi 2330.70 O/T 196.55 D/T .00 r 12185.25 2238.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 1400.00 23163.62 2163.90 1656.57 717.29 0.00 358.96 16719,82 • Y Pm it ■ ^ w / _ 6a/5 t ^ j �/� f/�try ��ia /e�� �r m �� C.dkeiC/a � .�oy / s. V r/ / / 7. X10 / . F/ (J,{� / �- i r l� ( ac�i /.5 w ice Sr: /7i4e 3?23 /577x1 7 6 6/e 5 4 7 X49. / geC6B ¢ z f h o r : /750/i 46 /t 78. / 9 / ^ encC/ . 5/O. / 4652,7 3. , 5 799 6 3/7:0 ¢ / /lo. 6 2.0 - - 7.2al f"T. goy✓ r ©n 70 /ivcval Loves t d /vic%i 20 0/20 --Me my; iwm ro/Man GaGrS /�21�0� km /i ota , �nssfv 4/ 444 l �� � 5 -� y it • ✓ GORDON'S 01 -01 -87 PAGE p P/R kEGISTER YEAR ENBING 112:11;11 moRThs QI 19 S�p �` �" Q _�� 3 � MO14S o ' REG 0/T 0/T S /C-TIPS V /H /S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET r ALEXANDER, JEFFREY 158 -56 -0654 HRR -REG 348.00 0/1 8.80 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 500.00 1165.68 44.25 0.00 0.00 0.(10 0.00 1709.93 116.97 122.26 28.77 0.00 165.00 776.9; ANAWALT, FRED 555 -43 -7321 HRS -REG 100.60 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 336.98 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 336.98 14.75 24,09 3.73 0.00 0.00 294.4. ▪ ANDERSON, STEVEN WAYNF 440-70-5566 HRS -REG 599.24 0/T 9.20 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1000.00 2007.21 46.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3053.48 271.30 218.32 69.49 0.00 0.00 1494.3, ,M BALDWIN, PAULA 302 -56 -7399 HRS -REG 434.46 0/T .00 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1335.00 1379.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2714.10 787.12 194.06 65.91 0.00 40.00 792.01 as BLACK, ROB 554 -00 -1225 HRS -EEG 407.52 0/T 8.15 TUT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1764.13 54.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1818.77 0.00 130.04 0.00 0,00 25.00 1663.7: BURTON, ANTHONY PAUL 561-71 -8961 HRS -REG 777.96 0/T 9.10 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 8289.00 1928.25 27,41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10244.66 529.33 732.49 73.85 0.00 235,00 384.95 Wm BUTERA, THOMAS RICHMP 164 -60 -4034 HRS -REC, 416,75 0/T 7.80 11/1 40 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1250.00 1630.42 39.22 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 2919.64 292.72 208.75 74.11 0.00 125.00 969.06 CHOCK, FRANKLIN GEE PING 575 - 62-5828 HCS -REG 1078.14 0/T 49,58 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 12915.00 ` 2166.49 149.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15230.83 841.64 1089.00 119.53 0.00 100.98 164.63 MILBERG, DEBRA LYNN 468 -70 -6748 HRS -RE.G 460.50 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS 1 4580.00 ✓ 1828.76 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6408.76 883.03 458.23 125,24 0.00 85.24 277.02 ▪ DE DOUTETLLER, PHILIPPE 466 -49 -5829 HRS -RER 922.30 0/T 21.16 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 15000.00 1853.27 63.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16916.98 405.31 1209.56 25.67 0.00 182.04 94.40 HEMMETER, MARK MAYNARD 576 -78 -5691 HRS -REG 369.33 OR 3.36 0/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1410.00 1237.04 16.90 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2663,94 181.51 190.47 40.36 0.00 40,00 801,60 HUGGIN, HUGH SCOTT 265 -90 -5764 HRS -REG 72.30 .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 .. 74.69 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.69 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.35 ▪ JORSTAD, SUSAN KAY 350 -46 -1986 HRS -REC 1017.73 0/T 24.57 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 9100.00 2062.47 83.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11246.40 872.76 804.12 55.12 0.00 301.45 112.95 Ir KING, IAN MALCOLM 137 -64 -4259 HRS -REG 131.00 0/T .00 P/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 438.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 438.79 0.00 31.37 3.78 0.00 30.34 373.10 KLASSEN, STEPHEN G. 463 -02 -8614 HRS -RFG 552.30 0/T 32.61 8/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS t 710.00 1849.91 163.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2723.78 280.87 174.75 69.82 0.00 240.00 12,'1.;4 LYONS, STEPHEN 043 -48 -1633 HRS -REG 1123.63 0/T 15.56 TUT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 12370.00 MK 2257.87 46.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14632.77 678.71 1049.82 117.92 0.00 67.79 390.53 • MCHUCH, JOHN JAY 004 -62 -0150 HRS -REG 1150.63 0/1 88.46 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS t 5230.00 3202.85 355,73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8738.58 810.81 628,39 186.43 0.00 440.41 1472,54 u Mi p r , GORDON'S 01 -01 -R7 PAGE ., P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (12- 31-86) ✓ REG 0/T D/T S/C -TIPS V /H /S OTHER CROSS FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET ms MCNALLY JO., ROT GREG 540 -65 -1308 HRS-REG 272.74 0/T .00 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1150.00 913,53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2063.53 0.00 147.54 0,00 0.00 100.00 665.9 so MELINOFR, EDWARD " 339 -62 -2765 HRS -REG 69.54 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 100.00 is 232.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 332.93 16.68 23.81 4.34 0.00 0.00 189.1 simi NEWCOMD, RANDOLPH W. 216 -64 -1579 HRS-REG 74.93 0/T 7.50 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 600.00 150.40 22.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 772,97 112.00 55,26 5.70 0,00 0.00 0.0 OFFER, DA'JIn 554 -86 -4953 HRS-REG 288.07 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 550,00 964.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1514.94 140.54 10.. 2 3` so 9 3_ 35.46 0.00 0,00 / %),.;; ORRACH, THOMAS RANDOLPH 558 -51 -0724 HRS-REG 96.72 0/T 10.73 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 200,00 .� 324,00 53,86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 577.86 52,00 41.31 14.10 0.00 0.00 270,1` MO PAUL III, KENNETH W. 064 -40 -0183 HRS -REG 1229.65 0/T 8.31 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 3675,00 3631.41 49.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7356.27 402,30 525,97 96.17 0.00 1779,48 376,85 . , SECKMAN, DONALD K. 337 -54 -1045 HRS -REG 901.01 0/T 27.17 DIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 2715.00 3017.97 136.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5869.46 523,20 419.67 129.76 0.00 47.08 014.75 TAIEP, FRANCIS 201 -33 -3107 HRS -REG. 366,37 0/T 18.51 n/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 "' 1227.14 92.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1320.07 27.98 94.39 12.01 0,00 0.00 1185.69 THORPE III, E. KENT 167 -46 -1260 HRS -RCG 209,00 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1702.78 1445.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 3227,78 368.11 230,79 92.52 0.00 230.27 523,11 .. TYF, MARK 028 - 44-8282 HRS -REG 760.51 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 2938,00 3802.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6740.55 727.18 481.95 179.34 0.00 162.45 2251.13 WARING, PAUL 137 - 57 -3416 HRS -REG 751.24 0/T 21.68 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 1600.00 'm 2415.43 109.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4124.45 116.44 294.90 04.75 0.00 45.50 1982.86 r WEAVER, BARRY ALLEN 560 -43 -5071 HRS -REG 100.60 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DCCL TIPS $ 0.00 ,, 336,97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 336.97 25.55 24.09 3.72 0.00 80.05 201.54 o ' WILLIAMS, CIIRISTIAN JAY 571 -78 -5905 HRS -REG 167.10 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 100.00 559.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 659.67 0.00 47.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 512.50 DEPT 28-552 RESTAURANT SERVICE 1 BAR HRS -REG 15344.77 0/T 372.25 NT .00 46205.85 1556.90 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 136870.53 8979.31 9786.23 1718.10 0.00 4523.08 22756.03 w ARREOLA, HECTOR 589 -20 -9176 HRS -REG 451.21 0/T 12.50 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 2384.84 100,21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2485.05 24.01 177.68 1.86 0.00 200.00 2081.50 111 BECERRA, JOSE LUIS 550-23 -1452 HRS-REG 261.47 0/T 37.46 BIT .00 MEALS t 0,00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1480.95 284,14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1765,09 105.75 126.19 23.80 0,00 0.00 1509,35 som tf it ✓ ' PAGE 17 GORDON'S 01-01-S7 a P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (12- 31-86) REG 0/T D/T S/C-TIPS V /H /S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA 5IT SDI OTHER NET CONTRERAS, ANTONIO 520 -40 -3658 HRS -REG 622.34 0/T 114.99 P/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ✓ 3258.60 926.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4184.69 192.76 299.21 34.93 0.00 0.00 3657.79 '"' DURAN, JOSE X21 -65 -4987 HRS -REC, 16.70 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS L 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 am 100.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.20 0.00 7.16 0,00 0.00 0.00 93,04 a MAN, REYES 522- 49-8232 HRS -REG 1467.82 O/T 289.33 NT .00 MFALS t 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 8625.22 2559.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11134.60 454.08 799.70 247.20 0.00 0.00 9581,62 as GUTIERREZ, FLORENCIO 556 -22 -1161 HRS -REO 797.37 0/T 59.96 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS t 0.00 ■ ' 4688.46 522.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5211.36 351.63 372.61 116.52 0.00 200.00 4170,60 r MERAS, IC,NACIO G. 566 -90 -1777 HRS -REG 55.78 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 278.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 278.90 0.00 19.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 259,96 ✓ MOLINA, ALBERTO 456 -70 -9123 HRS -REG 677.43 0/T 29.30 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS L 0.00 4064.58 263.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4328,28 324.96 309.47 107.59 0.00 0,00 3586.26 MOLINA, LORENZO 538 - 25-4673 HRS -REG 659.11 0/T 48.89 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS t 0.00 ` 3954.66 440.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 4394.67 236.28 314.22 60.62 0.00 0.00 3781.55 PALOMERA, MARTIN 575 -38 -4582 HRS -REG 516.81 82.46 D/T .00 • MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ✓ 3100.86 742.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3843.00 184.37 274.77 34,94 0.00 0.00 : - PENA, VICTOR 465 -60 -8502 HRS -REG 602.03 0/T 13.70 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 3612.18 123.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3735.48 218.54 267,09 78.28 0.00 0.00 3171.57 PEREZ, RAMON 593 - 91-6295 HRS -RLG 200.75 0/T .00 NT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1204.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1204.50 34.52 86.12 18.45 0.00 0.00 1045,41 SAMOP.A, GONZALO 519 -03 -6572 HRS -REG 559.90 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ^- 3353.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3353.40 219.42 239.77 75.01 0.00 0.00 2819,20 ` SANCC Z JR., ANDRES 520 -64 -4836 HRS -RE6 514.52 0/T 53.63 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 2014.56 407.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2421.99 62,95 173.17 9.35 0.00 0.00 2176.52 ▪ SANCHEZ, MATIAS 524 -36 -4821 HRS -REC. 108.80 0/T 6.90 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 652.80 62.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 714.90 71.87 51.12 22.12 0.00 0.00 569.79 TVEITE, ERIK 523-41-9141 HRS -REC, 546.68 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 o r 2471,99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2491.99 0.00 178.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 2313,91 a DEPT 28 -574 RESTAURANT CLEANING HRS -REG 8057.72 0/T 749,12 D/T .00 Mr 45266.70 6431.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51698.10 2481.14 3696.40 830.67 0.00 400.00 44289.09 a ✓ BALDWIN, RONALD JAMES 273 -56 -2662 HRS -REG 1398.29 0/T 97.17 D/T .00 MEALS t 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 . 10845.48 1133.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 12228,63 1531.48 874.35 477.20 0.00 2224.98 7120.6; a ma a Om pm U M on GORDON'S 01 -01 -87 PAGE 1 , P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (12- 31 -86) ✓ REG O/T P/T S/C -TIPS V /H /S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT SIR OTHER NET ON DILUCIA JR., ANTHONY M. 189 - 56-2953 HRS -REG 378.00 0/T 20.40 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 100.00 2149,13 255.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2504.73 0.00 179.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 2225.54 an FERTIG, EDWARD I. '118 -60 -8185 HRS -REG 1429.00 0/T 293.65 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 14840.00 4404,75 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 19744.75 3425.14 1411.75 745,24 0,00 344.52 13818,10 • GALVIN, CHRISTINE M. 072 -6 2-5981 HRS -REG 516.10 0/T 45.33 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 3953,60 523.62 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 4477.22 645.92 320.11 158.33 0.00 0.00 3352,34 pm HARRIS III, GEORGE W. 266 -29 -1698 HR5 -RE6 741.09 0/T 73.03 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 PECL TIPS $ 0.00 1808.15 821.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 040 2629.73 453.66 188.03 98.78 0.00 265.36 1623,20 HUNT, CAROL ANNE. 259 -78 -1698 HRS -REG 80.00 0/T 9.70 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 .. 480.02 87.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 547.30 61.04 40.56 15,73 0.00 0,00 449.97 ro JAFFEE, ALEX 098 -44 -8161 HRS -REC, 278,08 0/T .00 TUT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0,00 1668.48 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1668.48 0.00 119.30 9.88 0.00 0.00 1'.19,30 , JOHN."-.ON, JEFFREY 279 -54 -4743 HRS -REG 138.60 0/T 16.10 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS 1 0.00 831.60 144.90 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 976.50 136.73 69.82 29.79 0.00 0.00 740.16 MA?UR, BOHDAN 065 -54 -9950 HR5 -REG 124.32 0/T 1.10 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 PECL TIPS $ 0.00 so 745.92 9.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 755.82 6.06 54.03 13.24 0.00 0.00 612,49 ▪ MCFLDERFIY III, JOHN R. 066 -42 -1949 HRS -REG 216.95 0/T 30.80 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 - 1301.70 277.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1578.90 234.11 112.89 57,18 0.00 220.00 954.72 .. MCHUGH, MICHAEL 075 -46 -9881 MRS-REG 421.53 0/T 21.50 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 4215.30 322.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4537.80 477.29 324.45 162.33 0.00 131.70 3442,03 r MOLLICHI, CHARLES 499-52-5892 HRS -REG 319.76 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS 4 ' 0.00 PECL TIPS $ 0.00 2558,08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2558,08 102.18 192.90 54.95 0.00 0.00 2218.05 r MURRAY, GEOFFREY ROBERT 261 -79 -3763 HRS -REG 219.60 0/T 12.25 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 UFCL TIPS $ 0.00 mm 1754.80 147.00 0.00 0.00 040 0.00 1903.80 0.00 136.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1767,61 ✓ NACCARGTO, STANTON No 534 -82 -7509 HRS -REG 885.59 0/1 85.51 8/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 PECL TIPS $ 0.00 6641.83 961.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 7853.77 142.86 561.54 58.12 0.00 2353.82 4737,43 O. NACCARATO, GOGDON S. 537 -62 -6196 Hk5 -REG 204;8 006/T .00 1/T 400 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 29500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29500.00 1157.46 2109.25 622.71 0.00 7849.78 17760.00 o s NACCARATO, REBECCA V. 539- 60-0435 HRS- RC.1 0%T .00 1/1 .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DFCL TIPS $ 0.00 29500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29500.00 81.35 2109.25 347.21 0.00 7050.84 19711.15 in REISS, ADAM SCOTT 063 -54 -4467 HRS -REG 127.00 0/T 9,20 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 AM 762.00 82.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 844.80 97.50 60.40 24.50 0.00 0.00 462,10 os RI1I7, GUSTAVO 520 -72 -2081 HRS -REG 572.45 0/1 7.49 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 PFCL TIPS $ 0.00 4007.15 78,64 0.00 0.00 0,00 0400 4085.79 190.19 292.13 55.49 0.00 274.96 3271,07 s w GORDON'S 01 -01 -87 • PAGE 1 P/k REGISTER YEAR ENDING (12- 31 -06) ✓ REG 0/T D/T S/C -TIPS V /H /S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT SDI OTHER NET kUll, FILEMON 554 -21 -7786 HRS -REG 1301.75 0/T 185.24 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS S 0.00 13017.50 2778.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 16296.10 622.58 1165.17 385.18 0.00 157.99 13965,19 no SEMPLE III, LORENZO .556 -90 -6361 HRS -REG 478.23 0/T 18.27 D/T .00 MEALS S 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 r 2869.38 164.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 3033.81 138.42 216,92 48.14 0.00 0.00 2630.13 r. SINNJCKS, SUSAN 246 -72 -9940 HRS -RCG 1486,65 0/T 200.55 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 11893.20 2410.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 14553.40 .516.37 1040.57 299.25 0.00 2285.11 10112,10 or SPAETH, JAMES P. 309 -74 -7823 HRS -REG 359.03 0/T 85.69 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 "' 3590.30 1285.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4875.65 1003.80 348,61 202.94 0.00 39,73 3280.57 ✓ STEIN, MATTHEW ROBERT 083 -52 -4430 HIS -REG 1333.81 0/T 215.61 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 „M 13502.82 3142.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 16045.42 2375.09 1204.45 722.55 0.00 488.00 1 "175,33 "' VARE, TAI MORNINGSTAR 521 -98 -7248 HRS -RER 225.59 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1353.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1353.54 0.00 96.78 7.77 0.00 0.00 1248.29 r WILLIAMS, MARK HARTLEY 554 -55 -0540 HRS -REG 594.95 0/T 139.85 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 5949.50 2097.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 8547.25 1293.29 611.13 266,73 0.00 1123,47 5252.63 - - 17,301.37 DEPT 28 -578 RESTAURANT FOOD PREPARATION • MRS-REG teft11t0/T 1576.74 DIT .00 ✓ 169741.46 21129.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 2450.00 193421.27 14692.52 13829.60 4863.24 0.00 24810.26 135125.65 r 81YANT, JACLYN ANN 634 -60 -8691 HRS -REG 569.28 0/T 30.23 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS S 0.00 4269.52 340.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4609.59 77.65 329.59 8.20 0.00 688.38 3505.77 ✓ COULTER, WARREN LEE 536 -62 -2735 HRS -RECi 64.95 0/T .00 PIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 727,41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 727.41 73.94 52.01 18.99 0.00 65.86 516.61 P UM PANICLE, MARIO 107 -44 -7522 HRS -REG 1423.00 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 7135.00 18600.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 500.00 26235.00 4434.31 1875.00 1151.17 0.00 1748.91 939.81 DANIELE, ROBIN KAY 390 -70 -7886 HRS -RECi 602.36 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 So 4430.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 4480.39 380.98 320.35 125.80 0.00 191.00 3462,26 ▪ DWIGHT, KELLY ANMIOUE 518-80 -4541 HRS -RCG 405.05 0/T 2.00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 550.00 2029.48 10.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2539.54 0.00 185.15 50.45 0.00 0.00 1803.94 am EMERY, DORIAN 489 -52 -7471 HRS -REG 302.97 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0,00 1960.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1960.17 114.21 140.15 28.92 0.00 0.00 1676,09 or LITTLE, RICKI LYNN 551-76 -6730 HRS -REG 28.40 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 198,80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 198.80 0.00 14.21 1.21 0.00 0.00 1!3,30 ✓ MOUNTAIN, HAGGIS 555 -19 -5621 HRS -RE6 494.67 O/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 om 3206.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3206.82 285.89 229.29 72.46 0.00 53.09 2566.09 no O M w. .. "' GORDON'S 01 -01 -87 PAGE 20 P/R REGISTER YEAR ENDING (12-31 -86) r REG 0/T D/T S /C. -TIPS V /H /S OTHER GROSS FIT FICA SIT SRI OTHER NET do SCHUBERT, JANICE M. 546 -80 -4300 HRS-REG 908S•OOW /T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS 3 0.00 35500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 36000.00 1196.83 2574.00 241.97 0.00 6580.88 25406.;32 i WILSON, ROBIN JENNY 4 546 -85 -0224 HRS-REG 531.37 0/T 10.37 D/T .00 MEALS S 0.00 DECL TIPS t 0,00 3144.04 81.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3225.09 0.00 230.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 2991,50 i 651O.OS DEPT 28 -584 RESTAURANT GENERAL HRS -REC, 449 0 -8/T 47.60 D/T .00 MI 74116.63 431.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 83232.81 6563.81 5951.14 1699.17 0.00 9329.12 ';2005.57 r. BRANDIN, SUSAN 569 -47 -4069 HRS -REG 254.45 0/T 6.10 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS S 0.00 2035.60 73.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2108.30 69.00 150.78 17.50 0.00 10.00 1861.52 MP ✓ HERRTDER, DEBORAH LYNN 399- 56-4729 HRS -REG 169.90 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1359.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1359.20 193.00 97.18 45.93 0.00 0.00 1031,09 NAJA!.CA, LUZ ISELA 546 - 88-2020 HRS -REC, 92.30 0/T .00 DR ,00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 Ss 507.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 507.65 0.00 36.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 471,35 MANCHESTER, JEAN FOWLER 279 -46 -4274 HRS -REG 179.55 0/T .10 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 ,., 987.52 0,82 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 988.34 111.17 70.67 28.88 0.00 0.00 777.42 PM MCCUTRES, MOLLY 911 524 -67 -9491 HRS -REG 86.65 0/T .00 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 476.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 476.58 0.00 34.08 4.65 0.00 0.00 437.'5 _ RACICOT, SUZANNE YVETTE 527 -67 -1615 HRS -REG 275.94 0/T 8.80 [VT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 1497.46 72.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1570.06 175.26 112.26 44.31 0.00 0.00 12i0,2T 5ANCIIE7, MARIA ELENA 550-50 -9867 HRS -REG 75.44 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 .. 347.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 347.85 0.00 24.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 322.98 `m SHELTON, KATHLEEN ANNE 214 -66 -1403 HRS-REG 320.30 0/T .00 D/T .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS t 0.00 1761.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1761.63 148.56 125,96 36.99 0.00 0.00 1450.12 ▪ SMITH, JEAN DWYER 006 -60 -9130 HRS-REG 1510.88 0/T 136.50 [VT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS L 0.00 15108.80 2047.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.00 17406.30 2294.78 1244.55 716.88 0.00 317.99 12832,10 i STCIN, DONNA M. 134 -48 -4740 HRS-REG 693.53 0/T 159.39 BIT .00 MEALS $ 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 so 4629.11 1554,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 6333.11 710.82 456.39 233.86 0.00 0.00 4982.04 114 TOWNER, TIMOTHY MICHAEL 535 -72 -7951 HRS-REG 140.6E 0/T 6.10 D/T .00 MEALS S 0.00 DECL TIPS $ 0.00 as 947.08 64.05 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1011.13 0.00 72.30 0.00 0,00 0.00 938.23 • DEPT 29 -580 REBECCA'S REBECCA'S BAKERY HRS -REG 3799.12 0/T 316.99 D/T .00 29658.43 3812.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.00 33920.65 3692.59 2425.34 1129.00 0.00 327.99 26345.73 um w * is • • W • w Appendix D . ., M &. W PROPERTIES SurrE 301A r 205 SOUTH MILL STREET r ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 FRANK J. WOODS. 111 TELEPHONE 925-8032 • • June 7, 1987 is Steve Burstein ✓ Department of Planning and Community Development City of Aspen r Aspen, Co. 81611 • Re: Mill Street Plaza Building; Gordon's Dear Steve ✓ Our letter is to confirm that Mill Street Plaza Associates is the record owner of the Mill Street Plaza Building, Block 81, Aspen Townsite, We have authorized Mr. Gordon Naccarato to • proceed with an application for GMP approval of an expansion to Gordon's Restaurant of approximately 1,000 sq.ft.,as submitted. • Sinc- - y, M L STR.ET ' AZA ASSOCIATES a • Ant ony J. Mazza • Managing Partner • w • rr no