HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.420 E Main -GalenaPlaza. A51-93 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 09/15/93 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 9/14 2737- 073 -14 -001 A51 -93
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: Galena Plaza Commercial GMOS, Special Review & Vested
Rights
Project Address: 420 E. Main
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Ron Garfield & Andy Hecht
Applicant Address: 601 E. Human, Aspen, CO 81611 925 -1936
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann
Representative Address /Phone: 230 E. Hopkins
Aspen. CO 81611 925 -6958
FEES: PLANNING $3925.00 # APPS RECEIVED 21
ENGINEER $ 93.00 # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $ 140.00
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $4158.00
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P &Z Meeting Date 1 \ 1 011, /6 PUBLIC HEARING: 3j) NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date d' 13 )31 PUBLIC HEARING: YES O --- _i n 10 Zug VESTED RIGHTS: YES 0
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Parks Dept. School District
City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. X Fire Marshal CDOT
Aspen Water Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space ar
Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other m
, — Zoning Energy Center Other
DATE REFERRED: cdT4�9I9 INITIALS: D0 j DUE: /07
FINAL ROUTING: DATE \\ ROOUTED: R/ / 7NITIAL:7/ti)
City Atty K City Engineer >SZoning Env. Health
K Housing Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
1
0 Cc 4/q
go q 3 - 2(0
1-4
C
4.
„,... ---■" 1- 1 111-1-1. - -
1 ,
__ ____
\
,
, 1
\ . , ,
_ ..
- ,
1 1
1 - ---.-
1 _
1111 ,
1 1
■____
i ;IL
c1.?
1- 1
'N.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Baker, Housing Office
DATE: December 10, 1993
RE: Amendment to October 29th Referral Comment: Galena Plaza
REFERRAL COMMENT: Based upon the Housing Office referral comment
of October 29, 1993, the applicant made an amended proposal to
mitigate for employee generation. At the Housing Board's regular
meeting of December 1, 1993, the Board made several findings and
approved the following amended proposal for affordable housing
mitigation:
Generally, the applicant proposes to deed restrict the entire
Kandahar structure and all nine (9) units rather than demolish and
reconstruct the existing units to meet the Affordable Housing
Guidelines' minimum net livable square footage requirements.
The Housing Board finds:
1. The total square footage required to mitigate for 11.55
employees (4,100) is exceeded by this proposal (4,810);
however, all units are below the Guidelines' net livable
square footage recommendations.
2. This is an existing structure and the Board feels some
flexibility is warranted.
3. The Guideline's square footage minimums are a guide and may be
reduced with good reason (see note 2 on p. 13 of Guidelines).
The Housing Board recommends the following:
1. The applicant shall receive credit for housing 11.55 employees
and no additional credit shall be carried into the future and
the Kandahar Apartments cannot be utilized to meet any future
affordable housing mitigation. This agreement is made due to
the substandard size of the existing units.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall
agree in writing to non - Uniform Building Code improvements.
The basis of this letter is an inspection of these units by
1
flexibility is warranted.
3. The Housing Guidelines' square footage minimums are a
guide and may be reduced with good reason (note 2, pg.13
of the Guidelines). ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Galena Plaza
housing mitigation proposal to be fair and equitable and consistent
with the mitigation requirements contained in Section 8 -109 of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: In accordance with Section 24- 8- 109(J)
of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council does hereby accept the
employee housing mitigation plan for 11.55 employees as required
by the Galena Plaza project to be nine deed restricted units known
as the Kandahar Apartments existing on the Galena Plaza property
with the following conditions:
1) The applicants shall receive credit for housing 11.55
employees and no additional credit shall be carried into the
future and the Kandahar Apartments cannot be utilized to meet
any future affordable housing mitigation. This limitation is
made due to the substandard size of the existing units.
2) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Galena
Plaza project, the applicant shall agree in writing to non -
Building Code improvements. The basis of this agreement
letter is an inspection of these units by the Housing Office
Chief of Property Management and Assistant Director.
3) The applicant shall upgrade the entire building to the
requirements in the Uniform Building Code health and safety
regulations.
4) The applicant shall deed restrict the Kandahar units to the
following categories and rental rates. The rental rates are
based upon the sizes of the units rather than the bedroom
count due to the substandard size of the units.
UNIT CATEGORY RENTAL RATE UNIT TYPE
1 1 Cat 1 /studio studio
2
.,
the Housing Office Chief of Property Management and Assistant
Director.
3. The applicant shall upgrade the entire building up to the
requirements in the Uniform Building Code health and safety
regulations.
4. The applicant shall deed restrict the Kandahar units to the
following categories and rental rates. Please note that the
rental rate is based upon the size of the unit rather than the
bedroom count, due to the substandard size of the units.
UNIT CATEGORY RENTAL RATE UNIT TYPE
1 1 Cat 1 /studio studio
2/3 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm
4 1 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm
5 1 Cat 1 /studio 1 bdrm
6/7 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm
8 1 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm
9 1 Cat 1 /studio 1 bdrm
10/11 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm
12 1 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm
b:refglpz2
2
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL REVIEWS FOR REDUCTIONS OF REQUIRED
PARKING AND OPEN SPACE, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR FLOOR AREA BONUS FOR
THE GALENA PLAZA BUILDING EXPANSION (A GROWTH MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION) LOCATED AT 420 E. MAIN STREET (GALENA PLAZA
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1 ON THE E. HALF OF LOT L AND ALL OF LOTS
M,N,O,P,Q,R,and S, BLOCK 86, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN).
Resolution No. 93 -26
WHEREAS, Ronald Garfield and Andrew Hecht, represented by
Sunny Vann, submitted an application for Growth Management
allocation including Special Reviews in order to expand the
existing structure at 420 E Main Street by 4,400 square feet; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the CC Commercial
Core zone district; and
WHEREAS, Section 24 -5 -209 E.3. of the Aspen Municipal Code
allows the Planning Commission to grant reduction of required off -
street parking in the CC zone with a cash -in -lieu payment of
$15,000.00 for each space reduced, pursuant to Section 24 -7 -404 B.;
and
WHEREAS, Section 24 -5 -209 D.9. of the Aspen Land Use Code
allows the Commission to grant reduction of required opert space
pursuant to Section 24 -7 -404 A.3.; and
WHEREAS, Section 24 -5 -209 D.10. establishes a floor area ratio
maximum of 1.5:1 which may be increased by the Commission to 2:1
pursuant to Section 24- 7 -404 A.1. and 2.; and
WHEREAS, the parking reduction requested by the applicant is
for 11 spaces (two spaces lost due to conversion of those spaces
to a trash storage area and 9 for the new generation of parking at
the rate of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet net leasable); and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests an open space reduction of
approximately 500 square feet and a floor area bonus of
approximately 790 square feet (1.6:1 FAR); and
WHEREAS, at the time of this condominium application the site
exceeded minimum open space requirements but the bulk of the open
space on the parcel was non - conforming pursuant to the definition
of open space contained in Section 24 -301 of the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, upon review of the referral comments submitted by
the Engineering Department, Housing Office, Water Department,
Parking and Transportation Director, Historic Preservation Officer,
Electric Department, Fire Marshal, and the Sanitation District, the
Planning Office recommended to the Commission approval of the
1
i
Special Reviews with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission heard presentations by the project
representative and the Planning staff at a public hearing at their
regular meeting on November 16, 1993; and
WHEREAS, by a vote of 6 -0 the Commission approved with
conditions the Special Reviews for reduction of on -site parking
spaces, reduction of open space, and a floor area bonus; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to, and the Commission accepted
the Planning Office recommended GMP score of 27.5 points and found
that the minimum category thresholds had been met, allowing City
Council to allocate the requested 4,400 square feet of net leasable
area to the project; and
WHEREAS, the Commission also unanimously passed a motion which
recommends to City Council that: "the City Council only accept a
housing mitigation package which addresses the Housing Office's
concerns, specifically that the employee generation of the project
be calculated at 4.375 persons per 1,000 s.f. net leasable, and
that the deed restricted units meet the Housing Guidelines."
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: that it does
hereby grant approval for Special Reviews for reduction of eleven
(11) on -site parking spaces, approximately 500 square feet of open
space, and a floor area bonus of approximately 790 square feet
(1.6:1) for the Galena Plaza Building Expansion of 4,440 square
feet of net leasable area as represented in the September 15, 1993
GMQS Application with the following conditions:
1) The applicant must immediately relocate the dumpster from
the sidewalk east of the apartment building.
2) Sidewalk repairs as required by the City Engineer and
handicap access ramps at the two corners of Galena must be
installed by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
3) Tenants cannot use the Galena Street right -of -way for
delivery truck access.
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
•
4) The applicant shall make payment -in -Lieu for 11 parking
spaces in the amount provided for in Section 24 -7 -404 B.1. of
the Aspen Municipal Code to the Building Department for
transfer to the City Finance Department.
5) The applicant shall pay a cash -in -lieu payment in the
amount provided for in Section 24 -7 -404 A.3. of the Aspen
Municipal Code for the reduction of approximately 500 s.f. of
2
open space to the Building Department for transfer to the City
Finance Department.
6) A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
The applicant must verify drainage of the existing patio and
roof drains to the Sanitation District.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November
16, 1993.
,/
W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
•
3
367200 13\... P -489 02/22/94 03:2IP PS I OF 5 Rt ." DOC
SILVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 6 RECORDER 25.00
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
FROM FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS
AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDONINIUMIZATION
WHEREAS, GALENA PLAZA, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, and CBI PROPERTIES, INC., a Colorado corporation (collec-
tively, "the Applicant "), are the owners of a parcel of land
located in Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Property "), more particu-
larly described as:
The east half of Lot L and all of
Lots M, N, 0, P, Q, R, and S,
Block 86,
City and Townsite of Aspen, �L
County of Pitkin, - H
State of Colorado,
with a street address of 420 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado
/\N. 81611; and
WHEREAS, Applicant wishes to create separate fee simple
interests by parcelling the Property into two units, to wit:
Units 1 and 2,
GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS
According to the plat hereof recorded in Plat
Book 3,-, at Page 1 of the records of
Pitkin County, Colorado,
County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado, and
WHEREAS, Applicant has requested an exemption from the
definition of subdivision for the condominiumization of the
Property at the above - described location, pursuant to Section 24 -7-
1007 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office has determined that such
exemption is appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found the proposed division
of land to be outside the intents and purposes of the subdivision
regulations for the City of Aspen and, on September 27, 1993,
approved the Applicant's request for exemption from the definition
of subdivision, pursuant to Ordinance No. 46 (Series of 1993); and
WHEREAS, a Subdivision Exemption Agreement is required
between the Applicant and the City of Aspen binding the Applicant
and property to all conditions placed upon the approvals for the
subdivision as set forth in S24 -7 -1005 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen; and
1
C r
rs
367200 8 -742 P-490 u2/22/94 03:21P P6 2 OF 5
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve and execute this
Agreement and the corresponding condominium plat for the subject
property in exchange for Applicant's promises and performance
adhering to the terms and conditions contained herein and those
other applicable ordinances and regulations as contained in the
Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Aspen
does hereby determine that the proposed division of the interest in
the above- described Property is outside the intents and purposes of
the City of Aspen's subdivision regulations, and does, for such
reason, grant an exemption from the definition of subdivision for
such action. In consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein and the approval, execution and acceptance of the plat for
recordation by the City of Aspen, it is agreed as follows:
1. The Applicant shall file a Condominium Plat to be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.
2. The Applicant shall agree to join any future improve-
ment districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
Improvements in the public rights -of -way benefitting the subject
property.
3. Applicant shall record with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder contemporaneously herewith, that certain "Condominium
Declaration" for Galena Plaza Condominiums, dated November _,
1993, attached hereto.
4. Applicant shall comply with the restrictions as
contained in the Condominium Declaration.
5. Applicant shall comply with all provisions contained
herein.
6. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and
constitute a burden on the property and shall be binding on and
inure to the benefit of Applicant and Applicant's successors and
assigns and to the City, its successors and assigns.
7. This Agreement may be altered or amended only by
written instrument executed by all parties hereto with the same
formality as this Agreement is executed.
8. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to
be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisi-
ons hereof.
9. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date
of the last signature set forth below.
2
e
367200 8 -742 P-491 02,04 03 :21P P6 3 OF 5
The o of the e , 416L +GPs
Mayo of the City of Aspen K
APPROVED:
/jfd1(./.,rr 46A_1/2
, City Attorney
CERTIFICATION
I, KATHRYN S. KOCH, do certify that the foregoing
Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision was
considered and approved by the Aspen City Council at its regular
meeting held November _ , 1993, at which time the Mayor, JOHN S.
BENNETT, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City
of Aspen.
•
Kathryn I. Koch, City Cle k
Applicant: Applicant:
CBI PROPERTIES, INC., GALENA PLAZA, LLC, a Colorado
a olorado limited liability company
By r i41/ ByA 4 l 1/4-1 1, l 1 If ILAC'
D. =1 W. a' Pres. Lowell Meyer, Manager
By a `
Ronal Garfield, Manager
3
c
3b7200 B -742 P- 4Q22194 03:21P P6 4 OP 5
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing was acknolavmmpiapuagped be this
ig day of - tbpt -u. , 199q., by , Mayo o� City
of Aspe, Kathryn S. och, Aspen City Clerk, and Udvard ,
Aspen City Attorney. "
WITNESS my hand and official seal. .OTA
My commission expires:
My Commission expires / � G'3 11�
1212311997 �y Q 6ailAttZ
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
CITY & DENVER ) ss.
COUNTY OF +P
The foregoing was acknowledged and signed before me this
f day of February, 1994, I$90, by Daniel W. Yohannes, as President
of CBI PROPERTIES, INC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
l J ; +' "•�
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS. ••. ». r,.•d•
COUNTY OF PITKIN
Th foregoing was acknowledged and signed before me this
__111. of , 1993, by Lowell Meyer, Manager of GALENA
PLAZA, LLC.
31 CA y
WITNESS my hand and official seal. ' , •. •,
My commission expires: Noe) N0pa
No •ry Public A
C OL O R 0'e
4
c
367200 ' P 493 02/22/94 03:21P P6 5 OF 5 rte.
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged and signed before me this
�1 day of , 1993, by Ronald Garfield, Manager of GALENA
PLAZA, LLC
WITNESS my hand and official seal. AA.* Etit�.. ...� "'
My commission expires: ••. •
! � 1 ✓l � I� � J . ` .� e.
nng ry Public ` 0 , w • '• ....... C• • a
........ ,....,00
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager /n\
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director„ yr 1
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: January 10, 1993
RE: Galena Plaza Expansion Vested Rights - Request to Table
Second Reading of Ordinance 64, Series 1993
Ordinance 64, 1993 vests the site specific development plan for the
Galena Plaza Growth Management project which was allocated
commercial development rights by the adoption of Resolution 85,
1993 on December 6, 1993. Council must still approve a housing
mitigation package for the new commercial impacts. The Applicant
is still in the process of finalizing their purchase contract on
the property which may affect the wording of their housing
resolution.
The Planning Office has determined that the housing package
constitutes a portion of the site specific development plan and
therefore requests that the vesting of said plan by Ordinance 64
be postponed until the housing package comes forward to Council
for approval. Ordinance 64 and the housing resolution will return
to Council's agenda on February 14, 1994.
•
1/
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director n
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner LJ
DATE: February 14, 1994
RE: Galena Plaza Expansion Vested Rights - Second Reading of
Ordinance 64, Series 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the request
for vested rights for this development. The Galena Plaza project
was granted special reviews for parking reduction, open space
reduction, and floor area bonus by the Planning Commission on
November 16, 1993. Growth management allocation for the 4,400
square feet of new net leasable area is being presented for
Council's approval by resolution on December 6, 1993. The project
also seeks vested rights to protect the project from changes to the
land use regulations for a period of three years from original
approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: First reading of Ordinance 64 was
approved by a 4 -0 vote on December 6, 1993. This property was the
subject of a condominium approval by Council on September 27, 1993.
CURRENT ISSUES: Section 24 -6 -207 dictates the process and ordinance
language requirements for establishing vested rights for three
years. Ordinance 64 contains the required text. Three years is
the vested rights period also established by state statute. The
vested rights period shall run from November 16, 1993 (the date of
P &Z approval of the site development plan including the special
reviews) through November 16, 1996. Planning and Zoning Resolution
93 -26 is attached for your reference.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of vested
rights for the Galena Plaza project.
ALTERNATIVES: Vested rights approval for three years is not a
discretionary action by City Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on second reading Ordinance
64, Series 1993 for the approval of vested rights for three years
for the development plan for the Galena Plaza project."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 64, Series 1993
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93 -26
0
ORDINANCE N0.64
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
VESTING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE
GALENA PLAZA SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL LOCATED AT 420
E. MAIN STREET (E. HALF OF LOT L AND ALL OF LOTS M -S, BLOCK 86,
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN).
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
Galena Plaza expansion on November 16, 1993, and approved, in
conjunction with growth management scoring, special reviews for a
reduction of eleven parking spaces, reduction of approximately 500
square feet of open space, and a floor area bonus of approximately
790 square feet; and
WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.93 -26
documents the growth management scoring and special review
approvals; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1993, the City Council granted
approval of Resolution No.93 -85 for a 4,400 square foot
commercial /office growth management allocation for an expansion of
the Galena Plaza project; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was
submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management
application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a site specific development plan for a period of three years from
the date of final development plan approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
1
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
Galena Plaza site specific development plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested until
November 16, 1996. However, any failure to abide by the
terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall
result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Failure to timely and properly record all plats and
agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal
Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested
rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature and are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
2
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn 3. Koch, City Clerk
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director Y�
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: February 14, 1993
RE: Galena Plaza Affordable Housing Proposal for 1993
Commercial Growth Management Allocation: Resolution
No.t, 1994
SUMMARY: The Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Board and the Planning
Office recommends approval of this housing proposal and adoption
of Resolution No.T 1994.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On December 6, 1993, City Council approved
first reading of Ordinance 64 (1993) approving growth management
allocation for a 4,400 s.f. commercial expansion at the Galena
Plaza project. Council tabled second reading of Ordinance 64 at
the January 10, 1994 meeting in order for the applicant to finalize
the purchase contract on the property and make appropriate changes,
if any, on the housing resolution.
BACKGROUND: The development proposal has received a commercial
GMQS allotment for an additional 4,400 square feet of net leasable
square feet onto the existing commercial building by an extension
eastward as well as the addition of a second floor. Based on the
increase in the project's net leasable area, the project must
mitigate for 11.55 employees. The applicants have proposed to
mitigate their employee mitigation by deed restricting the Kandahar
apartment building located on the Galena Plaza property. Nine
dwelling units exist in the building.
PROPOSAL AND KEY ISSUES: The Kandahar apartments are smaller than
the Housing Guidelines permit. Therefore, the applicant is deed
restricting more units than necessary as recommended by the Housing
Authority and the smaller units are being deed restricted by their
size rather than the actual bedroom count. Please see attached
Resolution No. _ and the Housing Director's memo for a thorough
explanation.
City Council approves the housing mitigation proposed by the
applicant. Both the Planning Office and the Housing Authority
recommend approval of the applicants proposal to deed restrict the
entire apartment building in the categories outlined in the
Resolution.
es,
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Galena Plaza housing mitigation proposal with conditions, and
adoption of Resolution No. , 1991.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , 1994 for
the Galena Plaza employee housing mitigation proposal."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Resolution No. , 1994
EXHIBITS
A. December 10, 1993 - Tom Baker
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner %
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: December 6, 1993
RE: Adoption of Resolution # Allotting
Commercial /Office Square Footage in the CC (Commercial
Core) and C -1 (Commercial) zone districts from the 1993
Growth Management Quota System
SUMMARY: Growth Management allotments are granted through
resolution adoption by City Council. Attached is Resolution #
for your consideration and adoption. There was only one growth
management application for 1993 commercial allotment from the CC
and C -1 zone districts.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Galena Plaza
application for 4,400 square feet of rfew commercial area and gave
it a score which meets minimum thresholds established by the
Municipal Code.
STAFF DISCUSSION: The housing mitigation package for the Galena
Plaza project is still under review by the Housing Office and the
Housing Board. When the Housing Board has made its recommendation,
a separate resolution will be prepared for Council's consideration
and approval. The project cannot receive any building permits
until a housing mitigation package has been implemented.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends adoption of this
allotment resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution # (Series 1993).
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
r
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 199 )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
GRANTING COMMERCIAL /OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS IN THE CC
(COMMERCIAL CORE) AND C -1 (COMMERCIAL) ZONE DISTRICTS FOR 1993
UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code
sets forth a growth management quota system governing new
development within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -103 A.3.a. of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, eight thousand (8,000) square feet of net
leasable space is available for development allotment within the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C -1) zone districts of the
City on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, of the 8,000 square feet established as a minimum
allotment, 551 square feet have been used from the 1993 quota
through exemptions as allowed by Article 8, leaving 7,449 square
feet for growth management competition; and
WHEREAS, the Galena Plaza development request for 4,400 square
feet of new net leasable area was the only application received and
reviewed by the Planning Director for 1993 development allotment
in the commercial zone districts and forwarded to the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate and
score the development allotment application at a duly noticed
public hearing on November 16, 1993, as required by Section 8 -106
D. of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined that
1
the Galena Plaza expansion project successfully met the minimum
thresholds for individual and combined score categories and scored
the project at 27.5 points; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended
that the Galena Plaza project be allocated a development allotment
of 4,400 square feet of net leasable area; and
WHEREAS, no challenges to the Planning and Zoning Commission's
scoring have been submitted to the City Council as allowed under
Section 8 -106 I. of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: In accordance with Section 8 -106 J. of Chapter 24
of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen
does hereby grant to the Galena Plaza project a development
allotment of 4,400 square feet of net leasable space from the 1993
commercial growth management quota.
Section 2: In accordance with Section 8 -108 of Chapter 24
of the Aspen Municipal Code, the development allotment as awarded
herein shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan for the
project as identified herein, unless a building permit is obtained
and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or
extension to the approval is obtained.
Dated: , 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
2
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do 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 held , 1993.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
2 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council (�
,„
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager )
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner! ')
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: December 6, 1993
RE: Galena Plaza Expansion Vested Rights - First Reading of
Ordinance , Series 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the request
for vested rights for this development. The Galena Plaza project
was granted special reviews for parking reduction, open space
reduction, and floor area bonus by the Planning Commission on
November 16, 1993. Growth management allocation for the 4,400
square feet of new net leasable area is being presented for
Council's approval by resolution on December 6, 1993. The project
also seeks vested rights to protect the project from changes to the
land use regulations for a period of three years from original
approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This property was the subject of a
condominium approval by Council on September 27, 1993.
CURRENT ISSUES: Section 24 -6 -207 dictates the process and ordinance
language requirements for establishing vested rights for three
years. Ordinance contains the required text. Three years is
the vested rights period also established by state statute. The
vested rights period shall run from November 16, 1993 (the date of
P &Z approval of the site development plan including the special
reviews) through November 16, 1996. Planning and Zoning Resolution
93 -26 is attached for your reference.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of vested
rights for the Galena Plaza project.
ALTERNATIVES: Vested rights approval for three years is not a
discretionary action by City Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have first reading of Ordinance
Series 1993 for the approval of vested rights for three years for
the development plan for the Galena Plaza project."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance , Series 1993
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 93 -26
1
ORDINANCE N0._
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
VESTING FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE
GALENA PLAZA SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL LOCATED AT 420
E. MAIN STREET (E. HALF OF LOT L AND ALL OF LOTS M -S, BLOCK 86,
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN).
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
Galena Plaza expansion on November 16, 1993, and approved, in
conjunction with growth management scoring, special reviews for a
reduction of eleven parking spaces, reduction of approximately 500
square feet of open space, and a floor area bonus of approximately
790 square feet; and -
WHEREAS, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.93 -26
documents the growth management scoring and special review
approvals; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1993, the City Council granted
approval of Resolution No.93- for a 4,400 square foot
commercial /office growth management allocation for an expansion of
the Galena Plaza project; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was
submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management
application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a site specific development plan for a period of three years from
the date of final development plan approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
1
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
Galena Plaza site specific development plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested until
November 16, 1996. However, any failure to abide by the
terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall
result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Failure to timely and properly record all plats and
agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal
Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested
rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature and are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City
of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
2
,')
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk .
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
C 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Baker, Housing Office
DATE: December 10, 1993
RE: Amendment to October 29th Referral Comment: Galena Plaza
REFERRAL COMMENT: Based upon the Housing Office referral comment
of October 29, 1993, the applicant made an amended proposal to
mitigate for employee generation. At the Housing Board's regular
meeting of December 1, 1993, the Board made several findings and
approved the following amended proposal for affordable housing
mitigation:
Generally, the applicant proposes to deed restrict the entire
Kandahar structure and all nine (9) units rather than demolish and
reconstruct the existing units to meet the Affordable Housing
Guidelines' minimum net livable square footage requirements.
The Housing Board finds:
1. The total square footage required to mitigate for 11.55
employees (4,100) is exceeded by this proposal (4,810);
however, all units are below the Guidelines' net livable
square footage recommendations.
2. This is an existing structure and the Board feels some
flexibility is warranted.
3. The Guideline's square footage minimums are a guide and may be
reduced with good reason (see note 2 on p. 13 of Guidelines).
The Housing Board recommends the following:
1. The applicant shall receive credit for housing 11.55 employees
and no additional credit shall be carried into the future and
the Kandahar Apartments cannot be utilized to meet any future
affordable housing mitigation. This agreement is made due to
the substandard size of the existing units.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall
agree in writing to non - Uniform Building Code improvements.
The basis of this letter is an inspection of these units by
1
C 7
the Housing Office Chief of Property Management and Assistant
Director.
3. The applicant shall upgrade the entire building up to the
requirements in the Uniform Building Code health and safety
regulations.
4. The applicant shall deed restrict the Kandahar units to the
following categories and rental rates. Please note that the
rental rate is based upon the size of the unit rather than the
bedroom count, due to the substandard size of the units.
UNIT CATEGORY RENTAL RATE UNIT TYPE
1 1 Cat 1 /studio studio
2/3 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm
4 1 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm
5 1 Cat 1 /studio 1 bdrm
6/7 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm
8 1 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm
9 1 Cat 1 /studio 1 bdrm
10 /11 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm
12 1 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm
b:refglpz2
2
f
II.
15$
MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing Board
FROM: Tom Baker, Housing Office
DATE: December 1, 1993
RE: Referral Comment: Galena Plaza Housing Mitigation
SUMMARY: Sunny Vann is representing the owners of Galena Plaza
(the Central Bank building) and processing an application for
Commercial GMQS allocation for a 4,400 square foot addition to the
east portion of the structure.
DISCUSSION: The property is in the CC Zone. The Aspen Land Use
Code identifies employee generation in the CC Zone as 3.5 -5.25
employees per 1,000 sf, depending on the intensity of the proposed
use. The applicant proposed to mitigate at the 3.5 employees per
1,000 sf; however, no specific use was proposed. In staff's
original referral comments (attachment 1), we indicated that the
applicant should mitigate at 4.375 employees per 1,000 square feet
(mid -point of the range) because the applicant will be entitled to
all the uses in the CC Zone.
The applicant also proposed to deed restrict five units to Category
#1 in the Kandahar Apartments. The Kandahar Apartments are located
on -site adjacent to the alley and Galena Street. In staff's
original referral comments, we noted that the Kandahar Apartments
were substandard and recommended that the building be remodelled to
meet the Guidelines' minimum net livable requirements.
Attachment 2 is a table from the application detailing information
on the Kandahar Apartments. Attachment 3 is page 13 from the
Guidelines which details suggested square footage for affordable
housing units.
Based upon staff's referral comments of October 29th, the applicant
is offering an amended affordable housing mitigation proposal
(attachment 4). In summary, the applicant proposes to:
1. Mitigate at the mid -point of the range - 4.375 employees per
1,000 square feet (4.4)(4,375)(0.6) =11.5 employees to be
mitigated;
2. Deed restrict units 1,4,5,8,9 and 12 to category #1;
3. Deed restrict units 2/3, 6/7 and 10 /11 to category #2;
1
r•
•
•
The applicant is proposing to deed restrict the entire building (9
units) and to set rents based upon the unit type which the square
footage most closely resembles. The applicant is proposing to
compensate for the substandard size of the individual units by
meeting the overall square footage requirements to mitigate for
11.55 employees (the Kandahar Apartments have 4,810 sf of net
livable area - 4,100 sf are required to house 11.55 employees
pursuant to the Guidelines).
ISSUE: Will the Housing Board accept units which are substandard
if the applicant reduces the rent to a level which is consistent
with the size of the units? i.e., Unit #4 is a 2 -bdrm, 530 sf unit;
and the applicant proposes to deed restrict Unit #4 at a 1 -bdrm
rental rate even though it has two bedrooms (see table at back of
attachment #4).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the applicant's
proposal including the commitment to bring the entire building up
to code for the following reasons:
1. The total square footage required to mitigate for 11.55
employees (4,100) is exceeded by this proposal (4,810);
however, all units are below the Guidelines' net livable
square footage recommendations.
2. This is an existing structure and staff feels some flexibility
is warranted.
3. The Guideline's square footage minimums are a guide and may be
reduced with good reason (see note 2 on p. 13 of Guidelines).
In summary, staff recommends the following category and rental rate
1, for the 12 units in the Kandahar Apartments:
UNIT CATEGORY RENTAL RATE UNIT TYPE EMP CREDIT
. 1 1 Cat 1 /studio studio 1.25
'4:- 2/3 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm 2.25
■
4 1 •- Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm 1.75
a 5 1 Cat 1/studio- - 1 bdrm 1.25
J 6/7 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm 2.2
A 8 1 -4 Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm 1.75 /
\ 1 Cat 1 /studio - 1 bdrm 1.25 ( ,n.�_
10 /11 2 Cat 2/2 bdrm 2 bdrm 2.25 p,{
12
Total 1 .Cat 1/1 bdrm 2 bdrm - •
i 1575
-- -- - 15/75 i
MOTION: "I move to direct staff to write a referr. comme t
accepting the applicant's pro osa for Affoorri !f. y ous�i g
Pri mitigation for Galena Plaza. "'� {* . / � l
ill
. , b:ref galpzl " V 11 �,.
/ 1prTr '" S
��� 2 1 � , *115)
LDAJ �5 „ f , l �`e-t X .1„dricAsitt Aki °a im'? .84 '‘ " /453 (..-v
/' — ATTACHMENT 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Baker, Housing Office °13
DATE: October 29, 1993
RE: Referral Comment: Galena Plaza GMQS Allotment
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Housing Office finds the following:
1. The applicant expects to generate 3.5 employees /1,000 sf of
net leasable space. The code identifies a range of 3.5 - 5.25
employees /1,000 sf based on the permitted uses in the CC Zone.
Since the applicant does not limit the type of uses in the new
structure, the Housing Office recommends that the applicant
provide housing for 4.375 employees /1,000 sf (the mid -point of
the range). Therefore, the mitigation requirement for this
proposal is 11.55 employees (4.4 x 4.375 x .6 = 11.55).
2. The existing Kandahar Apartments are substandard in terms of
size. The Affordable Housing Guidelines allow for a reduction
in the minimum net livable square footage. The office finds
that the combined 2- bedroom are marginally acceptable;
however, units 1,4,5,8,9,12 will not qualify as currently
configured (see attachment for Housing Office minimums). We
suggest that the applicant remodel the Kandahar building to
meet the minimum needs for net livable square footage of
affordable units.
3. The applicant is offering the income and price limits of
category #1 due to the substandard size of the dwelling units.
It is staff's experience that commercial space of this nature
is likely to employee category #1 and #2 employees.
Therefore, category #1 does not offer the community any
substantial benefit over the category which we normally
require.
1
e n-. .,, information, is
The apartment bu_ ATTACHMENT 2
• summarized in Table Z., UCLUw. -
Table 2
KANDAHAR APARTMENTS
c
Net Employees
•
Unit Type Livable' Housed'
1. Lower Level
Unit #1 Studio 250 1.
\
Unit #2/ #3 •2 Bedroom i- == :.: __,: -'� 530 2.25 C��S)
Unit #4 2 Bedroom/
2. Main Level
Unit #5 1 Bedroom 360 1.75 0 ,7-0
Unit #6/ #7' 2 Bedroom<---. 750 2.
Unit #8 2 Bedroom / - 530 2.25 01,75) j
3. Upper Level
Unit #9 1 Bedroom 360 1.75 �r,ti5) fl`
Unit #10/ #11 2 Bedroom✓-.. • .. - 750 2.
Unit #12 2 Bedroom 530 2.25 (I ,14)
1 All numbers have been rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
24
k.
—
£00- ZZ- £LO -L£LZ L- c i
1. , lamas uFEYi 3sva h£h/OZh `- 1 ,.
`, l�
'l -
saHO z3'n3 oo vzVM vNfl i vo -tt i - `
V _ -54-4/ - >
s... >' s �
agar �`t � � �' 4
Mak
IrMINCRESSIIIIIIISIM o • _ ATTACHMENT 3
PART III.
INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Part III of the Guidelines contains information to be used by developers of affordable housing units in the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County whether required in connection with an application for free - market
development or otherwise.
SECTION 1. NET MINIMUM UVEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRk.1 EU
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Table II sets forth the allowable Minimum Net Liveable Square Feet (see Definitions) for each unit type and
category. Developers may choose to construct larger units; however, allowable rent and sale prices for
such larger units may not exceed the maximum set forth in Tables III and IV:
TABLE 11
MINIMUM NET LNEABLE SQUARE FEET FOR EACH UNIT TYPE AND INCOME CATEGORY
Categories 1 and 2 Categories 3 and 4
Unit Tvoe
S.F. . S.F.
Studio 400 500
1 Bedroom 600 700
2 Bedroom 850 950
3 Bedroom 1,000 1,200
Single Family Detached 1,100 1,400
NOTES:
1. Net Liveable Square Footage (see Definitions) calculations shall be required for the affordable
housing component of a project and must be verified by the Building Department prior to •
issuance of any building permits for either the free market or affordable housing component of
the project. The Building Department shall retain a set of approved building permit drawings for
the project and the Building and Zoning Departments or APCHA may check the actual
construction of the affordable housing units for compliance with the approved building permit
plans.
2. The minimum net liveable square feet requirements may be reduced upon demonstration to and
approval by the APCHA that the development satisfies, or is required to adjust to, other physical
factors or considerations including, but not limited to, design for livability, common storage, other
amenities, location or site designs.
3. The City of Aspen Accessory Dwelling Unit Program requires a minimum of 300 square feet and
a maximum of 700 square feet of net liveable square feet for accessory dwelling units.
13
r l
ATTACHMENT 4 —
i
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
November 23, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Tom Baker
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
530 East Main, Lower Level •
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Galena Plaza Affordable Housing Mitigation
Dear Tom:
On November 16, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission scored the Galena
Plaza commercial GMQS application, and granted special review approval for the
project's floor area, parking and open space. The P &Z also voted to recommend
to the City Council that the project's affordable housing mitigation proposal be
revised to reflect your recommendations. More specifically, you recommended
that the employee generation rate be increased, and that the Kandahar Apart-
ment units be reconfigured to meet APCHA's minimum net livable area require-
ments.
As we discussed last wednesday, the Applicants wish to revise their affordable
housing mitigation proposal to address the various issues which you identified in
your October 29, 1993, memorandum to the Planning Office. The revised
mitigation proposal may be summarized as follows.
1. The Applicants will agree to an employee generation rate of 4.375 employ-
ees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable area. The minimum mitigation
requirement, therefore, would be 11.55 employees.
2. Housing credits and rental rates will be determined based on actual unit
square footage as opposed to existing bedroom counts. For example, a
530 square foot two bedroom unit will be considered as a one bedroom
unit for purposes of calculating the number of employees housed and the
rental rate.
3. All of the units will be deed restricted in exchange for APCHA's approval
of a reduction in the applicable minimum net livable area requirements as
provided for in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. •
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303'925 -6958 • Fax 303.920 -9310
Mr. Tom Baker
November 23, 1993
Page 3
tions. Eighty percent of the employees theoretically generated by the project will
be housed compared to 60 percent as originally proposed.
I look forward to discussing the Applicants' revised mitigation plan with the
APCHA board, and would appreciate your support of the proposal. Should you
have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to
call.
Yours truly,
VANN AS .' • CIATES
nny Vap AICP
SV:cwv
Enclosure
cc: Ronald Garfield, Esq.
c:Wus \city.ltritr22593.tbi
0 di
free market apartments which are located on the property to deed restricted status,
as provided for in Section S- 109.I.2. More specifically, Units #1, #2/ #3, #4, #5 and
#9 will be deed restricted to APCHA's Category 1, low income guidelines in effect
at the time of the issuance of a building permit. This income category is appropri-
ate, we believe, given the somewhat substandard size of the units. The units will
house approximately nine and one - quarter (9 -1/4) employees, or sixty (60) percent
of the additional employees theoretically generated by the proposed development.
The apartment building's existing unit mix, and other relevant information, is
summarized in Table 2, below.
Table 2
KANDAHAR APARTMENTS
Net Employees
Unit Type Livable= Housed'
1. Lower Level 04q
Unit #1 Studio 250 got' 125 '
i Unit #2/ #34 2 Bedroom 750 c 2
1 Unit #4 -2-Beenr. 530
2. Main Level fay,/ G /. Z5
360 i'-- -14"75"
Unit #5 '�'B�QQm 750 � 2.25
3 Unit #6/ #7 2 Bedroom
Unit #S5 _Be-' 2-edree 530 C., -a S
//3e,/'-rr r
3. Upper Level S�o /. 75
Unit #9 - Bedrooar 360 1 �rr s
750 - 2.25 // 7
Unit #10/ #11 2 Bedroom 530 G=am �`-
Unit #125-:„ /,75
/5.7
I t All numbers have been rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
24
5
5
/ )1/0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Galena Plaza 1993 Commercial Growth Management Scoring
in the CC Commercial Core Zone District, Special Reviews
for Reduction of Parking, Open Space and Floor Area Bonus
DATE: November 16, 1993
SUMMARY: This application seeks a Commercial GMP allocation for
the addition of 4,400 s.f. of net leasable to the existing
structure on the eastern portion of the Central Bank property. It
is the only application submitted which competes for the 7,000 plus
square feet available in the CC and C -1 zones.
In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project meets minimum
scoring thresholds. The applicant also requests, and Staff
recommends approval of Special Reviews for parking (cash -in -lieu
payment), open space, and floor area bonus. Housing and Planning
staff do not agree with the housing mitigation ro ram proposed by
the application. It is suggested Ehat a Commission forward to
Council a recommendation that an alternative housing package be
reviewed and approved by Council.
Staff suggests that the Commission first consider the project's
requests for Special Reviews, then begin the scoring process.
APPLICANT: Ronald Garfield and Andrew Hecht, represented Ly Sunny
Vann
LOCATION: 420 E. Main Street, at the N.W. corner of E. Main at
Galena (E. half of Lot L and all of Lots M,N,•,P,Q,R,and S, Block
86, Townsite of Aspen). The subject parcel (Central Wank
Condominium Unit 1) is 7,900 s.f.
ZONING: CC - Commercial Core
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks Growth Management
allotment for the addition of 4,400 s.f. of net leasable square
feet to the existing commercial building by an extension eastward
as well as the addition of a second floor. The structure will be
available for all commercial uses permitted in the CC Commercial
Core zone district. Additionally, Special Review approvals are
sought for payment -in -lieu for 11 parking spaces and open space and
FAR bonus above 1.5:1. The applicant will seek from City Council
vested development rights for a period of three years. Please
refer to the complete application package.
1
PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning Commission first review
the project's requested Special Reviews as these are critical to
the continuance of the development. If Special Reviews are
approved, the Commission shall score the project using the
criteria /point system established in the land use regulations for
commercial projects. Staff has scored the proposal and submits
this score to the Commission (Exhibit "A "). The Commission may
elect to accept staff's score as their own.
If the Commission finds that project meets minimum point
thresholds, it will be forwarded to the City Council for GMP
allocation of net leasable area and approval of a housing
mitigation package and vested property rights.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are included as
Attachment "B ".
Engineering: Chuck Roth comments that sidewalk repair., and
handicap access ramps at the two corners of Galena are required
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Also, the
applicant must immediately relocate the dumpster on the sidewalk
east of the apartment building. The proposed trash storage area
may need to be expanded based on the capacity requirements set
forth in the CC zone dimensional requirements.
Parking /Transportation: The proposed development's location makes
it readily accessible to the Rio Grande Parking Garage and the
Galena Street Shuttle. Therefore it is a likely candidate for
cash -in -lieu for the required on -site parking spaces. However,
this office is concerned that the removal of the two alley facing
spaces for this project will create a problem for delivery
activities for this project.
Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark comments that existing structure
must be brought up to current fire code, requiring a sprinkler and
alarm system.
HPC: This proposal has received conceptual approval with no
conditions.
Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states that adequate line and
treatment capacity is available to service this expansion. Minor
line repairs are necessary in the area of the project. The
applicant agrees to pay $6,000 towards these repairs. Prior to
connection of new service, the applicant must verify whether any
"clear water" site drainage enters the Districts system, and
correct that situation if it exists.
Housing Authority: Tom Baker forwarded comments. The applicant
proposes to mitigate for new employees based on a generation factor
of 3.5 employees per 1,000 s.f. of net leasable area. Given the
2
general commercial nature of the structure and location, Housing
calculates the employee generation at the idp 000 t s. of The
Core generation of 4.375 employees per
f
applicant commits to mitigating the minimum threshold on a this 60% o f
generation. At the midpoint Commercial Core g e
11.55 employees rather than the 9.25 employees offered in the
application.
The existing apartment units on the property which are proposed to
satisfy employee mitigation are too small and need to be remodeled
(combining units into larger spaces) to accommodate employees per
the Housing Guidelines. This requirement tentatively excepts units
2/3, 6/7, and 10 /11 which are still substandard but marginally
acceptable to the Housing Office. The Housing Office comments that
the proposal to Category 1 restriction suits most of the
prospective employees, therefore does not offer an increased
community benefit warranting special acceptance of substandard
units.
Electric: Bill Early ade which be necessaryaaft r h a
of load
and the only upgr
data may be a larger transformer.
Water: No comments at this time other than all codes must be
followed pertinent to water supply.
PROPOSAL: This application seeks to expand the existing one story
building north and eastward and add a second floor. Interior
remodeling of the first and basement floors is also included in the
project. The grass and trees on the east of the current building
will be eliminated and the courtyard area between the commercial
and residential buildings will be reduced in size. A trash/
service area is being will added
e eliminated because oft he new t building.
Two parking spaces wi trash area
and must be compensated for by cash.
s
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff recommends entire e prior
proposal to scoring this
project, the Commission review the
Apstaff scorewsummary follows d the Special Review discussion.
Special ions
A staff
Special Reviews:
Parking Reduction / Cash -in -lieu Section 7 -404 B. allows the
Commission to grant a reduction of required off - street parking.
In the CC zone, a cash -in -lieu payment of $15,000 per parking
space, at the option of the Commission, must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Commission shall take into
consideration the practical ability to place parking on -site,
whether parking needs of the development have been adequately met
on -site, and whether the City has [plans for] a parking facility
which meet the needs of the community.
3
Response: Two on -site parking spaces (directly west of the
apartment building off of the alley) are currently dedicated for
use by this prospective condominium unit owner. The improved trash
storage area will eliminate these two spaces. The new 4,400 s.f.
of net leasable area requires 9 new parking spaces at the
generation of 2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. The applicant is requesting
the well ssthe 9 prove uired payment
spaces. n This two
s represents a lost spaces
paymentof
as well a
$165,000.00 for 11 spaces.
The Parking /Transportation Office believes that the cash -in -lieu
payment would be acceptable at this location based on the
applicant's anticipated vehicle trip generation rate of 8 trips per
day per 1,000 s.f. The Rio Grande Parking Garage can currently
accommodate this project, but when the parking control program goes
into effect next spring the garage will likely be full on a more
regular basis. This Office expresses concern about delivery
activities in the alley with out adequate on -site parking. The
applicant shall be put on notice that tenants cannot use the Galena
Street right -of -way for delivery access.
Special Review: Reduction of Open Space: In order to qualify for
reduction in the required 25% open space in the CC zone district,
the applicant must demonstrate that the provision of less than the
required open space on -site will be more consistent with the
character of the surrounding land uses than would be the provision
of open space according to the standard. The code states that
"as general guidelines, the applicant shall take into account
the following. It may be appropriate to have open space on
the site when the building is located on a street corner,
r
the open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian
amenities, or the open space provides relief intended to
maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic landmark, or
the open space is intended for a particular functional
purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree.
It may be inappropriate to have open space on the site when
other buildings along the street front are built to the
property line, especially along public malls, or when the open
space is configured in such a manner as to serve no public
purpose."
When the Commission determines open space is inappropriate
shall e
site, it may reduce or waive the requirement if the applicant
make a payment -in -lieu based on an appraisal of the land. The
Zoning Official verifies the amount owed.
Response: 25% of the 7,900 s.f. site is 1,975 s.f. The subject
site contains 3,740 s.f. of open area which is non - conforming open
space per the code definition in that it doesn't meet minimum width
and depth or it exceeds 2 feet below street grade. approximately 1,480
development reduces the site's open space to app
4
cant
s.f., or 500 s.f. below the
thi s 500 s.f. . f . to be calculated andlpaid
proposes a cash paym ent for permit.
prior to issuance of a building p
Staff agrees with the applicant that providing conforming open
space on the site would be inappropriate along Main Street because
of the existing structure. Although the applicant does provide angled corner entry which is more pedestrian friendly, staff is
disappointed in total loss of the landscaped area along Galena
Street which is a major pedestrian link from Main Street to the
Library Plaza. Arguably, the apartment building does establish a
bottleneck for pedestrians at the northeast corner of the site
which does not promote the stepping -back of the proposed structure
from Galena. Given the particular situations on the property,
staff supports the reduction of open space via cash -in - lieu
approval.
Special Review for FAR Bonus: The allowable floor area ratio in
the CC zone is 1.5:1, which may be increased up to 2:I. upon
approval of Special Review by the Commission, with the sti:p lation
that 60% of the additional FAR be applied to affordable housing.
The 7,900 s.f. development site allows 11,850 s.f. of floor area.
The proposed development raises the existing 7,280 s.f. of floor
area up to 12,640 s.f., or 1.6:1. This represents nbadditional
790 s.f. of floor area. Two review criteria apply to
1. The mass, height, density, copfiguration, amount of open
space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed
development are designed in a manner which is compatible
with or enhances the character surrounding ulandluses
and is consistent with the purposes
Zone District.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of
parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated
viewplane.
Response: The site contains an apartment building of approximately
5,500 s.f., which is the bulk of existing FAR. The
The applicant apartments
licant are
not deed restricted for affordable housing. pp
proposing to deed restrict the entire 90 s. f fo us" FAR
within this apartment building. Other p of th s employees iAR
ng
will be deed restricted to mitigate the remaining
generated by the new net leasable area. Per the Housing Office's
comments, a revised housing package should be considered by City
Council prior to final approval.
The requested 790 s.f. 2:1 of which could is
have re been latively
request d amount
As
given the maximum 2
5
4
•
mentioned previous =ly, staff is somewhat concerned that the design
of the Galena Street frontage totally eliminates a green space
buffer to the sidewalk and street. However, the alternatives for
placing floor area on the site are limited t on e it h e r ncr
fu into the courtyard area or going d g P
both creating other disadvantages.causelof the limited amount
requested, staff supports the p p osBe
Growth Management Staff Score: Four City Planners jointly reviewed
the project pursuant to the scoring criteria contained in Section
8 -106 F. of the land use regulations. The Planning Office forwards
the following recommended score for the Galena Plaza Commerc GMP
project:
Scoring Minimum points
Categories Threshold
1) Quality. of Design 7.2 (40 %) 11
2) Public Facilities 4 (40 %) 6.5
and Services
3) Affordable Housing
10 (60 %) 10
27.5
Pursuant to Section 8 -106 F.(5) a development application shall be
required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
categories to be eligible for an allocation. Combined minimum
threshold for categories 1 -2 above is 16.8 points. This project
was scored at 17.5. Individual category thresholds have been met
as shown in the table above. procedure. ommBlankns ore sheets will f be
score or do its own scoring
0 available at the meeting.'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval with
conditions of the Special Reviews for reduction of open space and
parking and Floor Area Ratio bonus with the conditions recommended
below:
1) The applicant must immediately relocate the dumpster from the
sidewalk east of the apartment building.
2) Sidewalk repairs as required by the City Engineer and handicap
access ramps at the ° of a Certificate of Occup ancya by the
applicant prior to issuance
3) Tenants cannot use the Galena Street right -of - way for delivery
truck access.
6
4
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
4) The applicant shall make payment -in -Lieu for 11 parking spaces
($165,000.00) to the Building Department for transfer to the City
Finance Department.
5) The applicant shall pay a cash -in -lieu payment for the
reduction of approximately 500 s.f. of open space to the Building
Department for transfer to the City Finance Department.
plan shall be approved A drainage p oved by the City Engineer. The
applicant must verify drainage of the existing p atio and roof
drains to the satisfaction of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Disre
OW
r housing miti ation program , g for 11.55 employees must be
;•
.roved by the City Council and appropriate deed restrictions v0
or payments must be completed• approve the Galena Plaza Special � RKO
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to
Reviews for reduction of 11 parking spaces and approximately 50
s.f. of open space, and FAR bonus for 1.6:1 with the conditions I f
recommended in the Planning Office memo date � ovvember 16, 1993.
�
"I move to score the Gal ena Plaza Growth Manage T ent roject at '��.5 G,,pc, -b points, finding that required thresholds have been met for g rowth p 0
management allocation." /If ,.O
additionally: (D
"I move that City Council only accept a housing mitigat package
which addresses the Housing Office's concerns, p
the employee generation of the project be calculated at 4.375
persons per 1,000 s.f. net leasable, and that the deed restricted
units meet the Housing Guidelines's. , i - silli�
4 6
Application Booklet (distributed to Commissioners earlier)
Exhibits:
"A" - Planning Staff Scoring Sheet / Recommended Score
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
"C" - Public Hearing Proof of Publication
4 galena.gmp.memo
7
!� pLANNING'"�, ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT ' , APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL /OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Galena Plaza (Staff) DATE: 11/9/93
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points). Each development
application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points
according to the following standards and considerations:
0 -- A totally deficient design;
1 -- A major design flaw;
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design; or
3 -- An excellent design.
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the
compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale,
siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.5
COMMENTS: Corner building that is only 2 stories - could go
higher. Pedestrian street -level is interesting. HPC comments
regarding relationship to Courthouse. Nice scale, doesn't
overpower the Courthouse, nice transition. Concerned about
mechanicals that could be seen on roof.
(b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the quality and
character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas,
the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of
underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation, including access for service,
increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: No improvements to circulation, safety, privacy, snow
storage. Loss of landscaping on east due to increased (max) site
coverage. Limited aesthetics /use of courtyard. Neglected Galena
frontage as main entry to Library /Plaza and Galena St. pedestrian
improvements to parking garage - narrow sidewalk, no landscaping.
Could have improved open area between subiect building and bank
building.
(c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). Considering the use
of passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in the
construction of the proposed development, including but not
P°
Isar
3
limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation,
efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy
devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids
wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location,
relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably
result in energy conservation.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: No outstanding elements; meets standard requirements.
(d) AMENITIES (maximum 3 points). Considering the provision of
usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches,
bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users
of the proposed development.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: Open space not very inviting - narrow and dark. Access
to courtyard is unclear and seems very awkward and forbidding - not
publicly oriented. Bike rack in courtyard is difficult to access
up and down stairs.
(e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 3 points). Considering the scale and
location of the buildings in the proposed development to
prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Does not apply (no viewplane involved). Did not max out
the height.
(f) TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS (maximum 3 points). Considering
the extent to which required trash and utility access areas
are screened from public view; ate sized to meet the needs of
the proposed development and to provide for public utility
placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash bins to be
moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins,
trash compaction or other unique measures.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Trash area is not very accessible to commercial users -
applicant must confirm. Dimension of trash area per CC rear yard
requirements. What are trash facilities for the rest of the bank
complex? Nice to provide recycling bins.
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). Each development application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the
assigning of points according to the following standards and
2
W✓
ID
considerations:
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense;
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by exin
public facilities and services, or any public
facility or service improvements made by the
applicant benefits the proposed development only,
and not the area in general; or
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.
(a) WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering
the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed
development and the applicant's commitment to install any
water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility
upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire
protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provide services according to established response
times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities;
the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for
providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may
be necessary to serve the proposed development
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: Provides additional neighborhood protection with the
replacement of the hydrant.
(b) SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of
the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development
and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system
extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading
required to serve the proposed development.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: Modest improvement ($6000) to system repairs.
(c) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS (maximum 2 points). Considering
the ability of the proposed development to be served by
existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider
3
D
the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed
development without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's
commitment to install the necessary road system improvements
to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed
development.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: Negligible impact (positive or negative).
(d) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to
which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage
patterns on the development site. If the development requires
use of the city's drainage system, the review shall consider
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary
drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over
the long -term.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: Unclear whether detrimental effects of the existing
storm drainage exist.
(e) PARKING (maximum 2 points). Considering the provisions of
parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or residential needs
of the proposed development as required by Article 5, Division
2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with
respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and
convenience and safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: Per approval of special review (cash -in- lieu).
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). Each
development application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the h'wsing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city, and with
the provisions of Section 8 -109.
Points shall be assigned as follows:
Zero (0) to sixty (60) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One (1)
point for each six (6) percent housed;
Sixty -one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8) percent
4
i
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the number
of full -time equivalent employees generated by the proposed
development:
Commercial Core (CC) 3.50 to 5.25 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
and Commercial (C -1): (net leasable), based on review of
the city council's housing designee;
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft. (net
Commercial (NC) leasable);
and Service /Commer.
Industrial (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 square feet (net
leasable);
Commercial Lodge (CL) 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft. net
and other: leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the
commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three- bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit space.
RATING: 10
COMMENTS: Per Housing's memo - actual mitigation package to be
accepted by the City Council. Do not recommend this housing
package, based on substandard unit sizes (revise to 11 plus
employees and greater unit sizes.)
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 4 points). Bonus points may be assigned
when it is determined that a proposed development has not only
met the substantive standards of Section 8- 106(F)(1) through
(3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting
recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not
exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under
section 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any commission member
5
c
awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification
of that award for the public hearing record.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES: POINTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN 11
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 6,5
SERVICES
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10
4. AINUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: 27.5
Name of P &2 Commission Member:
6
PLANNINQ ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT ___ APPROVED
19 _ BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Baker, Housing Offic e�f�ry�
DATE: October 29, 1993 VV
RE: Referral Comment: Galena Plaza GMQS Allotment
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Housing Office finds the following:
1. The applicant expects to generate 3.5 employees /1,000 sf of
net leasable space. The code identifies a range of 3.5 - 5.25
employees /1,000 sf based on the permitted uses in the CC Zone.
Since the applicant does not limit the type of uses in the new
structure, the Housing Office recommends that the applicant
provide housing for 4.375 employees /1,000 sf (the mid -point of
the range). Therefore, the mitigation requirement for this
proposal is 11.55 employees (4.4 x 4.375 x .6 = 11.55).
2. The existing Kandahar Apartments are substandard in terms of
size. The Affordable Housing Guidelines allow for a reduction
in the minimum net livable square footage. The office finds
that the combined 2- bedroom are marginally acceptable;
however, units 1,4,5,8,9,12 will not qualify as currently
configured (see attachment for Housing Office minimums). We
suggest that the applicant remodel the Kandahar building to
meet the minimum needs for net livable square footage of
affordable units.
3. The applicant is offering the income and price limits of
category #1 due to the substandard size of the dwelling units.
It is staff's experience that commercial space of this nature
is likely to employee category #1 and #2 employees.
Therefore, category #1 does not offer the community any
substantial benefit over the category which we normally
require.
1
r —
Nee
PART III.
• •
INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Part III of the Guidelines contains information to be used by developers of affordable housing units in the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County whether required in connection with an application for free - market
development or otherwise.
SECTION 1. NET MINIMUM LNEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Table II sets forth the allowable Minimum Net Liveable Square Feet (see Definitions) for each unit type and
category. Developers may choose to construct larger units; however, allowable rent and sale prices for
such larger units may not exceed the maximum set forth in Tables 111 and IV:
TABLE 11
MINIMUM NET LNEABLE SQUARE FEET FOR EACH UNIT TYPE AND INCOME CATEGORY
Categories 1 and 2 Categories 3 and 4
Unit Tvoe
S.F. . S.F.
500
1 Bed room 400 700
1 Bed 850 950
2 Bedroom 1000 - 1,200.
3 Bedroom _
Single le FaFamily Detached 1,100 1,400
NOTES:
1. Net Liveable Square Footage (see Definitions) calculations shall be required for the affordable
housing component of a project and must be verified by the Building Department prior to
issuance of any building permits for either the free market or affordable housing component of
the project. The Building Department shall retain a set of approved building permit drawings for
the project and the Building and Zoning Departments or APCHA may check the actual
construction of the affordable housing units for compliance with the approved building permit
plans.
2. The minimum net liveable square feet requirements may be reduced upon demonstration to and
approval by the APCHA that the development satisfies, or is required to adjust to, other physical
factors or considerations including, but not limited to, design for livability, common storage, other
amenities, location or site designs.
3. The City of Aspen Accessory Dwelling Unit Program requires a minimum of 300 square feet and
a maximum of 700 square feet of net liveable square feet for accessory dwelling units.
13
SramrtriegammarommissigummasssisoweLemaassisamosewsur
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, ammng 0 ice
FROM: Randy Rea , ra ortation/Parking Director
DATE: November 8, 1993
RE: Galena Plaza Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review and Vested
Rights
The Aspen Department of Transportation and Parking has reviewed the above - referenced
application, and has the following comments:
1. The proposed project's location, immediately adjacent to the 340 -space Rio Grande
Parking Plaza makes it a viable candidate for the payment -in -lieu of parking program.
Furthermore, the project is located in an area that would be well -served by both the
Galena Street Shuttle and RFTA local bus service.
2. Our opinion that payment -in -lieu may be appropriate in this instance is based entirely on
the applicant's assumption of a trip generation factor of eight (8) vehicles per day per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable area. If the proposed land uses generate
more than the approximately thirty -five (35) additional vehicles per day, then serious
reconsideration of our payment -in -lieu position would be in order. While the parking
garage is currently operating at an average of about 80% capacity during peak seasons,
occupancy is expected to rise to an average of 90-95% during peak seasons when the
City's Commercial Core parking control program is initiated next Spring.
3. We are concerned about the accommodation of loading /unloading and delivery activities
for the proposed development. Such activities could be problematic in this location,
especially with the removal of the two (2) parking spaces currently provided on the
project site.
4. In summary, this department finds that there are practical limitations to the provision of
on -site parking for this development, and that (given the above assumptions, and
assuming satisfactory resolution of the loading /unloading and delivery problems) the
parking requirement for this proposed development may be met by the Rio Grande
Parking Plaza.
0
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director 12/
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineerefe—
Date: October 29, 1993
Re: Galena Plaza Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review & Vested Rights
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff •
Storm run -off has been adequately addressed in the application.
•
2. Trash Storage Facilities
There is currently a dumpster for the apartments located on the public sidewalk or
Galena Street. The dumpster must be relocated immediately onto private property.
There appears to be adequate space next to the two existing parking spaces behind the
building. The final development plan must show the location of the trash storage area.
Please refer to the off- street parking portion of this memo for additional, related
discussion.
•
3. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter
The existing curb and gutter sections appear to be in satisfactory condition. There
are a number of sidewalk sections which must he repaired -.or replaced , to m :'et the
Municipal Code requirements for hazardous sidewalks at Section 19 -103 an.l -104,
especially for vertical displacements "in excess of three - quarters (3/4) inch." Also, a
Handicap ramp and sidewalk extension must be added at the southeast cornet and a
handicap ramp at the northeast corner of the site, which are the corners of Galen Street.
These items must be accomplished prior to issuance of a_ certificate of occupanc for the
project.
G 0
4. Tree Removal
Since the Parks Department was not referred the application, I will point out that
there are three trees which will require removal permits.
5. Special Review for Off- Street Parking
This same comment section is being written for all three of the 1993 Commercial
GMQS applications. I am doing this because there are three different planners for the
applications and because the issue should be looked at as a whole for all three
applications.
Each of the three applicants is seeking a reduction in Code requirements for on-
site parking. It would appear that the Parking and Transportation Director should be
consulted for a policy statement on approving GMQS projects which do not offer to
provide on -site parking for the needs of the proposed projects. Perhaps it may be
inappropriate to grant increased development rights when parking is not provided on site.
Each of .the applicants states that it is not possible to provide on -site parking. The
statement must be evaluated more as a statement of apparent economic feasibility than
as an engineering or construction comment. That is, it might be possible to provide on-
site parking, but the costs might he greater than payiflg cash -in -lieu. Please note that the
City's cash -in -lieu amount is probably too low, which may contribute to the three
applicants' choosing to offer cash -in -lieu instead of constructing parking spaces on site.
This was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting for the Kraut Property
project. They reported higher costs for providing on -site, sub -grade parking spaces than
the City's cash -in -lieu amount.
Permitting cash -in -lieu for daytime office or commercial parking may have Tess of
u at.verse impact, but it would appear that on -site spaces should be provided for
IT ential units in all cases.
Note that providing parking spaces and trash and utility areas often is a "conflict
1 _'tvelopers versus maximizing on-site net leasable space. The Galena Plaza project
cm .d potentially construct an in -set trash and utility area into the apartments which would
he existing two on -site parking spaces. The City has discussed in other instances
cor •t acting in -set trash and utility spaces in existing buildings in the commercial core s0
that ine problem of removing duntpsters from the alleys can be alleviated. Again, this
becomes an issue of loss of net leasable space. In the commercial core, it is sometimes
alto :y) issue of whether or not such a recessed enclosure into an historic building
n..re5Lits a compromise of the historic building.
r
•
6. Street Lights
It is recommended that installation of a standard City antique street light be
required at the corner of the alley. This would be consistent with the commercial core
street light locations.
7. Work in the Public Right -of -way
Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public
rights -of -way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department
(920 -5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city
streets department (920 - 5130).
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office -
(J
Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director { -7 X
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C'
Date: November 10, 1993
Re: Galena Plaza GMQS Application
Following our conversation this morning, I have the following comments with which to
amend my review memo of October 29, 1993:
1. I have checked with the Sanitation District. Their requirements prevent them from
accepting roof and courtyard storm runoff, as well as- foundation perimeter drainage, into
their systems. The applicant must submit a statement of how the current "clear water"
drainage is being handled. The Sanitation District will not permit additional sewer
hookups until the on -site drainage system is verified. If "clear water" is currently being
conveyed to the District system, no additional hook -ups will be permitted until current
"clear water" connections are disconnected and the drainage water conveyed to an on-
site drywell or other mitigation feature.
2. Section 19 -98 states that sidewalk, curb and gutter is requit .d t r all new construction,
therefore it is appropriate to require as a condition of appror4l at handicap ramps be
constructed at each corner in conjunction with the proposed :eveiopment.
A191262
G _I
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7u2u ;11 i•i4rm �•� -
,{aspen Consolidated GM S Sanitation District
Aspen, Colorado 81611 FAX N(308)925-2587
Tale. (303) 926.3801 t Bishop
Sy Kelly - Chairman Alb er Bishop nk
John J. Snyder - Treaa Bruce Motherly, Mgr
Louie Popish • Seq.
TELEFAX MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 10, 1993
TO: Chuck Roth
FROM: Bruce Matherly
Re: Galena GMQS clear water connections
71****Mrxu MRMYMMMMMNMMkM***** l lif**** *****************************xM
If the Galena Street GMQS project has roof and patio drains
currently connected to our system then this would be a violation
of our rules and regulations and dy or law. We aecanheither
verify connection by conducting a
current owner issue Ws;attement ctha that
sthemroof a nds patpatio drains
are connected to dry e
Since we are only permitted to IreatndomesticswasteWater, I w ould
like to request that the planning
allow1connectionpaof the thproposed edevelopment o with ' knowledge n rt of verifcation as ledgeof
possible clear water connections-
Please call if you have any questions, and thanks for bringing
this to our attention.
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976- 1986 -1
C REGIONAL AND NATIONAL 0
D= ' ,4spen (9 onsolidated Sanitation Distinct
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Thle. (303) 925 -3601 FAX #(303) 925 -2537
Sy Kelly - Chairman Albert Bishop
Jhn Frank Loushin
Louis Popish - Secy.
October 18, 1993 OCT 25`993 ; Jill
II
Kim Johnson ° -- I �I
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Galena Plaza Commercial GMQS
Dear Kim:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Distric currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to provi•e service for the
proposed expanded use of this site. There are minor repairs that
are needed in our collection system adjacent t the site and the
applicant has committed, in this application, to fund these
repairs up to a level of $6000. This commitment provides a
general system improvement to our facilities in this area.
The associated total connection charges for the additional
development at this site can be determined by our office once
detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 -1990 '"
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL 0
OCT 1 9 Cr;
TO: KIM JOHNSON
FROM: BILL EARLEY
DATE: OCT 18, 1993
RE: GALENA PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW AND
VESTED RIGHTS
Three phase power is available in the alley and so this development
will probably not be problem. that I No load
foresee information is perhaps was aTelarger
however only upgrade
transformer.
c 0
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson CC Bob Gish
CC Kristin Sund
From: Larry Ballenger
Postmark: Oct 18,93 4:49 PM
Subject: Galena Plaza Commercial GMQS
Message:
The Water dept has reviewed the Galena Plaza GMQS Special Review
Application. We have no further comments concerning the pplication.
All City Codes must be followed pertinant to water supply.
X
c 0
4
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Sep 30,93 7:10 AM
Status: Certified Urgent
Subject: GALENA PLAZA
Message:
THE PROPOSED BUILDING LENDS LITTLE MORE TO BE DESIRED BY THE FIRE
DISTRICT. IT WILL HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHICH IS ALWAYS A PLUS IN
OUR BUSINESS. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS TO BE REMODELED IS
ANOTHER STORY. WHEN IT IS REMODELED WE WISH IT TO BE BROUGHT UP TO
FIRE CODE. THIS WILL REQUIRE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND AN ALARM SYSTEM
PER UNIFORM FIRE CODE AS AMENDED.
X
•
0 3
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, City Planner
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Galena Plaza Commercial GMQS allotment, Special Review
and Vested Rights
DATE: October 25, 1993
The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the "Conceptual
Development" proposal for this project on August 25, 1993. The
proposal was approved as submitted, with no conditions.
HPC found that the materials, scale and details of this project are
appropriate to the Commercial Core Historic District. In addition,
the project has the potential to be an important anchor along the
Galena Street pedestrian corridor and to draw activity to this
area, which features some of the most significant historic
resources in Aspen.
C 0
PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT G , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
•
a1R�Eu�C�As.L�.O..M.�PLAZ o a u1
TQUOTA SYSTEM yes
SPECIALREEY&W A VOWED RIGHTS
NOTICE meeting in S HEREBY GIVEN that u public As at • to begin at 410� pm � by a ee
the Aspen Planning and Tmmg Commission ht
the second floor Conference Room, City 1130 Gelma Street. /open. ado m a p , .
alder & And F 601 EastH � Garfield
requesting approval of Commercial GMT
area for a sad �Wo R ne leasable
t
ty. The applicants also request Special Rgview
approvals for reduction of Open Space,
Increase in Floor Area Ratio and reduction of
Paddng and Vested Property Rights. The prop-
. erty Is located at 420 East Main Street, more
specifically the east 191st of Lot Q. Lots R &S.
City and TourWte of Aspen. For fur-
ther Information, contact Kim Johnson at the
Aspen Pltkm Planning Office, 130 S. Galena SL,
Aspen, CO. 920-5100.
s/Rnrce Kerr, Chaimmn
Published In an n and Zoning Commission
l9os Pea Tines October 29.
o 0
0 ;
f
. S
,�\,,te�e\ 0330
\I IP`\v\v 1 �3
°`'eta 41)9 QS acv tt �a\
t to
p� so o ����, a �ge� e 41 e�a/?\?* � ' �.
f
s��; �a��O 516,, PCCas�� fostloe$01,ods (t``It's:ae��
it tbo 0 0 60 ��oo ee 0ol' � o1e e �� p e (Sts c o� a �c CF
,o() p, C a Q �a� ` o it cta e C C � t .
5. X00
4 e 0 0. t c eC tlo \4 lo
P� Cad e C° be'ss Cot(' -o ps, cta aab \P r wa ST
a °` ge .0�. lc` t ` o v e st ° o c a �e`Q� tc tO
� a re fe � eaC ` � eIOC otkt 4 � oF e of o e a S a,1? ,� ` . to ,` 1
era CS \V
(CO nip � oo P 4 ., clot ea Cat in b 1 \ ctea °T °r ce is t�o4� ses' a�+
C
d Wee/ ' l.,
9 i oot o 5 Z 1 cay e `t �° a ° r to 4 � � f as Ces 0 e,0°- s � `
9ulr a
SC' ea tatt oJ t cb e4, o� ° t a b� e lo be" e .4 e eCe st. cc�
fa at me fait, o °i, ��fota of st' „�to • c o
u e fo thi pe o cot?". o E °t a � c \ `Ns �� sb c o s , the IN
.
h - bo tt ,, 1 0 0 i t or "s it t c�� s C ON. G Cce p t `e Eo C o t is
ho 2, Ve e 031).‘ aCyr °t��l�o e, .03 ` t r -sa ge 2 c° 0 a cue , at s ` o %t aQQ�y
e to p tlo uS s s
\to I t r l cte Sin ti s \ ��e, a aQ�c ts NM .�s� mat \Let
n end In , iaoT t t`,s Q�� FC �'
e d 1 7� one. . e`4o oa cc ooJ� e tloe cc
h e P n, cotta a&"° ,ater-. to4
_ q e 'nen tot � e n c lo e p I II. i
ri° e,
e 9ua�Y to n Ad CiP • $ A a s, �` t
s is al f th - ` 1�° c "S� D rivtiv t o
co s' I ca n ns �� eC4 oe ep .nC cc, tt
F a t a ° l b C U CO/ P 4Q aCe �it S � o p � F>
ord able the L epnt 4o• soen 0s tar ot ��
hou . ?A eV ` ' ° e a
, f ' ng. � %),V1 . P
rth Q Ce P e
r asststa o p µ-
not
PUBLIC NOTICE MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM
RE: GALENA PLAZA COMMERCIAL GROWTH
ALLOTMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW & VESTED h ea ri ng will be held on
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a p to begin at will b pm held
before
Tuesday, November 16, 1993, at a meeting the second floor
and Zoning Aspen, Colorado,
Conference Aspen Planning ning Commission in Room, 130 S. Galena Street, Asp d Colorado,
tonconside Ranm, pl Lion, Ron Garfield & Andy
601 consider a application A submitted
en, requesting approval of Commercial
GM East Hyman Avenue, Aspen,
GMQS Allotment for 4,400 square feet of net leasable area for an
The applicants also request
approvals for reduction of Open Space, increase in
addition to the Central Bank property. and Vested Property
Special Revi ipp of Parking more
Rights. Area a pro and reduction Block 86, City
Rights. The property is located at 4 Lots R & M S Main Street,
the east contact Kim
and t 19 feet of Lot Q, it Aspen. For further information, Galena K ,
J Townsitt of pen
Johnson at. the Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, p
Aspen, CO. 920-51
s /Bruce Kerr, Chairman
____
Planning and Zoning Commission ___.............. - - - - --
Published in the Aspen Times on October 29, 1993.
City of Aspen Account.
•
ASPEN 1N
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
Sunny Vann 1993
230 E. Hopkins September 9,
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: Central Bank Growth Management Submission
Dear Sunny,
The Planning Office has determined that it will accept the
Septem
Central Bank Property commercial GMP application the lthation on the e Septemb e
condominium
h second reading lace until
15, apI icat deadline even though recorded and will
ownership by Messrs. Garfield and Hecht
cannot not take p the Bank,
ra Since the condo p
ownership ship transfer take place until after second reading consent to and
parcel, icatiod
as owners he the entire l, will have to Staff will review .thebu ppl not
authorize the GMP application. process, for completeness per the usual submission until second
the application to other departments er questions, please
begin approved. If you have any n geferra
reading is app
contact the at 920 -51
•
Sincerely,
Kim Johnson
Planner
•
•
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORAno 81611 • PHOXE 303 920 5090 • Fax 303.920.5
vMml.mas 4J r +ry