HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Hunter Plaza.Mezzaluna 33A-86a�3�-l� 25-oos
33A 4
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE'
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, 611
303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
- 63721
- 47331
- 52100
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
- 63722
- 47332
-52100
GMP/PRELIMINARY
- 63723
- 47333
-52100
GMP/FINAL
- 63724
- 47341
- 52100
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
- 63725
- 47342
52100
SUB/PRELIMINARY
- 63726
- 47343
52100
SUB/FINAL
- 63727
- 47350
52100
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63728
- 47360
52100
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
- 63730
- 47380
-52100
HOUSING
00115
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
County
00113
- 63711
- 47331
- 52200
GMP/GENERAL
- 63712
- 47332
-52200
GMP/DETAILED
- 63713
- 47333
- 52200
GMP/FINAL
- 63714
- 47341
- 52200
SUB/GENERAL
- 63715
- 47342
-52200
SUB/DETAILED
- 63716
- 47343
- 52200
SUB/FINAL
- 63717
- 47350
52200
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63718
- 47360
52200
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
- 63730
- 47380
52200
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
- 63730
- 47380
52200
HOUSING
00113
- 63731
- 09000
52200
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
00113
- 63732
- 09000
52200
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE
SALES
00113
- 63061
- 09000
52200
COUNTY CODE
- 63063
- 09000
52200
ALMANAC
- 63062
- 09000
- 00000
COMP. PLAN
- 63066
- 09000
- 00000
COPY FEES
- 63069
- 09000
-
OTHER
Name:
Address:
Check n
Additional Billing:
SUB -TOTAL —
TOTAL —
Phone:
Project: ___-__
Date:
# of Hours:
0
a
i�
LAA
iff"Wo
j
—J Md WA
I.
R W LM AP
r= " In An C2 C2
wrir
\ I, `� %, I ►,
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
August 1, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Co 81611
Re: Palazzi Property Commercial Growth Management Plan
Application
Dear Alan:
Attached for the Planning Office's review are twenty-one
(21) copies of the referenced application and a check in
the amount of $3,180.00 for payment of the application
fee. Please note that in addition to the GMP/conceptual
submission fee, the check provides for the application's
anticipated referral costs. Should additional referrals
be required, please advise and we will gladly provide
the appropriate fee.
Should you have any questions regarding our application,
or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not
]zesitate to contact myself or the Applicant's represen-
tative, Mr. Tony Mazza. On behalf of Vann Associates
and the project team, thank you and your staff for your
assistance in the preparation of our application.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES
Sun,py V3mq, AICP
attc�6hment
SV• i
P O Box 8485 • Aspen. Colorado 81612 • 303, 925-6958
A COMMERCIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
FOR THE
PALAZZI PROPERTY
Prepared for
Anthony J. Mazza
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-8800
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
210 South Galena, Suite 24
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6958
and
HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD
210 South Galena, Suite 24
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2867
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
A. Water System 4
B. Sewage System 4
C. Drainage System 5
D. Development Data 5
E. Traffic and Parking 7
F. Proposed Uses 7
G. Impact on Adjacent Uses 8
H. Construction Schedule 9
I. Employee Housing Proposal 9
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 10
A. Quality of Design 10
1. Architectural Design 11
2. Site Design 18
3. Energy Conservation 22
4. Amenities 24
5. Visual Impact 25
6. Trash and Utility Access 25
B. Availability of Public Facilities and
Services 26
1. Water Supply and Fire Protection 26
2. Sewage Disposal 27
3. Public Transportation and Roads 27
4. Storm Drainage 28
5. Parking 28
C. Provision of Employee Housing 30
D. Bonus Points
30
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL 31
APPENDIX 34
A. Exhibit 1, Letter from Arthur C. Daily,
Holland & Hart, re: Consent to Apply
B. Exhibit 1, Letter from Jim Markalunas,
Director, Aspen Water Department
Exhibit 2, Letter from Heiko Kuhn,
Manager, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District
Exhibit 3, Texaco Building Floor Area
Survey
C. Exhibit 1, Letter from Peter Wirth,
Fire Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
I. INTRODUCTION
The following application, submitted pursuant to Section 24-11.5
of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a commercial growth management
allocation for the development of an approximately 12,835 square foot
parcel of land hereinafter referred to as the Palazzi property. As
shown on Figure 1, page 2, the property is located at the intersection
of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue and is zoned C-1, Commercial. More
specifically, the property consists of the southerly portion of Lots K
and L and all of Lots M, N, and 0, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
An approximately 4,740 square foot commercial structure containing the
Palazzi Texaco station and service garage is presently located on the
property.
The application is submitted by Hunter Plaza Associates, a
Colorado partnership which has an option to purchase the property from
James Palazzi. Mr. Palazzi, in turn, has contracted to acquire the
property from its current owner, Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
Inasmuch as neither the Applicant nor Mr. Palazzi will have closed on
the property as of the August 1st commercial GMP submission deadline,
both Texaco and Mr. Palazzi have consented to be co -applicants in this
request (see Appendix A, Exhibit 1). The Applicant's representative
with respect to this application is Anthony J. Mazza, managing partner
of Hunter Plaza Associates.
To facilitate the review of the Applicant's request, the applica-
tion has been divided into three areas. The first area, or Section II
of the application, provides a brief description of the proposed
1
N
ASPEN ST
�-I
Y� L1
La
L P
ST.
INO ■T
MAIN ST.
N OPKINS AVE.
NVMAN AVE.
JUMP
COOPER AVE.
DURANT AVE.
RMP
L.o.NO LOCATION / ZONING
/// NIATORIC OV-RLAV
I
development while Section III addresses in detail the Code's growth
management review criteria. The third area, or Section IV, discusses
the special review approval which will also be required in order to
reduce the proposed building's trash and utility area requirement.
For the reviewer's further convenience, all pertinent documents
relating to the project (e.g., existing improvements survey, utility
commitments, etc.) are provided in the various appendices to this
application.
While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant provi-
sions of the Municipal Code, and to provide sufficient information to
enable a thorough evaluation of this application, questions may arise
which result in the staff's request for further information and/or
clarification. To the extent required, the Applicant would be most
happy to provide additional information in the course of the
application's review.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and to
construct an approximately 12,835 square foot (external floor area)
commercial structure on the Palazzi property. The ground floor of the
new structure, to be known as the Hunter Plaza building, will contain
approximately 9,372 square feet of floor area, and will be devoted to
those retail commercial uses permitted within the C-1 zone district.
A smaller, second floor will contain approximately 3,463 square feet
of floor area and will also be utilized for retail commercial pur-
poses. An approximately 2,991 square foot basement will contain the
3
building's mechanical area and tenant storage. The net increase in
external commercial floor area for the project is 8,125 square feet,
the new building's 12,835 square feet of external floor area less
4,710 square feet of existing commercial floor area to be
reconstructed.
A. Water System
Water service to the project will be provided via either the
existing line which serves the Texaco station or a new service line to
be connected to the eight (8) inch water main located in Cooper
Avenue. An inspection of the existing service will be performed prior
to the issuance of a building permit, and a decision as to whether to
install a new line reached in cooperation with the Aspen Water
Department. In the event a new service line is required, the
Applicant will abandon the existing service consistent with Water
Department policy.
The preliminary fixture count for the Hunter Plaza building
is two (2) toilets, two (2) lavatories, one (1) janitor's sink, an
ornamental fountain, and approximately three (3) hose bibs. The Water
Department has indicated that a connection to the existing Cooper
Avenue main is acceptable and, by implication, that the impact of the
project on existing facilities will be minimal (see Appendix B,
Exhibit 1).
B. Sewage System
The project will be served by the existing eight (8) inch
4
sanitary sewer located in the alley to the rear of the property.
According to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated
flows can be accommodated with no improvements to existing lines or
the treatment plant (see Appendix B, Exhibit 2).
C. Drainage System
Roof runoff from the new building, and surface runoff from
the project's impervious open space area, will be retained on -site
utilizing drywells located under the proposed courtyard. Surface
runoff from the new sidewalks will drain to Cooper Avenue and Hunter
Street. This runoff, however, will be intercepted to a limited degree
by the numerous tree wells which parallel the project's street
frontages.
Exsiting catch basins in the immediate site area are be-
lieved to be adequate; however, an additional basin will be provided
at the intersection of Cooper Avenue and Hunter Street should one be
requested by the City Engineer. The project's proposed storm drainage
system will upgrade the current situation in which all runoff is
collected by the City's storm drains. More importantly, the quality
of the runoff which will continue to enter the City's system will be
significantly improved as a result of the elimination of the Texaco
operation.
D. Development Data
The following table summarizes site and development data for
the Palazzi property and the proposed Hunter Plaza building.
5
Table I
SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA
1.
Lot Area
12,835
sq.
ft.
2.
Building Footprint
9,622
sq.
ft.
3.
Landscaping/Open Space
3,213
sq.
ft.
4.
External Floor Area
12,835
sq.
ft.
5.
External Floor Area Ratio
1:1
6.
Net Leasable Floor Area
11,272
sq.
ft.
7.
Existing Commercial Credit
4,710
sq.
ft.
8.
1986 Commercial GMP Request
8,125
sq.
ft.
As Table I indicates, the Applicant is requesting a commer-
cial floor area credit of 4,710 square feet. This figure has been
calculated based on a floor area survey of the existing Texaco
building prepared by Sydney Lincicome, a registered land surveyor (see
Appendix B, Exhibit 3).
For purposes of this application, the commercial credit is
assumed to be the total enclosed area of the structure exclusive of
the building's mechanical space. It should be noted, however, that
the Building Department has indicated that the structure's exterior
covered areas would normally be included for purposes of calculating
exterior floor area. Inasmuch as exterior FAR has historically been
utilized as the basis for establishing commercial floor area credits,
it can be argued that the existing building's covered areas should be
included in the Applicant's commercial credit. Given the fact that the
Municipal Code does not address this issue, the Applicant has assumed
that the staff will most likely take a conservative approach.
Resolution of this issue, however, is requested by the Applicant, the
R
result of which may necessitate the technical clarification of this
application.
E. Traffic and Parking
The City Engineer has indicated that the proposed project
will have no significant impact upon the existing street system, as
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue are currently functioning below
allowable capacity levels in the immediate site area. The Applicant
proposes to terminate the current service station operation, and to
eliminate the existing curb cuts on both Hunter and Cooper. As a
result, vehicular ingress and egress to the site will be eliminated,
thereby improving circulation on the adjacent street system. It can
also be argued that the elimination of the service station use will
reduce, to a significant degree, the extent to which the property
currently functions as a magnet to the automobile.
Although no parking is required or will be provided on the
property, approximately eight (8) additional, on -street parking spaces
will be obtained as a result of the elimination of the existing curb
cuts on Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue. With respect to alternative
means of transportation, the Rubey Park Transit Center is conveniently
located approximately two (2) blocks southwest of the property, and
the Mountain Valley and Hunter Creek bus routes utilize Spring Street
located less than a block to the east.
F. Proposed Uses
The Hunter Plaza building's actual tenants have not been
finalized; however, proposed uses consist of those retail and service
7
commercial establishments permitted within the C-1 zone district.
While restaurant uses may also be located in the building, the
Applicant's ability to lease such space is subject to conditional use
review and approval.
As shown in Table I, page 6, the total net leasable floor
area of the building is approximately 11,272 square feet, of which
8,437 square feet will be located on the ground floor. The building's
remaining 2,835 square feet of leasable area will be located on a
relatively small, second floor which is accessible from both the
Hunter Street sidewalk and the project's central courtyard. The
actual number of tenant spaces will be dependent primarily upon
market demand. For purposes of illustration, however, a typical
tenant layout might consist of approximately nine (9) spaces on the
ground floor and three (3) spaces on the second floor.
G. Impact on Adjacent Uses
The Palazzi property is currently utilized for commercial
purposes. The immediate site area is zoned C-1, Commercial; CC,
Commercial Core; and CL, Commercial Lodge, and is essentially fully
developed. Proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the C-1
zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. As a result,
the functional character of this area of the downtown commercial
district will be uneffected by the Applicant's proposal. In fact, it
can be argued that the redevelopment of the Palazzi property as pro-
posed will not only eliminate an existing unsightly and incompatible
land use, but will greatly enhance this area of the City, thereby
8
positively impacting the property's adjacent land uses.
H. Construction Schedule
The target date for commencement of construction is the
Spring of 1987, with completion of the entire project anticipated
prior to December of 1987. Phased construction will not be required.
I. Employee Housing Proposal
As shown in Table I, page 6, the external floor area of the
project is 12,835 square feet, of which the net leasable floor area is
11,272 square feet. Assuming an existing leasable commercial floor
area credit of 4,710 square feet, the net increase in net leasable
floor area is 6,562 square feet. It should be noted that the 4,710
square foot credit represents the existing building's external floor
area (exclusive of the building's mechanical space and exterior
covered areas), all of which is leasable.
Based on an employee generation factor of 3.5 employees per
1,000 square feet of additional net leasable floor area (the standard
factor for retail services in the C-1, Commercial zone), the project
will generate approximately twenty-three (23) new employees. The
Applicant proposes to satisfy the employee housing requirement of
Section 24-11.5 (c) of the Municipal Code via the payment of an
employee housing dedication fee based on the formula for such fees
contained within the Housing Authority's 1986 Employee Guidelines.
More specifically, the Applicant proposes to pay a dedication fee
which is equivalent to housing approximately 9.2 low income
0
employees, or forty (40) percent of the additional employees gene-
rated by the project. The exact amount of the above dedication fee
will be determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The payment of the fee will comply
with all applicable guidelines.
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The following section addresses the various review criteria
against which the proposed project will be evaluated. The information
contained herein represents the Applicant's best effort at compliance
with both the letter and intent of the criteria. The project
has been designed such that, in every category, the proposed Hunter
Plaza building meets or exceeds the minimum applicable standards.
Based on our understanding of the various criteria and the project's
compliance therewith, we have taken the liberty of requesting an
appropriate score in each review category. Please reference as neces-
sary the appropriate headings in Section II of this application for
detailed information in support of the Applicant's following
representations and commitments.
A. Quality of Design
The quality of the proposed project's exterior and site
design is discussed below. Please note that the Palazzi property is
located outside of the City's commercial core, historic overlay
district and, therefore, Historic Preservation Commission review and
approval of the Hunter Plaza building's architecture is not required.
10
1. Architectural Design. The Applicant's principal objec-
tives with respect to the architectural design of the Hunter Plaza
building may be summarized as follows:
a) To maximize exposure of the building's commercial
space while maintaining sufficient flexibility to respond to
individual tenant needs.
b) To maintain the exceptional views originating from
the property while minimizing, to the extent feasible, the building's
impact on surrounding land uses.
c) To design a contemporary structure of exceptional
quality that is not only aesthetically pleasing but highly functional
and energy efficient, and whose design vocabulary and building
materials are reminiscent of, and compatible with, the City's historic
architecture.
d) To provide usable open space that is inviting to
the public so as to enhance the pedestrian experience, both within the
project itself as well as in the immediate site area.
e) To provide for the likely future redevelopment of
the adjacent Ozzie's Shoes building.
We believe that the proposed Hunter Plaza building, the
schematic floor plans and elevations of which are presented on the
following pages, successfully meets the above objectives. As Figure
3, page 13, illustrates, the building's form is basically U-shaped so
11
N
_TENANT BTOFAQK -_. - — -
I
-r----------�04
_J r/
I �
r
IBLDG. FOOTPRINT ABOVE I
r
r I
ti
� I
BLDG. FOOTPRINT ABOVE I
L� I
i
r
I �
I
Lam` j
I
L-x -r7L
P�oPe ICY Ilne
N
BASEMENT PLAN
W
ALLEY
TRAEH/UTILITY
JAN, wOMQN
TQNANT SPACE TEN �NT SPACE ,at/J�/j
f J
0221■'■ Is
■HOE■ L JJ//
up1....:..�. t I
� � TEN NTBPAC!
RACw
<
TENANT TtNI�iNT
T ANT §PACE GPACB,
I CHATEAU A■PEN APARTMENTS
/ 1: 1 . ; 1-
� TE�ANT •PACE
P, Ilm —
COOPER AVENUE
N
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
s -
O 4 B W
�GJ
as to maximize store frontage and to provide an open space courtyard
off the sidewalk. Secondary benefits arising from this design concept
include the ability to offer a variety of individual tenant spaces, to
increase solar gain, and to breakup the building's otherwise
excessively long Cooper Avenue facade.
As shown on Figure 4, page 15, the second floor of the
building has been setback from both Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue in
order to maintain pedestrian views of surrounding scenic areas. The
second floor has also been concentrated adjacent to the existing
Ozzie's Shoes building so as to preserve, to the extent feasible, the
views of the Chateau Aspen Apartments. As a result, the entire ground
floor of the Hunter Plaza building will appear as a single -story
facade, thereby significantly reducing the pedestrian's perception of
the building's bulk. While the height of the second floor currently
exceeds that of the adjacent Ozzie's Shoes building, any future
redevelopment of the property would most likely result in a two-story
structure whose bulk would probably be located at the rear of the site
so as to comply with the City's open space requirements. Therefore,
in the absence of significant regulatory change, any future structure
on the Ozzie's property would, in all probability, be compatible with
the proposed Hunter Plaza building.
The building's proposed architectural elevations are shown
on Figures 5 and 6, pages 16 and 17. As the drawings illustrate, the
building elevations utilize a "bay window" concept which has been
designed to maximize storefront exposure and to breakup the street
facades. The building's angled corners, horizontal bands of terra
14
J
ul
pbrK1�
a a
� �rY
-, Ip�OCp T�fATE
IT SPACE a
a � a
Pmp"tv liM
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
O 4 9 12
CHATEAU ASPEN APARTMENTS
n
SOUTHELEVATION CHATEAU ASPEN APARTMENTS
COOPER AVENUE
❑ S 12
OZZIE'S SHOES WEST ELEVATION
HUNTER STREET
O 4 B '12
5
SECTION THRU COURTYARD
CHATEAU ASPEN TRASH UTILITY OZZIE'S SHOES
APARTMENTS
ALLEY ELEVATION
Ct
cotta tile, round aggregate columns, and vertical window details with
awnings and kick plates impart visual interest and are reminiscent of
the Victorian period in which many of Aspen's downtown structures were
built. The extensive use of glass will visually tie the building's
interiors to the outdoor public spaces and the project's extensive
landscaping. Particularly noteworthy is the building's integral
signage system which will eliminate the numerous problems which the
City has experienced with storefront identification. The principal
building material will be brick. For a more detailed illustration of
the Hunter Plaza building's architectural design, please refer to
Figure 7, page 19 of this application.
Requested Score: 3 points
2. Site Design. The basic design concept for the project
site has been to preserve the downtown area's "streetfront" integrity,
minimize perceived building bulk, maximize usable open space, and to
enhance pedestrian circulation. As shown on Figure 8, page 20, the
building's footprint essentially parallels Hunter Street and Cooper
Avenue, thereby maintaining the City's traditional streetfront design.
The Cooper Avenue facade, however, has been setback ten (10) feet from
the property line in order to enhance pedestrian circulation along
this heavily traveled route and to meet the City's open space require-
ments. This area plus the building's courtyard totals approximately
3,200 square feet, or twenty-five (25) percent of the project's site
area. Although technically not included in the project's open space
calculations, an additional 2,168 square feet of landscaped, outdoor
W
C
Q Q
N
O
ALLEY
N_
COOPER AVENUE
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
" O4 9 12
APARTMENTS
roof terrace will be provided on the building's second floor, the use
of which will be dependent upon actual tenant requirements.
The pedestrian courtyard is envisioned as a garden -like
extension of the streetfront sidewalk area. As Figure 8 illustrates,
the courtyard has been designed to provide convenient access to the
adjacent tenant spaces, the second floor shops, and the public
restrooms located at the rear of the building. The courtyard also
provides direct access to the building's trash and utility area which
abuts the alley, and access to the basement storage and mechanical
area via the enclosed stairway to the second floor.
As the Site Development Plan further illustrates, the Hunter
Street and Cooper Avenue sidewalks, and the pedestrian courtyard, will
be extensively landscaped with specimen size deciduous trees,
shrubbery and seasonal flowering plants. Actual specimens will be
selected depending upon availability; however, all trees will be a
minimum three (3) inch caliper and will be chosen from such species as
cleveland maple, marshall seedless ash, etc. The building's roof
terrace landscaping will include low growing shrubs such as
potentilla, horizontal juniper, etc., and specimen size conifers such
as bristlecone pine, which will be used to screen the terrace from the
adjacent ground floor roof area. The project's extensive landscaping
will further help to minimize the building's perceived bulk, provide
shade during the summer months, and constiute a significant amenity
for the pedestrian enjoyment of sidewalk, courtyard and roof terrace
areas. A detailed landscaping plan will be prepared and submitted to
the Planning Office for review prior to issuance of a building permit.
21
The building's open space areas will be surfaced with
exposed aggregate and brick pavers. Snowmelt will be used extensively
to prevent unsightly snow buildup and to increase pedestrian safety.
The courtyard and roof terrace will be attractively lighted and all
utilities will be placed underground. The Applicant will work with
the City Engineer to coordinate the location and installation of a
sidewalk street light which the City currently plans to erect on the
property. Benches and an ornamental fountain will be provided in the
courtyard area while street furniture, tree grates with cages, and
bicycle racks will be provided along the Hunter Street and Cooper
Avenue sidewalks. Curb and gutter will be replaced where required and
a handicap ramp provided at the Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue
intersection.
Requested Score: 3 points
3. Energy Conservation. The Hunter Plaza building has
been designed to maximize the conservation of energy and the use of
solar energy sources. Specific features to be incorporated in the
building include the following:
a) Building Orientation and Solar Utilization. The
building has been oriented to take full advantage of the property's
solar potential. To provide maximum exposure to the sun, approximate-
ly eighty (80) percent of the building's window glazing has a south,
southwest or west orientation. Awnings will be used, where required,
to prevent excessive heat buildup during the summer months.
b) Insulation. Insulation specifications will exceed
22
minimum standards. Roof insulation will exceed R-32, wall insulation
will exceed R-25, and one (1) inch insulated glass will be used
throughout the building.
c) Mechanical Systems. The building's heating system
will employ a state-of-the-art, high efficiency gas boiler (96 percent
efficient). Hot water heat will be delivered to individual tenant
spaces via cabinet heaters and hot water radiant panels located along
the perimeter of the building's ceilings. Point -of -source electrical
hot water heaters will be used to reduce the standby heat loss (i.e.,
energy loss) inherent in conventional hot water heating systems.
The building is designed to require minimum (if any)
cooling. Where specific tenant needs require, a non -refrigerated
cooling system will be used to reduce energy consumption. To further
reduce energy consumption, operable windows will be provided at the
building's perimeter, resulting in a natural versus mechanical venti-
lation system.
The building's plumbing fixtures will be limited to two
(2) toilets, two (2) lavatories, a janitor's sink, a recirculating
ornamental fountain, and approximately three (3) hose bibs. Low
consumption fixtures will be specified throughout. Domestic hot water
requirements will be limited to the lavatories and sink, thereby
further enhancing energy conservation.
d) Lighting. The majority of the building's windows
are oriented south and west. Daylighting techniques (e.g., the
23
reflective "shelf" above all perimeter shop windows) will be used to
maximize natural light (daylighting) to interior spaces.
Architectural configurations used to enhance daylighting efficiency
will be tested by modeling techniques. The building's interior
lighting will be supplemented utilizing high efficiency fluorescent
fixtures to reduce energy consumption.
Requested Score: 3 points
4. Amenities. The Applicant's objective for the Palazzi
property has been to create a highly marketable, commercial building
of exceptional quality, which incorporates the most functional and
inviting open space and pedestrian experience possible given develop-
ment parameters and site limitations. We believe that this objective
has been achieved through careful attention to site design and the
retention of twenty-five (25) percent of the property as useable
public open space. The resulting provision of over 3,200 square feet
of highly desireable, landscaped open space constitutes a major
amenity for the project, surrounding land uses, and the City of Aspen.
Additional specific features and/or commitments of the project which
can be considered amenities include the following:
a) The building's landscaped roof terrace.
b) Improved pedestrian circulation along Cooper
Avenue.
c) Sidewalk and courtyard benches and bicycle racks.
d) An ornamental fountain.
24
e) Extensive landscaping including specimen size
trees, shrubbery and flowering plants.
f) The rich detailing of the building's sidewalk and
courtyard surfaces.
Requested Score: 3 points
5. Visual Impact. Considerable effort has been made to
integrate the Hunter Plaza building into its surroundings. The
building's setback second floor, which has been massed around the
adjacent Ozzie's Shoes building, the Cooper Avenue facade setback, and
the large open space courtyard all contribute to the maximization of
public views of the surrounding scenic areas, both from within the
project as well as from neighboring properties. Similarly, a
substantial portion of the building's ground floor roof area has been
landscaped, and unsightly mechanical equipment eliminated, so as to
enhance the roofscape view from the adjacent Chateau Aspen Apartments,
and from the Aspen Square building across the street. In virtually no
instance is the view from the immediate site area significantly
impacted by the proposed building.
Requested Score: 3 points
6. Trash and Utility Access. As shown on Figure 3, page
13, a twenty-five (25) foot by ten (10) foot trash and utility access
area has been provided at the rear of the building directly abutting
the alley. The trash area is readily accessible from the building's
various tenant spaces and can be conveniently served by collection
vehicles. Similarly, ample space has been provided for the building's
25
utility meters and an electric transformer in the event one is re-
quired. In order to improve alley circulation, the existing telephone
pedestal currently located in the alley right-of-way will be relocated
to the building's trash and utility access area.
While the length of the area provided is five (5) feet
shorter than that required by Section 24-3.7(h)(4) of the Municipal
Code, both the Applicant and the City Engineer believe the building's
trash and utility access area to be more than adequate as proposed.
The Applicant's request for special review approval to reduce the
building's trash and utility access requirement, submitted pursuant to
Section 24-3.5(b), is discussed in detail in Section IV of this
application.
Requested Score: 3 points
B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services
The proposed project's impact upon public facilities and
services is described below.
1. Water Supply and Fire Protection. The project may be
handled by the existing level of service in the area. The Water
Department has indicated that the existing eight (8) inch water main
in Cooper Avenue is adequate to supply the project and that system
upgrades will not be required. In order to minimize consumption,
water -saving fixtures will be specified throughout the project.
With respect to fire protection, the site is located
26
approximately three (3) blocks from the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department, resulting in a response time of approximately three (3) to
five (5) minutes (see Appendix C, Exhibit 1). Existing fire hydrants
are located in close proximity to the site at the northwest corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue and at the southwest corner of Cooper
and Spring. No additional fire hydrants will be required to
adequately serve the project.
Requested Score: 1 point
2. Sewage Disposal. The project may be handled by the
existing level of service in the area. The Aspen Consolidated Sanita-
tion District has indicated that the existing eight (8) inch line
located in the alley to the rear of the property is adequate to serve
the project and that system upgrades will not be required.
Requested Score: 1 point
3. Public Transportation and Roads. The project in and of
itself improves the quality of service in the immediate site area.
The City Engineer has indicated that the project will have no negative
impact upon the existing street system as Hunter Street and Cooper
Avenue are currently functioning below allowable capacity levels in
the vicinity of the property. In fact, the elimination of the
existing curb cuts from both Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue which
presently serve the Texaco station will substantially reduce the
vehicular/pedestrian conflicts which have habitually plagued this
intersection. Vehicular ingress and egress to the property will be
eliminated thereby enhancing circulation and reducing the hazard to
M
both pedestrians and through traffic.
Although no bus routes currently utilize this segment of
Hunter Street or Cooper Avenue, convenient access to Rubey Park, the
hub of the joint City/County public transportation system, is provided
by the extensive network of existing sidewalks in the immediate site
area. As Figure 9, page 29 illustrates, Rubey Park is located
approximately two (2) blocks southwest of the property while the
Mountain Valley and Hunter Creek bus routes are located less than a
block to the east on Spring Street.
Requested Score: 2 points
4. Storm Drainage. The project in and of itself improves
the quality of service in the immediate site area. No expansion of
the existing storm drainage system will be required. As a result of
the installation of on -site drywells, historical storm water runoff
levels will decrease, thereby significantly reducing the impact of the
project on the City's existing storm drainage system. Similarly, the
elimination of the service station operation will significantly im-
prove the quality of the limited runoff which will continue to enter
the City system.
Requested Score: 2 points
5. Parking. The project in and of itself improves the
quality of service in the immediate site area. Although no parking is
required or will be provided on -site, approximately eight (8)
additional on -street parking spaces will be obtained as a result of
m
-ASPEN •T;
MONARQH /T:
MILL ST. ALMNA /T. HUNTER ET. •
aPRINO ST.
ORIGINAL /T.
T_ c`Duw�rHou/y
-
MAIN ■T.
I
CITYN L4 HOPKINS AVS.
I
--- - _- - - _ _ _ HYMAN AVE.
i
- -
=f_ l _ iC
N I-iuwuncua{ua/«
_.. NTEw wzw au1LCIN eooPlR AVE.40
777
tl I it -
r
I Los
,PAwwi�w._ _ ull._ - -J -
- Yraur _ � _ - __- � ... � •+., - OURANT AVI.
� Q: (QR1[III'iilCfTlflYlQ{Jrr1IR1fTORRfMTRTTi^P^ft^M�frT111ArRR^
I
I
-
.
LaoENo
®�mmumi� CIRCULATION
PlO!-TRIAN MALLS P!D!-TRIAN CIRCULATION SKI au/ ROUT!
PARK! OR -PIN -PAC! CITY -U- ROUT!
G
the elimination of the existing curb cuts on Hunter Street and Cooper
Avenue, thereby increasing the availability of on -street parking in
the City's downtown area.
Requested Score: 2 points
6. Provision of Employee Housing. As described in Section
II of this application, the Applicant proposes to pay an employee
housing dedication fee which is the equivalent of housing 9.18 low
income employees, or forty (40) percent of the twenty-three (23)
additional employees generated by the project. Based on the Appli-
cant's proposal, and the provisions of Section 24-11.5(b)(3) of the
Municipal Code, the project is entitled to 10 points, calculated as
follows:
40 percent employees housed
4 percent housing factor x 1 point = 10 points
Requested Score: 10 points
D. Bonus Points
We believe that this project has exceeded the minimum review
criteria of the City's commercial growth management regulations in
numerous categories and, as a result, has achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting the award of additional bonus points.
Specific areas in which we believe the project excels include building
and site design, energy conservation, amenities, visual impact, public
transportation and roads, storm drainage, and parking. Detailed dis-
cussions of the project's merits in each of these areas have been
30
provided under the appropriate headings in Section III of this
application.
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL
In addition to a commercial growth management allocation, the
proposed project will require special review approval pursuant to
Section 24-3.5 (b) of the Municipal Code in order to reduce the
building's trash and utility access area requirement. Pursuant to
Section 24-3.7(h)(4), a minimum area of twenty (20) feet by ten (10)
feet is required for up to six thousand (6,000) square feet of buil-
ding floor area, with an additional five (5) feet of length required
for each building addition of six thousand (6,000) square feet or
less.
As Table I, page 6, indicates, the external floor area of the
proposed Hunter Plaza building is 12,835 square feet. Applying the
criteria outlined above, the building would require a trash and
utility access area thirty (30) feet long (i.e., twenty (20) feet for
the building's first 6,000 square feet of floor area, five (5) feet
for the second 6,000 square feet, and an additional five (5) feet for
the building's remaining 835 square feet.). Based on actual trash
generation calculations and the Applicant's experience with similar
commercial operations (e.g., the Mill Street Plaza building), both the
Applicant and City Engineer believe that a twenty-five (25) foot by
ten (10) foot trash and utility access area will be sufficient for a
building of this size.
With respect to the specific review requirements of Section 24-
31
3.5(b), the following comments are provided in support of the
Applicant's request for a reduction in the size of the building's
required trash and utility access area.
a) The building's proposed trash area directly abuts the alley
thus providing convenient access to collection vehicles.
b) Based on BFI Waste Systems' national standard of one (1)
cubic yard of trash per 2,500 square feet of commercial floor area per
day, the proposed building would generate approximately five (5) cubic
yards of trash each day. In order to accommodate this volume,
approximately two (2) to three (3) two cubic yard dumpsters (the
largest dumpster that can be conveniently handled during the winter
months) would be required. Assuming that the average two cubic yard
dumpster measures approximately four (4) by seven (7) feet, three (3)
such dumpsters could easily be placed within the building's twenty-
five (25) foot by ten (10) foot trash area while still maintaining
adequate space for utility needs. It should be noted, however, that
the above standard is general in nature and, therefore, not
necessarily indicative of commercial trash generation in the City of
Aspen. For example, the Applicant's Mill Street Plaza building, which
contains approximately 27,000 square feet of commercial area
(including three restaurants), requires only three (3) dumpsters to
adequately handle its trash requirements.
c) The building's trash and utility access area will be
enclosed on three sides, covered, and contain a concrete floor. Given
the size of the dumpsters to be used (i.e., two cubic yard), the
32
spaciousness of the trash area, and the paved alley surface, dumpster
handling by collection personnel should pose no significant problems.
d) Trash compaction will be neither required nor provided.
e) The City Engineer has indicated in preliminary discussions
that a twenty-five (25) foot by ten (10) foot area will be adequate.
f) The space provided will be more than adequate for the buil-
ding's utility placement requirements (e.g., electric panels,
transformer if required, meters, telephone pedestal, etc.).
Based on the above, a reduction of the Hunter Plaza building's
trash and utility access area requirement would appear to be
appropriate. The Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests special
review approval to reduce the Hunter Plaza building's trash area from
thirty (30) feet to twenty-five (25) feet as illustrated in Figure 8,
page 20 of this application.
33
APPENDIX A
34
EXHIBIT 1
DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 2900
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, C OLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 295-8000
TELECOPIER (303) 295-8261
MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 1400
17S NORTH 27TH STREET
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101
TELEPHONE (406) 252-2166
TELECOPIER (406) 252-1669
ARTHUR C. DAILY
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann and Associates
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Sunny:
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81811
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
July 22, 1986
Re: Hunter Plaza Associates: Commercial
GMP Submission for Texaco Site
WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE
SUITE 1200
1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
WAS HINGTON, D. C. 20006
TELEPHONE (202) 466-7340
TELECOPIER(202)466-7354
WYOMING OFFICE
SUITE 500
2020 CAREY AVENUE
CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE (307) 632-2160
TELECOPIER (307) 778-8175
S. E. DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
TELEPHONE (303) 741-1226
Hunter Plaza Associates, a Colorado partnership, is preparing
to submit on or before the August 1, 1986 deadline a commercial GMP
application for the property described on attached Exhibit A, which
property is situated at the Northeast corner of the Galena
Street/Hunter Street intersection and is presently occupied by the
Palazzi Texaco station (hereinafter referred to as the "subject
property"). The present record owner of the subject property is
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. ("Texaco"). Pursuant to an
Agreement dated June 9, 1986, Texaco has contracted to sell the
subject property to James Palazzi ("Palazzi"). Palazzi has in turn
granted to Hunter Plaza Associates the right to purchase the sub-
ject property pursuant to the terms of an Option Agreement dated
May 6, 1986.
Hunter Plaza Associates derives its authority to submit and to
process the subject GMP application from the following contract
provisions:
Paragraph 23 of the Texaco/Palazzi Agreement reads as follows:
1123. Zoning Application. Seller's signature hereon shall
constitute permission to the Purchaser, and any contract purchaser
of the Purchaser, to proceed with and submit any and all appropri-
ate applications for development of the Property in the City of
Aspen, including but not limited to Growth Management Plan applica-
tion. Seller shall, however, be held harmless with respect thereto
by the Purchaser."
FR:J
HOLLAND & MART
Mr. Sunny Vann
July 22, 1986
Page 2
Paragraph B(9) of the Palazzi/Hunter Plaza Associates Contract
reads as follows:
"9. HPA Development Submittals. The parties mutually under-
stand and agree that at any time following the execution of this
Agreement by both parties, HPA may (but shall not be obliged to)
submit to the City of Aspen (a) an application for a Growth Manage-
ment Plan allotment of commercial square footage for the Subject
Property, and/or (b) such other applications and submittals as may
be deemed necessary or appropriate by HPA for the development of a
commercial building on the Subject Property. All GMP and any other
governmental approvals required to implement HPA's development plan
shall be applied for and prosecuted by HPA at its sole cost, risk
and expense, including all costs incurred for architecture, engi-
neering, planning, legal work and special consultants. Palazzi
agrees that he will cooperate and does hereby join in such applica-
tions and submittals and, if required, will permit HPA to prosecute
the same in Palazzi's name, always, however, at HPA's sole cost and
expense, and HPA agrees to and does hereby indemnify, defend
(including reasonable attorney's fees), save and hold harmless
Palazzi from and against any and all claims, demands or liabilities
of any kind or nature arising from or incurred in connection with
such development approval process."
Should there be any further questions regarding this matter,
please don't hesitate to get in touch with me.
Very truly youKs,
Arthur C. aily
for HOLLAN & HART
ACD/jg
Enclosure
cc: Anthony J. Mazza, Managing Partner
APPENDIX B
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
July 21, 1986
Vann Associates
Sunny Vann, AICP
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: 602 E. Cooper - Palazzi Property
Dear Sunny:
Per our discussion of July 21, 1986, water will be made available
to service the property upon application for the necessary tap
permit. Should you elect to install a new service to the
property, the old services must be abandoned and cut off at the
main (unless of course, you decide to retain the use of the
existing service line).
We have no further comment to make at this time.
incerely,
J m Marka unas, Director
Aspen Water Department
cc: Planning Department
EXHIBIT 2
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Sunny Vann
% Vann Associates
P. 0. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Tele. (303) 925-2537
July 22, 1986
RE: Palazzi Property
Dear Mr. Vann:
This letter is to indicate that upon preliminary examination the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District can service a proposed commercial building
on the Palazzi property where the Texaco gas is now located.
Sincerely
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
sm
s e7
35 q,
I
N
b 11.4Bd I 9yy(y-�o
247.47♦
s��acx-soles 4
I
ry F
s
I
��e.ed, area
eas.ze�
1
I wl
I
I
20.3
I, Sydney Lincicoee. a RegistVred Land Surveyor, hereby
kreCL. —r"tv certify that on June 10, 1986, an area weasureaent sur-
vey was wade under my di rectlon and supervision of the
14rea_, 1283`+.94� Texaco Station located at 206 E. Cooper, Aspen, Colorado.
This plat accurately and substantially depicts the hori-
lrna $u:ldv�n zontal aiea sureaents of the building and the area calcu-
latims.
Ow '6'—J. 14 q7a. 52
iliood9 grade. 267.474 By:
ZU E+tc�osedL k^ea '4739.99 0 y cicowe
o—.6 r kreo,. 865.280 ., 111Hks/w,,,a
To4--I Bu—u�rtq
Poo-r ftYeCL St•l'Y'VeU
Tcz�cac.o Sia.�i.o'•vt—�
602 E. Cooper i�s�e+t Co(orac�i-0
LINES /N SPACE
SYDN£Y L/NC/COME (L S 14111)
% 121 CARSONDALE COLORAD081623 303-963-
TE: fi Suva¢ 4g86 I gCpi E: I"_ iO=0'
APPENDIX C
EXHIBIT 1
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-5532
July 22, 1986
Vann Associates
Planning Consultants
Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: The Palazzi Property
Dear Sunny:
Based on our very breif discussion, the Aspen Volunteer
Fire Department should have no problem in providing fire
protection to the proposed commercial project to be constructed
where the Texaco gas station now exists. The fire hydrants in
the area are sufficient, and the Aspen fire station is located
three (3) blocks from the project. The Fire Departments re-
sopnse time is aproximatley three (3) to five (5) minutes re-
gardless of the time of day. If you have any questions please
feel free to contact me.
Sin rely
Peter Wirth
Fire Chief
PAP F",o"Aoj
IMF
Iwo 11 WAIA " wo j - PON-, ( r344#12 ZI* or� W., i
IRA I'l
Ago
NA OF, Arm E E T .79M.0
• 6
I W TT
Wei
Lt
,
9866 BINS x)6 Q� NDE
05.9 9G9.a x 9I34 _ C7 7913.4 >,'_IE O, - HOPKINS AVE.
P06.I W ..-_ J 1, 1 7913.E
+`
T91
r -
rt� � I
• • _. • - - - -. -- 13.2 •-7916.1 - --. F - _ 'gat, -
_. _. 7913.0a)'U
i
7901.5
IL
- - 792. - - - HYMAN AVE
- - - -` YMAN a>919.4 AVENUE
i9o3o. HVMAN ENU -� a)91ag
--._ -.- - - - 9.0
R M P
92? a
L I� 8
J916` J921.2 - r 1f _• / ) ..T" k
11 �. 2 T
x - 79 0 l -__. _ •-. v,: I w ___ __- �_-_--1--.__.. � -__ �._ v7924.5
• •�- .. - - -- - - - o
• d 9272
.79
7909E Z
� 0
--
P( LI -.790fi 2 ]906.3+ ' : ,"., 4 AG N 2 6 - _ L
a 7903.6PARKING AREA_._�.i..
' , \�]92 5
91 2 1 _
T9060CDOPER_ --- riJ2L3 U '•MER PLAZA BUILDING
- aT90J �
AVENUE �9� T '9r�3, � � CO R ,1y23F x79zai 7931.0 l -_
- � a792)i AVENUE .)92 COOPER AVE.
79G6.6 _ - - _ .�
7908.4
I "` G _22,9
--- 7926.9
714057 IIrI i� ❑
• ..�---JJJ5111�1_� O� L- I \ �_ �� �( PARKING AREA 1 \�
i r7 J S•r S. 2b�-
/79063
_.- • - • --`_a-_ u o LL40VIA
a)92P4
RKING
5249
a79_7
-
00,
. 1
- it � • / i I � AR A
-
Ld
1 I 7929•3
L
7927. ' -
y .?
-
G )9N.1 '•- - 1 �' � )9 -___- -� A7j2Kill
8'T - - --
_-
-. PARKING AREA
-\ °
A92
nl- ERPRK]92?. PAR' -- - - - - /
-
DURANT AVENUE ��o - x7928.4 DURANT "�30 AVENUE DURANT AVE.
1,7910.4
✓- � _ - � - / _. ^_. ; �� L _JZ. _ • �®.7AP-16
92e.9a 792 o ' _. _--- I' /�----------------------------- � I
G
RANKING J
3A
4R,
RMP
-� -. i920 , . A30
]9262,
)9 9, Pool ,
PARKING AREA - -r l_sir-r -�-' �' 0930 .-- . W \_ PARKING AREA
-� 7'j17.2 - a)939.- - �„ -� _ •• a .- - "- - �` H /_ 7941.7
S D E A IN _ - .- -_ ) S T R E E T ° .7934A a)934.a-±7936.7 / IE
a794o.e
_
v -v --� - `1 { _ • Z ,. a - - - a6 r. 1 l_J.
- -- - 7930 -Z\
I I I
- * 'Ii - `' to • - �- _ _ D I , 7WZ y
x T
l --
7945 4
Z 7940 2 J9422 f .. )
79_._-- - - --_ - _.__ 79
79404I.q \
FAO
_ - 262a 7935.3a C - ..
i w '.
1
--{---__-- - J-�-
•
L-.--T950- • / I ` '.� i9T0-- .i9ai.9 ')936. t
t
___
.- ��� J950 1 1 - - 9435
n
v�
IS
FT
7949 E.
t
LEGEND
/ 'HISTORIC OVERLAY
LOCATION / ZONING
4
lot k
lot I
lot m
=N
I
I
4
I
r
IBLDG. FOOTPRINT ABOVE
L I rj
rj Ln
I
I�
IL
IV
property line
7drywel l )
lot n
BASEMENT
O 4 B '12
lot o
PLAN
r�
ALLEY
property line
COOPER AVENUE
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
0 4 8 12
J ASPEN APARTMENTS
3
a
_z
0
_J
5
m
Q
N
Q
J
a
a
W
Z
I
L
_0
0
v
c
Q
a
N
a�
0
0
u
Ili
N
0
w
H
w
N
U
W
�. 0
_ a
T f°
L
u 0
U
Q 0
3 0
a
Q Q
}
a
Z
_J
5
m
Q
N
Q
J
a
-°0
ca
L
_0
0
U
c
n�
a
U)
:l
L
a)
0
0
U
W
N
0
w
0
H
w
N
H
v
W
0
13
T L
U 0
IX U
Q c
0
a
Q Q
Z
Q
ED
Q
I
a
Z
0
J
5
m
Q
N
Q
a
�a
L
0
0
V
C
O1
a
L
0
0
L)
W
N
0
tD
Z
Q
ED
Q
a
Z
0
_J
]
m
Q
N
Q
J
IL
11
W
h
Z
L
0
0
U
c
a�
a
W
.I
a�
0
0
u
W
a
0
w
u
w 1 �A
0
w
N
H
v
W
F. 0
T L
u 0
au
Q c
aW
Q
z
Q
0
Q
I
0
z1
o `
0
J L]
m w
0.
Q N
N Q
a w
EL a
0
V
W
H W
z N
0
I w
ASPEN ST, MONARCH ST. MILL ST.GALENA ST. HUNTER ST. SPRING ST. ORIGINAL ST.
TI.LJ .C-_-•".I t Q `� /_ -_---_ _.- _ 1 '
xFww - _,��_�___-:-._•-_-'`' '� �-�_•_�".'_-i - -- i---__-. -_ --,-_1 - .�_- �_1 -.._ �ti 7� 900- �_::
• -- LJr . -- \� /-
n -•_"2-4_-_-i- �-0__-Q.7-9fjL0
�\799-74.-8
T892B COUNTY COURTHO
_ - a,'❑]<;9L
J\
.
• v00. •� �� __II I _ I _�QQ__� __
ov _
-�1709-71
1-9
1.04-_8
- / -l--• ZC \ �j-
]88ti
D�HE\ RRJRO_.
N
_ 9oL» 5.3 PA
R M�
K
8936 MAIN ]89. STREET MAIN .7908.7
snowpunny mtn. valley `7C),RMAIN ST.
- NI ]
7910.6 AVENUE'7884 a ,NEAL
79011.2 L.]904
97v910.
T ` __-_
nJIO •79143 �jj
07885�)
f `
.791H
I I l � 1
-
tI -.493J - FIRCITYHAL
UE178866 HOPKINS ] 97 AVENUE 'KINS 9' I AVENUE
.7886.9 .790E4 79138 713.4 !_
a -- -- -�1
;
H D P K I N SAVE
915.2
90L 9172 HYMAN AVE.
79cs6 •7909. -111- _ 8 HYMAN a)9re.4 AVENUE
79p- , MAN � hunter crlc, a79191 .7923.1 ---
10
• - I
]912' ]91]H 1 '+92Ak r
p
PF
I]90]0fJ i I ,79a.6 7921.2
7911.1 I - -. r A'Ip il -�.- i' `-I�_ l�_/.79245 / ��' •'-'�•_'�- .
-�__
IC
o _ � a
Q2x
i Q
•
-. -- -_.-_ __ - -._ •• • •� j
i U
a
• I
,
v
d S • •. '- I Z � - y
1
909.8 Z
1907-2
' ',, 7oC6.2 E x791i.2
t7910.9
1903.E IARKING AREA* T.�)5.9 _ • ..:. •, �l 20 -
- - -- - - -
I
• � -.-, III � - - -
_ 79265 •, -
79G50 _ .79076 _ T- • • ... ;. - - ._ NT E F7 PLAZA BUILDING ^27 e • '° T- ----
x ]021.3 � ` _
COOPER AVENUE �y�0 _z • • 9 i COOPER -
1923,6 - . 1924.) F • �_ COOPER AVE.
906.8
_..._ PARK , -- tn. �� _
� .79oe.a . .Y
C . 7905.7 �i 1TI �r I I , • ' • • • 7 , 1 F 1
7923.4 t-
�' 1 • P00179171
• • PARKING AREA
7922 Sy'- 7I - x 7929.2 El
i
• C
• I -
' I7;j�,47 ]9299RiK ING
b 79L / _ 1 _
o - -'
y -- - ]0 -- -
•�2 .2
•
•
_ __ • y� AREA
• _ .. . • PAS. -_KIN / v
• J`- 1 i 'i it 79 .3
o
0 • •, I� r-� - - - -
._ ... a9�o _.. • • •�
Illlllall�lll+�>I►1111.�'Ilai� i� �o - -tF- -=---- t _1
911.1 91p �Illl�tlllll�Illll�illi�lt d{ t�_I �tr11{(nlll►11l11l 11 ✓
I(�l`�1, 111 I I11 I 1 F�-1fF�
PARKING AREAJZA
/ p A p a 792R5
/ 0 '92 2
-t�eV f
\ $� k� �"p V�@ ,DURANT o AVENUE _ -___ a'ro27o _ .>92e.4 DURANT r9'�
r° ' ! � .]929.0 / AVENUE DURANT AVE.
a.ilOA .' f
792894 /�/ • -------- - ----_. ___._-. _. -a - { 111 _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ - __ f
pA RKING •Q ' 1 I
,�'T73
AgEA �) J �-~ w 1.7931.0
It79132 _7931.1 • w
n _ _ 1P.ol1pool]9262�� 7r
- PARKING AREA
79", a W a)94PARKIING AREA
v. 7923.0 4 N _ /- __ _ a]9A.7 - a]934.4 •h _-_ �; a7938.]-
-_ ^ PARKING ARE / _ - - - $ T R E E T -'` r .79344 ---- 1 r -_- ti40.8 --_ �_ -_ • - / ` `. ..
a
]921.7 - _
_ • _- l - - - // /
-- 7930 �_-_ � - Pool _ - �• - J �0 I � ' I' i
I\
•
yyyyyy
Wilioughoy _ n
_ m • p - 794^.4 -' /'19Ap y __ r \ )940.6
- - . • _
I
Z ' :. • -_7940 S I --.- 7942.2 3 r �i////.. _ -_ �_�. • • •, - - �_ .. '19p0 7941.4
7940
7926.2- r .
J /
• • • .-- r a N35.3x ,oSO I
i
�', < <,� . •-- k=- ---- � . L , _` - ///// _ � - '//ice/� - -1- -__s �� py hole
aspen mtn a
1
-- _ - -
1
' 4Px NG 4RE4 ti - -- Roy. r .. . +N,--- • .. • • •
I r !-
i
�r
•
LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN MALLS �IIIIIIIIIIII� PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION - SKI BUS ROUTE
PARKS OR OPEN SPACE CITY BUS ROUTE
CIRCULATION
ANTHONY J. MAZZA
HUNTER PLAZA AssocIArES
c/o ANTHONY J. MAZZA
SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH M11-L STREI3T
ASPEN. CoLoRAno 81611
March 23, 1988
Mr. William Drueding
Aspen/Pitkin Building Department
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mezzaluna Outdoor Dining
Dear Bill:
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-8032
I have been informed by Steve Burstein that •a
restaurant is permitted to have 500' of outdoor dining without
going through any approval process, as long as certain environ-
mental concerns and adequate access requirements are met.
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Robert
Nelson of Environmental Health wherein he states that Mezzaluna
is permitted to have up to an additional 200 seats of outdoor
dining. Obviously the 500' of outdoor dining we are proposing
will have significantly less than 200 seats.
Enclosed please also find a copy of a plan wherein
Mezzaluna has laid out the configuration of said outdoor
dining. I trust that this meets with your approval. Please
note that at the steps and back of said dining area the walls
will be planters which will be moveable. I do not know if you
have to sign off on this proposal or if I just have to inform
you of same. I am sending a copy of this letter to Steve
RE-urste i n so if have any questions yoL, can verify the
aforementined with him.
Thank you for your anticipated immediate review of
this request, as spring is here and we would like to begin
serving on the patio area immediately.
AJM:dr
Enclosures
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Steve Burstein
Charif Souki
Rich Perez
Very truly yours,
,__p�Dt hony J. ---- -
(aTq?AOUI) SJ91UETd
Lf
5
O
U
M
U
alps ggTm aouaj - luold
x
u
cU
.a
4J
A
O
4-I
ZD
ch
w
O
O
A
4J
0
O
W
q
t
CITY 4 :4 -t SPEN
130�o`u h aY'en'a'Ssf'reet
g
aspen, colora-do 81611
303-925 -2020
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 1988
TO: LAURA ONSGARD, BUILDING DEPARTMENT
FR: FRED GANNETT, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
RE: HUNTER PLAZA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
I have received your copy of a letter dated January 22,
1988, from Mr. Mazza to the City Attorney's Office regarding Mr.
Mazza's request to amend his two letters of November 17, 1987,
whereby $15,000 was placed into escrow as further assurance
commitments made by Mr. Mazza regarding the Hunter Plaza project
would be completed.
The letter dated January 22, 1988, indicated that the only
project items left uncompleted are 1) bike racks, 2) benches to
be installed around the water fountain, 3) the water fountain as
described in the plans.
Item # 3 has been written into the letter by hand and bears
the initials AJM, presumably those of Anthony J. Mazza.
I have checked with Steve Burstein regarding Mr. Mazza's
representations concerning uncompleted items of the Hunter Plaza
project. Steve agrees that, as far as the Planning Department is
concerned, the three aforementioned items are the only unfinished
items of the Hunter Plaza Project.
Therefore, as long as Mr. Mazza has satisfied all other
requirements of the Building Department, a temporary Certificate
of Occupancy may be issued for the Hunter Square Plaza project. A
permanent Certificate of Occupancy may be issued once the three
uncompleted items identified hereinabove are completed to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department.
cc: Steve Burstein
building.mazza
U
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES
c/o ANTHONY J. MAZZA
SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
January 22, 1987
Paul Taddune, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Paul:
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-8032
JAN22
This letter is intended to amend my two letters of
November 17, 1987, to you, whereby $15,000 was placed in escrow
in Central Bank of Aspen and evidenced by a Certificate of
Deposit to assure construction of sidewalks, etc., as required
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Department at Hunter Plaza.
As of this point in time, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Department has waived any potential changes in the
aforementioned areas. The only items that are left to do by
Hunter Plaza are as follows:
1. Bike racks are to be installed on Hunter and
Cooper Streets;
2. Benches are to be installed around the water
fountain in Hunter Plaza.
By virtue of this letter I hereby amend the letters
as aforementioned so that the $15,000 presently held by Central
Bank can be utilized to complete the two items listed above
pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned letters.
Very truly yours,
Anthony J. Mazza
AJM:dr
cc: Mr. Steve Burstein
Building Department
Attention: Ms. Laura Onsgard
Ms. Louise Brainard
Central Bank of Aspen
r
HUNTED. PLAZA AssoCIATEs
c/o ANTHONY J. MAZZA
SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLOiiADO 81611 ARILA CODE 3U3
November 17, 1987
Paul Taddune, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Paul:
TN:LN:PHONE 0:db4*)J.4
Enclosed is a letter in the format you requested.
Enclosed please also find a check in the amount of $15,000 fro;,i
Hunter Plaza Associates. This check is good, however, I would
request that you hold it for 10 days, as I am attempting to
replace same with a letter of credit from a local bank.
However, I have been unable to complete the process of securing
said letter at this time.
Further, by this letter I acknowledge that any
certificate of occupancy granted by the City shall be construed
as temporary and contingent upon either performance of the wort;
necessary to bring thr plaza and/or sidewalk in compliance with
the GMP application and/or receipt of an amendment to the GMT)
application by Hunter Plaza.
The $15,000 figure, as reflected in the letter.
agreement attached represents $10,000 which Shaw Construction
said would be necessary to install pavers in to sidewalk and/or
plaza and $5,000 for legal fees, etc., as requested by you.
We will be pulling a temporary CO on Friday, November
20 and I would request that you review this documentation so
that same might issue.
Thank you for your anticipated ccooperation.
Very truly yours,
L--
Anthony
AJM:dr
Enclosures
HUNTER PLAZA A sociATES
c/o ANTHONY J. MAZZA
SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTHONY J. MAZZA AHPEN. COLORADO 81811 AREA COOP 30J
November 17, 1987
Paul Taddune, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Taddune:
TOLEPHONS 925-HUd2
Enclosed herewith please find a check in the amount
of $15,000.00 made payable to the City of Aspen. The City is
authorized to hold such funds in an intCrest-bearing account.
Interest shall accrue to the benefit of Bunter Plaza Associates
if the funds are refunded as provided below. The funds are to
be held as security for the reconstruction of the plaza and/or
sidewalk area of the Hunter Plaza Building, 602 East Cooper
Avenue, should such reconstruction be required by the City and
for the payment of legal fees and other costs which may be
incurred by the City in enforcing Hunter Plaza's obligations
hereunder.
This security arrangement is necessary because the
plaza and sidewalk in question do not precisely conform to the
plans submitted in the process of GMP approval for the 602 East
Cooper Avenue project. Hun' Plaza Associates intends to seek
approval of the as -built plaza and/or sidewalk as a
modification to the GM-P allocation. If such modification is
not approved by resolution of the Planning and zoning
Commission and City Council, then Hunter Plaza Associates shall
reconstruct the plaza and/or sidewalk in accordance with the
previously approved plans. If Hunter Plaza fails to obtain
approval of the modification or to reconstruct by June 1, 1988,
then the City if authorized to enter upon the property in
question, to reconstruct the plaza and/or sidewalk, and to
apply as much of the security deposit as required to the cost
thereof and to refund the difference to Hunter Plaza
Associates.
At such time as either the plaza and/or sidewalk is
reconstructed by Hunter Plaza or the modification of the GMP is
Paul Taddune, Esq.
November 17, 1987
Page Two
approved, the City shall promptly refund the secu:-ity deposit,
together with interest to Hunter Plaza. If the sidewalk is
reconstructed, the City shall refund to Hunter Plaza the
balance of the monies tendered, if any, plus accrued interest.
Very truly yours,
HUNT,.FrR--P�4ZA ASSOCIATES
y
A�ony J. Mazza
ACCEPTANCE:
CITY OF ASPEN
By
4
.I
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES
o/o ANTHONY J. MAZZA
.SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTHONY J. MAZZA A6PEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-8032
January 22, 1988
Ms. Laura Onsgard
Pitkin County Building
Department
517 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Laura:
I have now complied with everything as requested by
Steve Burstein. I would appreciate it if you would issue a CO
immediately for Hunter Plaza.
Thank you.
AJM:dr
cc: Mr. Steve Burstein
Very truly yours,
Anthony J. Mazza
r
Aspen/Pitk,iPlan.ning Office
130 sou.h 'g,eta,$treet
aspen," Colorado 81611
November 2, 1987
Mr. Larry Yaw
Hagman Yaw Architects
210 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Hunter Plaza Site Design Changes
Dear Larry,
This letter is a follow-up on discussions with you and Heidi
Hoffman about changes in the Hunter Plaza Building site develop-
ment plan. Staff has considered your request to delete the
benches shown around the plaza planters as a technical change to
the application. (See "Site Development Plan" from the GMP
application attached.) We believe that the narrow benches shown
on the plan better serve seating than would the edge of the
planters. Given the competing concern for keeping the open space
area as free of clutter as possible, it is a reasonable technical
change to delete benches # 6, 7 and 8. Benches # 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5 should be retained. If you would like to delete the other
benches, you may request P&Z's approval through the GMP Amendment
process.
With regard to the surface treatment in the plaza area, staff has
determined that this is a deviation from the approved GMP plan.
The surface treatment of "exposed aggregate and brick treatment"
was called out on p. 22 of the plan and certainly contributed to
the concept of a "garden -like extension of the streetfront
sidewalk area."
Since the plaza has already been constructed, this deviation
should either be corrected or a GMP Amendment will need to be
processed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
building. I suggest that you consider providing some other site
amenities compensating for the loss of the surface treatment or
some similar approach which could satisfy the representation you
made.
Mr. Larry Yaw
November 2, 1987
Page 2
I hope that you understand our position that proposed changes to
GMP projects should be presented to the Planning Office for
review before construction to determine whether they are minor
technical clarifications that the Planning Director can approve
or are deviations from the approved plan subject to the amendment
process described in Section 24-11.7(b) of the Municipal Code.
The benches are a case in point where you did properly submit the
proposed change -to the Planning Office, and we appreciate your
cooperation. While the plaza area represents a much different
problem, I hope we can find a way to resolve this problem as
well.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to set
up a pre -application meeting.
Sincerely,
Steve Burstein, Planner
sb/ds
cc: Anthony Mazza, Owner
Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manaqer
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office i�__
RE: 1986 Commerical GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews
DATE: October 21, 1986
Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend
that Council grant commercial growth management allotments to
Little Nell, Wesson Building, Pi tki n Center (520 E. Hyman) ,
Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse Building. The Planning Office
also recommends that you carry over the unallocated square
footage in the office zone but not that in the CC/C-1 or NC/SCI
zones.
Requests: The following applications have been made in this
year's commercial growth management competition:
GMP
Reconstruction
Allocations
Space/On-site
Project
Zone District
Project
Requested
Housing
Total
Quota Competition
1.
Little Nell
6,992 sf
12,339 sf
19,331
sf
CL and Other
2.
Wesson Bldg.
2,487 sf
2,906 sf
5,393
sf
Office
3.
700 E. Hyman
9,000 sf
-
9,000
sf
Office
4.
Pitkin Center
3,067 sf
8,933 sf
12,000
sf
CC/C-1
5.
Hunter Plaza
8,125 sf
4,740 sf
12,835
sf
CC/C-1
6.
Storehouse Bldg.
3,077 sf
1,420 sf
4,497
sf
CC/C-1
Quota Available: Quota for
the Commerial GMP competition
is calculated
as follows:
1
Zone District
Annual
Exemptions/
Total
Quota
Category
Quota
Additions
Available Quota
Requested
CL and Other
3,000 sf
0
3,000
sf
6,992 sf
Office
4,000 sf
0
4,000
sf
11,906 sf
CC/C-1
10,000 sf
+4,813
14,813
sf*
14,269 sf
NC/SCI
7,000 sf
0
7,000
sf
0
*See Alan Richman' s Memorandum of Sectember 22, 1986 for details
of the CC/C-1 quota calculation (attached) .
Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee
gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, Pitkin
Center, and the Storehouse Building. The above projects needed
HPC conceptual approval to be eligible to submit GMP applications
according to Section 24-11,3 (d) .
The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the six commercial
GMP applications at their regular meeLi ngs of September 2, 16,
and 30, 1986. Scoring was done individually by each Commission
member, and the scoring summary sheets for each project are
attached hereto.
Also considered and approved by P&Z were the following special
reviews:
1. Wesson Bldg.:
a. Parking Reduction: P&Z unanimously granted a reduction
in on site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on
the condition that the two residential spaces shall be
demarked for the use of those tenants.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1
subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge
of the property in conjunction with the adacent
landowner.
2. Pitkin Center:
a. Parking Requirements: P&Z approved 5 in favor and 1
opposed two parking spaces for the two 1-bedroom free
market residential units.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously approved an FAR of 2:1.
2
3. Hunter Plaza:
a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the
requested 25 ft. by 10 ft. trash/utilities area.
4. Storehouse Building:
a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the
requested 8 ft. by 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject
to the placement of a trash compactor in the basement
of the building.
b. Restaurant Use of Open Space: P&Z unanimously approved
the requested restaurant use of required open space.
Allocation Issues:
All of the projects except 700 E. Hyman met the minimum thresholds
and are eligible for allocations. The one successful Office Zone
Competitor (Wesson) and all three CC/C-1 competitors (Pitkin
Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse) can be given allotments
from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Little
Nell project was granted an allotment by Council on September 22,
and is included in this discussion only to formalize that action
by the attached resolution.
The Planning Office recommends that these five projects be given
the requested allocations, as would be accomplished by Council
Adoption of Resolution (attached) .
Carry -Over of Unused Quota:
Over the past several years, the Council has generally eliminated
allotments remaining from the prior year. The quotas which
Council can either carry-over or eliminate this year are as
follows:
CC/C-1 544 sf
Office 1 , 513 sf
NC/SCI 7,000 sf
The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to
carry over the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone district
categories. In the CC/C-1 zones, we are seeing development in
both 1985 and 1986, at a rate within the framework of the growth
management policy. There is no apparent need to increase the
quota for 1987. The NC/SCI zone district has seen no development
activity since the imposition of the quota. While some activity
may be necessary to keep up with growth in the residential
sector, a carry-over would create a 1987 quota in these zones of
14,000 sf, which we believe could encourage one or two projects
of a scale inconsistent with our development and growth policies.
The Office Zone is seeing the first new development this year
since the quota was established in this zone district. We
believe that carry-over of the unused 1,513 sf is reasonable
because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office
space in the community. Office space may be needed in response
to recent residential, lodging, and ski area expansion.
Of equal importance are the circumstances surrounding the failure
of the 700 E. Hyman Building to meet the competitive threshold.
A major issue which arose with respect to this building was the
applicant's use of covered parking above grade and his request
for a Planning Office interpretation of whether such space should
count in the project's FAR. Due to an unusual workload this
summer, we were unable to adquately analyze this issue prior to
the August deadline. When this issue was analyzed in the review
process, an agreement could not be reached between staff and the
applicant and the P&Z was required to make the interpretation.
Although P&Z agreed with the applicant that such space is exempt
from FAR under the Code, they felt that the applicant's design
was flawed because of this approach and scored the project
accordingly. The applicant has appealed the scoring (see attached
letters from Dave Myler) but has agreed at the Planning staff's
urging to drop the appeal if Council carries over the unused
square footage to next year. We strongly recommend that you
carry the 1,513 sf over to address the unfortunate problem which
occurred with respect to this project.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends adoption of
Resolution , Series of 1986, to grant allocation to Little
Nell, Wesson, Pitkin Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse
Building, to grant a future year allocation to Little Nell,
eliminate the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone districts
and carry-over the unused office quota.
Ancillary Reviews:
1. Pitkin Center:
a. Employee Housing Parking: Council sets off-street
parking requirements for employee housing units,
according to Section 24-4.1 (c) . The applicant would
provide two on -site parking spaces for the use of the
two free market residential units, and no parking
spaces for the four employee units. The Planning
Commission accepted the two spaces and recommended to
Council to establish no parking requirement for the
employee units in a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
The Planning Office position is that some on -site
em pl oy ee parking is needed. The one space per bedroom
standard used in other zone district would result in
four spaces for the four employee studios. We believe
2
some reduction from this standard is reasonable because
(1) some low and moderate income tenants living at
Pitkin Center may not be able to afford a vehicle and
(2) location within the downtown makes walking very
convenient, and a car is not necessary. Staff supports
setting the parking requirement at two spaces for the 4
employee units.
It should be noted that few options for off -site
parking exist in this location. Parking on adjacent
streets is limited to two hours or less during the day,
and is occupied day and night in winter and summer.
There is no municipal parking garage that might serve
this need; and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed
(although it is a possiblility in the future) .
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends estab-
lishing a requirement of two parking spaces for the
four employee studio units.
b. Pitkin Center Employee Housing GMP Exemption
The Applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to
Section 24-11.2 (f) of the Municipal Code for four (4)
on -site employee units. Each unit would contain 450
square feet. On September 11, 1986, the Housing
Authority recommended approval of the proposed program.
P&Z unanimously recommended approval on September 30,
1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the requested GMP
exemption for employee housing subject to the following
condition:
1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed -
restricted to the low and moderate income employee
housing guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for Pitkin Center including procedures
and regulations stated in Ann Bowman' s memorandum
dated September 9, 1986 and summarized below:
a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units
to qualified employees of his selection.
b. Units shall be restricted to six month
minimum leases with no more than two shorter
tenancies, as stated in Section 24-3 .7 (0) (1)
of the Municipal Code, as amended.
5
c. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing
Office.
d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and
signed by the Chairman of the Housing Autority
prior to recordation with the County Clerk
and Recorder's Office."
2. Storehouse Building: The applicant has proposed to pay
$70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for
the equivalent of 39% of the employees generated. This
calculation was made based on misinformation on employee
generation. Subsequently, revised calculations were made
for payment of $70,000 to house 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees, to the satisfaction of
the Housing Office and Housing Authority. The Planning
Office also supports this employee housing program.
Section 24-11 .10 (i) (3) of the Code provides that applicants
may obtain credit for employee housing via a cash -in -lieu
dedication, subject to the approval of this option by the
City Council. In making their recommendation to you on this
issue the Planning Commission expressed concern that the
cash -in -lieu be sufficient to build employee housing and the
Housing Authority develop a program to build employee
housing units in a timely manner. A joint P&Z and Housing
Authority meeting is scheduled for November 25, 1986 to
begin to address this issue and to initiate the Housing
Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
P&Z voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed to recommend Council to
accept the proposed cash -in -lieu for employee housing.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment
of $70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees as adjusted to the
current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a
building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of a building permit."
3. Hunter Plaza: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu
payment to the Housing Authority for housing the equivalent
of 9.2 low income employees. The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of this program on September 11, 1986. P&Z
recommended approval on September 30, 1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment
of $184,000 to provide housing for 9.2 employees at the low
income level , as adjusted to the current payment schedule
at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall
be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a
building permit. "
C
4 . Hunter Pl az a Existing Floor Area Credit Issue: The applicant
has requested a technical clarification on the calculation
of existing FAR to include the covered area over the gas
pumps, in addition to the area within the building, for
which we have already given the applicant credit. A letter
from Vann Associates is attached presenting rationale for
this interpretation. The Planning Office agrees that
technically this area should be included in FAR. However,
it is our understanding that the only reason the applicant
wants to obtain this additional credit for 865 square feet,
is merely to reduce the size of the cash -in -lieu dedication
which must be made. Since employee generation is based on
net leasable square footage, Whether we include or exclude
the gas pumps is irrelevant to the applicant's net employee
housing generation.
It would be inappropriate to allow this area to be included
in the Reconstruction FAR, therby reducing the amount of GMP
allocation, and consequently reducing the employee housing
commitment. We recommend that you find the canopy does not
count toward a floor area credit.
5. Wesson Building: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -
lieu payment to the Housing Authority of $16,625 to house
1.25 moderate income employees. The Housing Authority
recommended approval of this program and P&Z accepted it on
September 16, 1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu
payment of $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate
income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedule
at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall
be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a
building permit."
City Manager's Recommendation:
6 9 IL U N " OF ((l o r)h T if u' C"I S f //-
t I Eq (- dv� o i- L F/- X -1- > i[ , 5 rd yr,/iicP S ldY<' ; //- l'1, A7- %F ,J'
li% /�y/yi/�/f h, ✓ /,� ,n
�a,LGe G„' iN a; Le�Sr 76vo 6 ;IrR Leh"/GvY I�yNS/ram[ ' F}�'5
Al icicsG�t1W17 afki - TrFp , "r/i�y1 �i✓fr S
,vt 0-.1e1 (4 11)U5/,It 4- '/d it / cn-x- &L,4 45,_R lta«s ,
7
` M E M O R A N D U M
TO: HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1987
RE: PERRY HARVEY REQUEST - HUNTER PLAZA GMP
ISSUE: Hunter Plaza Group received approval for 8,125 s.f. of
commercial gmp allotment. The property is located at the corner
of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco). Mr Harvey
is requesting a substitution of two two bedroom Park Place
condominiums for credit of 4.5 employees in place of the prev-
iously approved cash -in -lieu for 9 employees. The remaining 4.5
will remain cash -in -lieu.
The Park Place Condominiums in the staff's opinion meet the
criteria we have established and provide good LOW INCOME employee
housing. Therefore staff's recommendation is to approve this
substitution.
ACTION NEEDED: Approval of staff recommendation.
04
fis/te„ i�� Est, �e fl ssa�u tes
February 11, 1987
Ms. Ann Bowman
Pitkin Oounty Housing Office
430 E. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ann:
I am writing in reference to our phone conversation last
week. I called regarding the Hunter Plaza Associates (H.P.A.)
Growth Management Approval for the Texaco property. H.P.A.
would like to deed restrict two two bedroom free market units
in the Park Place condominiums at the Airport Business Center
to the low income guidelines to satisfy the housing require-
ments for 4.5 employees. You indicated on the phone that
H.P.A. could substitute units for the cash in lieu program.
Based on this, we are proceeding with the conversion. -.As a
condition the housing office will be asked to sign off on
acceptance of the two two bedroom condominiums as represent-
ing a legally satisfactory substitute for the cash in lieu
proposal.
If I am in error regarding the assumption that the sub-
stitute is allowed, please contact me. In the alternative,
I will be in touch with sample documentation for the deed
restrictions.
PH/kc
Sincerely yours,
e 2 Z-6-?"
Perry
520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000
v
OrA
`e• `��' `o_ - - -.mac' / G%.�0- . F-_
CIA-
.,F
Y -
.r r
�1,
(moo ( ^/ `�
W �9 � OS E' S�-•'ate%
- ' { �, �' � � �� • � U SO BUJ
_f ( 0'
A.' C/
,off-- --. _ _ � a. .. • __ -�.
I I
20
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots K, L, M, N, and 0, in Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen,'except the
following portion thereof: A parcel of land being part of Lots K., L, and M,
Block 1U , Aspen, Colorado. Said parcel is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot, K; thence S 75' 09' 11" E,
62.44 feet along the North 1ir:e of Lots K, L, and H to the center of a masonry
wall; thence S 14' 50' 49" 32.24 feet along the center of said wall; thence
N 75- 69' 11" 'd, 16.36 feet along the center of a masonry wall, thence_
S 14- 50' 49" W. 4.16 feet along the center of said wall; thence N 75 C9' 11" 'W,
46.14 feet along the center of said 'Mall to a point on the Westerly line of
said Lot K.; thence 11 14' 50' 49" E, 36.40 feet to the Point of Beginning.
i
Containing 12,835 s:uare feet More or less.
I hereby certify that this iT.proverrent survey plat was prepared for Texaco
Ref in,rg and !'arketing, Inc, on "arch 24, 19816, that the boundary lines are
�~
as shown hereon, that there are no encroacluients on said prorerty, that there
is no visible evidence of any ease7,ents, rights of way, public or 2r'iv3te
-passageway acr-ass said preT.ses, cr of any driveway wholly or partly on said
premises, and that there are no structures located on said property, except
as indicated on this plat.
NOTICE: According to Colorado law, you dust commence any legal action based
%
upon any defect in this survey within six years after you first discover such
_
defect. In no event, ^iay any action based upon any defec, in this survey be
commenced r.:ore than ten years frcm the date of the certification shown hereon.
NOTICE: This survey does rot constitute a title search ,; ell Surv_;ing
a -
rcR,:,an/ t.n dpt(;;;ire _;;nerr F.se,7ents of rec-,rd.
�.�
Richarc; n. Gossett L.S. _l=- 41t
t
/MPROVE-MCiVT Sj1RVEY PLAT'
Lv rs K, L, M, AV, .•>w0 0
Tr.✓✓S�T�� d<" �Sf�,�it/ Ga�l�/�"`/ OF �iT.ri.vG
crp._c / ZG •^.-1i AP; r;0,ED dY CP..1'nV bV �✓-�
CA rc 3 - 'Y----
T�XACO AV/C.
3 BG03-106
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 30, 1986 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1st Floor
City Hall
SPECIAL MEETING
I. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Hunter Plaza CC/C-1 Commercial GMP Scoring Session
B. Nature Storehouse CC/C-1 Commercial GMP Scoring Session
C. Pitkin Center CC/C-1 Commercial GMP Scoring Session
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Pitkin Center FAR Bonus; Employee Housing GMP Exemp-
tion; Parking Reduction
B. Nature Storehouse Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for
Employee Housing; Reduction of Trash and Utility
Requirements
C. Hunter Plaza Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu Employee
Housing; Reduction of Trash and Utility Requirements
IV. ADJOURN MEETING
A. COV
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Nancy Crelli, Planning Office
RE: Your Next Agenda
DATE: September 26, 1986
The following has been scheduled on your October 7th Regular Meeting
agenda:
o Gordon Subdivision (To be tabled)
o Adoption of Historic Preservation Element Public Hearing
o Brand Building Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing (SB)
o Little Cliff's Bakery Rezoning/Code Amendment - Public
Hearing (AR)
A. NE XT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 1986 Commercial GMP Competition in the CC and C-1 Zone
District
DATE: September 25, 1986
INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review are the Planning Office
recommended points allocations for the three applications
submitted on August 1st for the Commercial GMP competition in the
Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts.
QUOTA AVAILABLE AND REQUESTED: By Resolution 29, Series of 1985,
City Council did not carry over the unallocated quota for
commercial development in the Commercial Core and C-1 Commercial
Zones and set the 1986 quota at 10,000 square feet. Given the
additions and deletions to the commercial inventory from 9/l/85
to 8/31/86 as explained in Alan Richman's September 22, 1986 memo
(attached) the available 1986 quota is 14,813 s. f. Quota
allotment requested for this competition is as follows:
1. 520 E. Hyman 3,067 sq. ft.
(Pitkin Center)
2. Hunter Plaza 8,125 sq. ft.
3. Nature's Storehouse 3,077 sq. ft.
Total Quota Request 14,269 sq. ft.
DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND ANCILLARY REVIEWS:
520 E. Hyman: The proposed building is located in the vacant
lots between the Pitkin County Bank and Trust and the Wachs
Building (Cheapshots) . 7,133 sq. ft. of the new building would
be reconstructed space, including two free market residential
units. The building would contain in total 7,822 sq. ft. of
commercial space, including retail shops, a restaurant, and
professional offices, and 4,178 sq. ft. of residential space,
including two free market and four deed -restricted employee
housing units.
Prior approvals given this project include (1) a GMP exemption
for demolition and reconstruction of commercial space and two
residential units, approved by Council on 11/23/81; and (2) a
subdivision exception to split merged townsite lots into four (4)
separate parcels, Lot O, Lot P, Lot Q and Lots R and S of Block
94, approved by Council on 12/27/82 .
Ancillary reviews in this application include:
a. Employee Housing GMP Exemption to deed restrict four (4) on -
site units to low income.
b. Special Review for Bonus FAR of .5:1 bringing the total FAR
to the maximum allowable of 2:1.
C. Special Review to set the residential parking requirements
for the two (2) free market and four (4) employee units.
HUNTER PLAZA: The proposed building is located on the northeast
corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue in the C-1 zone
district and would replace Palazzi's Texaco Service Station.
4,740 sq. ft. of the new building would be reconstructed space.
In total, the two (2) story building would contain 12,875 sq. ft.
of commercial space (external floor area) , entirely devoted to
retail commercial purposes. A cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000
(as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 9.2 low
income employees would be provided to the Housing Authority.
Ancillary reviews in this application include:
a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash -
in -lieu to house 9.2 low income employees.
b. Special Review for reduction in trash and utilities area
requirements.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING: The proposed building would replace
Little Cliff's on the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins.
1,420 sq. ft. of existing commercial space would be recon-
structed. In total, 4,497 sq. ft. (external floor area) would be
built to house Nature's Storehouse Restaurant and Store, a retail
bakery and 2nd floor offices. A cash -in -lieu payment of $70,000
(as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 3.73
employees would be provided to the Housing Authority.
Ancillary review in this application include:
a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash -
in -lieu to house 3.73 low and moderate income employees.
b. Special review for reduction in trash and utilities area
Fequirements.
, �'A (; I�r);N;"-
PROCESS: The Planning Office will summarize these projects at
your meeting of September 30, 1986, review procedures with you,
and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of
the applications. The applicants will give brief presentations
2
1W
of their proposals. Public hearings will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of each hearing,
the Commission members will each be asked to score the appli-
cant's proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by
the number of members voting, will constitute the total points
awarded to each project. A project must score a minimum of 60
percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, and
3 amounting to 25.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the
points available in each category 1, 2, and 3 to be eligible for
a GMP allotment. The minimum points are as follows:
Category 1 = 5.4 points;
Category 2 = 3 points; and
Category 3 = 8.75 points.
Should an application score below these thresholds it will no
longer be considered for a development allotment and will be
considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an
application over this minimum threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points
to each application as a recommendation for you to consider. The
staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and
objectively score the proposals. The following table is a
summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the
points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached
score sheets, including rationales for the rating.
c�wAF Quality of
rc+41 Design
Availability
of Public
Facilities
of Services
Employee
Housing Bonus
Need Points
Total
Points
520 E. Hyman 13.5
5
10.4
0
28.9
Hunter Plaza 14
5
10
0
29
3 Storehouse 13
5
9.75
0
27.75
ANCILLARY REVIEWS:
If you concur
with our
rating, all
three
applications meet the
minimum threshold
for GMP
allotment.
Since
there is sufficient
quota to address
the needs
of all
three
projects, meeting the
threshold will
make each
project eligible
for an allotment.
The Planning Office has
the following
comments
regarding special
reviews associated with each project.
K
520 E. HYMAN (PITKIN CENTER) Application:
A. Employee Housing GNP Exemption
The applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to Section
24-11 .2 (f) of the Municipal Code for four (4) on -site
employee units. Each unit would contain 450 square feet.
On September 11, 1986, the Housing Authority recommended
approval of the proposed program.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority and Planning Office
recommend approval of the 520 E. Hyman employee housing subject
to the following conditions:
1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed -restricted
to the low __and moderate income employee housing
guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 520 E.
Hyman Building, including procedures and regulations
stated in Ann Bowman' s memorandum dated September 9,
1986 and summarized below:
a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units to
qualified employees of his selection.
b. Units shall be restricted to six month minimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenancies, as
stated in Section 24-3.7(0) (1) of the Municipal
Code, as amended.
C. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing
Office.
d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to
recordation with the County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
B. Special Review for Reduction in Parking
The Planning Commission has final review authority over
free-market residential parking requirements in the CC
zone and the ability to recommend employee housing
requirements to Council. Sections 24-4.6 and 24-4.1 (c)
of the Code give the applicable provisions for the two
actions.
The applicant would provide two covered parking spaces
for the use of the two free market residential units.
This meets the standard of 1 space per bedroom required
in other zone districts, and is acceptable in staff's
4
view.
No on -site parking would be provided for the use of the
four employee studios. The 1 space per bedroom
standard would result in four more spaces required on -
site. Some reduction from the standard is reasonable
given the following factors: 1) Low and moderate income
tenants would live there and some may not be able to
afford a vehicle, and 2) Location within the downtown
makes walking to work, grocery stores, and entertain-
ment very convenient, and therefore, a car is not
necessary. Consequently, the Planning Office believes
it is reasonable that over the long term, at least 1 of
the 4 employees will not have car, and we would support
setting the parking requirement at three (3) employee
parking spaces for the project.
It should be noted that few options for off -site
parking exists in this location. Parking on adjacent
streets is limited to two hours or less during the day,
and is occupied day and night in winter and summer.
There is no municipal parking garage that might serve
this need, and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed
(although it is a possibility in the future) .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends
approval of the
parking special review
for the two
spaces for the two 1-bedroom free market
units. Staff
recommends P&Z to
recommend Council to
establish a
requirement of 3
parking spaces for the
four employee
studio units.
C. Bonus FAR Special Review: The applicant requests approval
of a special review for bonus FAR to add 1200 square feet of
commercial space (.2 : 1 FAR) and 1800 square feet (.3 : 1 FAR)
of employee housing space. This amounts to .5:1 FAR
increase, which is the maximum allowable in the CC Zone
district according to Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code.
Section 24-3 .5 (a) of the Municipal Code states the
criteria for P&Z's review:
"(1) Compatibility of the development with surrounding
land uses and zoning, including size, height and
bulk, proposed site design characteristics,
including landscaping and open space and visual
impacts such as viewplanes.
(2) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the
availability and adequacy of water supply, sewage
treatment, storm drainage, roads and parking
E1
facilities to serve the proposed development."
Staff believes that the 520 E. Hyman Building is mainly
compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning. As
noted in the Planning Office recommended scoring of
this project, the building size and height are not out
of character with other buildings on the block. The
open space and landscaping schemes are acceptable and
no important public views are affected. Service areas
of water, sewer, storm drainage, and roads are adequ-
ate. Parking, however, is not adequate in staff's view
for the six units on -site, as discussed in comments on
parking special review. If the objective is to
successfully maximize usage of the site, then parking
needs should be handled on the site for the employee
housing component enabling this bonus FAR. Little
rationale has been given in the application to demon-
p strate that no employee housing parking is needed.
y�U RECOMMENDATION: The Planning office recommends denial of
the bonus FAR special review based on the deficiency of
residential parking. If the applicant is willing to work on
providing additional parking, the application should be
tabled to review the new site configuration.
HUNTER SQUARE APPLICATION:
A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The
applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu payment to the
Housing Authority for housing the equivalent of 9.2 low
income employees. The Housing Authority recommended
approval of this program on September 11, 1986.
Ordinance 2, Series of 1986 gives Council the option to
accept or deny the employee housing dedication fee proposed.
The Planning Office believes that it is incumbent upon the
Housing Authority to develop a program to create housing
with the funds given it from this and other developments.
Low income dormitories and senior citizen housing have been
the top priorities identified. We recommend that you make a
recommendation that some such program be developed within 6
months and brought before the P&Z prior to review of any of
the 1987 GMP applications.
RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning
Office recommends
P&z to
recommend that Council
approve of the cash -in -lieu
payment
of $184,000 to provide
housing for 9.2 employees at
the low
income level, as adjusted to the
payment schedule
at the
time of issuance of
a building
permit. Payment shall be
made to the Housing
Authority
prior to issuance
of a
building permit.
2
B. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and Utilities
Area: Section 24-3.7(h) (4) sets the size of the trash/u-
tility service area in the CC and C-1 zones and allows for
the P&Z to vary the required area by special review pursuant
to Section 24-3 .7 (b) (attached) .
On page 31-32 of the application, rationale for this
reduction is stated, including:
(1) The building is only 835 square feet larger than the
building size that requires a 25 ft. x. 10 ft. area.
(2) Based. on actual trash generation calculation for
similar buildings., the 25 ft. x. 10 ft. area appears to
be sufficient.
(3) The trash area will be paved, covered, enclosed on
three sides and be large enough for three two -yard
dumpsters (4' x 71).
(4) Trash compaction will be neither required nor provided.
The Engineering Department stated they do not have any
problem with the requested reduction, however, they recom-
mend installation of a trash compactor. The Planning Office
also notes that the alley service entrance (approximately 5
feet wide) also goes through the 25' x 10' area for trash
and utility. While it appears that two dumpsters may fit in
with utility boxes, three may constraint service flow from
the alley into the building. With a compactor, as recom-
mended by Engineering, such a problem should not occur.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the requested 25 ft. x 10 ft. trash/utility area subject to
installation of a trash compactor, as meets the approval of
BFI, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING Application:
A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The
applicant has proposed to pay $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the
Housing Authority to provide for the equivalent of 39% of
the employees generated. This calculation was made based on
misinformation on employee generation. Subsequently,
revised calculations were made for payment of $70 ,000 to
house 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income
employees, to the satisfaction of the Housing Office and
Housing Authority.
As discussed in regard to the Hunter Square cash -in -lieu
proposal, we support the acceptance of this option but
recommend that the Housing Authority must develop a housing
7
program to utilize this payment which should be reviewed by
P&Z before the next round of GMP applications in 1987.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to
recommend Council approval of the cash -in -lieu payment of
$70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees. Payment shall be made
to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building
permi t.
B. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and utilities
Area: The applicant proposes an area of 8 ft. x 12 ft. for
trash and utilities off the alley, while 20 ft. x. 10 ft. is
the standard required for buildings up to 6,000 sq. ft. in
size. Rationale provided include:
(1) The provision of a trash compactor and motor driven
�O�fiO conveyor for efficient delivery of goods.
SB.64
(2) Calculations of the historic trash generation of
Nature's Storehouse, Little Cliff's Bakery and that
projected for other tenants, as effected by the 4 : 1
compaction.
(3) The 6 or 7 days per week pick up service from BFI
anticipated.
The Engineering Department recommends approval of the area
reduction given the trash compactor. Engineering also
recommends that the compactor be placed inside the building
and not next to the dumpster.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the requested 8 ft. x 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject to
the placement of a compactor, as meets the approval of BFI,
in the basement of the building. Installation shall be
accomplished prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occu-
pancy.
8
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
� � i I � i � � i.• i �� V V�' 1 i V � , i �
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.5
Lor Wl COMMENT: The proposed building would contain 12,835 s f. (FAR
M455 1 • 1) and stand 28 feet high. (Maximum FAR is 1:1 with a .5 :1 FAR
bonus subject to gpe cial review and height is 40 feet in the C-1
zone) The bay window store fronts on Hunter and Cooper Streets
and within the Cooper Street courtyard should be an attractive
commercial streetscape feature, similar to the Aspen Sauare
Building and Aspen Grove Mall. The recessed second story and
relatively low height will reduce perception of bulk and comul e-
ment Aspen Square and Aspen Chateau buildings Brick and terra
,r� cotta are compatible materials within the area
l�
Wig f;
rcr'i��. "fit b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2
1
COMMENT:Mrcent open ••_ • •- • in a southfaci1 • �'
courtyard and a 10 foot setbackof I- main segment of 1- _••P- 00
Avenue _ • • i feet long),Both will•�- usable forli
�- •- 1 1 • •L! 1 1 ! • - I Row ••
!�• 1 1 • _ • 'flt y1 • • • •
•� 1 • I
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of
orientation, solar energy devices
and heating and cooling devices to
IA. Zj
l+r tat4)kj 'h f
insulation, passive solar
and efficient fireplaces
maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2.5
COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Energy Center gave a fairly high
evaluation for the insulation, solar energy and high efficiency
gas boiler proposed in this application Not stated in the
application were the building components that achieve the,
insulation values, and mass to store solar energy.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space A,,f.,36h)
and pedestrian and bicycles ways. 4 hclR P)0"1
RATING: 2
COMMENT:1 I • l - courtyard, ornamental f• 1 1 benches
and bike racks art- amenities of this DrOject. The courtyard i )1 4,11
primarily f• of 1 - . shop exposure, •fit - areenery
provided • 1 - roof terrace apipearsto • -
mainly for tenant space and access to shops,
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 3
COMMENT: The stepped back second floor and 28 foot height will
help preserve the view of Aspen Mountain up Hunter Street as well
as reduce the perception of bulk
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
0
COMMENT: A 250 s f trash and utility area would be provided
abutting the alley_. The applicant rearrests special review to
• - ' - � '--- -i- 2 n tee.•.+- .. l n 4:nn+-
SUBTOTAL : 14
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ( maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging .the
scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and without
treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, consi-
dering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provides services according to established
response times without the necessity of upgrading available
facilities.
RATING: 1
- ?'rwy 64 Fl IQ I I A-M-0401
CH
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Sanitation District stated that this project can be
served from the eight (8) inch line in the alley.
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
CO MMEN T :
- 1 �•
1 1
�� I •[�� 1 11
• • �IIL-31I�K•iN�K•il��%
11•
• 1 • 1
1• • •• �11 •
I /" •
be made for
almostJ
d_ •!•11I and
does not offer maior
•
benefits to the
auality of -
1 the area, y1
*roiect is
within two blocks
of kubey Park
and less than a block
from Mt.
Valley and Hunter
Creek bus routes,
Cooper Avenue ig
presently
congested in this
area, although
irated
to be able
to handle t1e
increased. trafficgenerated
by 1 is
p•
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 1
• • 1M-OV49AU4093a�.' - • • • - 1 • 11
4
A -ray b'v`
�lr,1414 i,; yL: 41l
CI tM"I,1' 1"%
rfJ4„t,"if �►,�
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4 .5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: No on -site Parking is required by Code nor provided in coo�144', Alit
this proiect. About 8 on -street parking spaces will bie gained ID-Y
the elimination of • cuts, according to the Engineering
Department, It appears to the Planning Office that availability
of new • 1 parking will be mainly •r the use of 1
project and the project does not improve overall area parking,
SUBTOTAL: 5
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: 10
COMMENT: The applicant proposes to pay cash -in -lieu to the
Housing Authority equivalent to housing 9.2 low income employees,
or 40 percent of the additional employees generated. The Housing
Authority recommends approval of this program
4. BCNUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
k,
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
reco, r d.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT: The Planning Office does not award bonus pQints.
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: 14 ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: _5 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: 10 (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3 2— (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4 --
TOTAL POINTS: -2-cL—
Name of Planning and Zoning member: AspenZPi tki n Planning Office
SB.10
6
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: THE STOREHOUSE UILDING DATE: 9122186
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.5
COMMENT: The proposed building would contain 4,497 s f (FAR
1 5 1) and be 33 feet high at the tallest point It would be a
relatively small brick structure with two storefronts. The HPC
gave conceptual approval to the design noting positive features pur
of size, height, and massing Victorian elements such as
brick tl� n1r,•
doors and windows should echo and complement the historic Galena •s�464�
Street str eetscaM , including City all, , Brand Building and
Wheeler Block The applicant has also ggmmitted to create a
Nt'
hri ck facade on the Hopkins Avenue side of the Thrift Shop This �rrrr
should help)t unify the Hopkins streetsc-ape v _
—Ar-Qj ) ^► h �r�
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2.5
1 • • e• ." • •.
- 1 • •a W�-! W -�*Iej 11 v w Lei•. . • 1 •
1
ters
extending into the right-of-way,The street trees and • •,
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of
orientation, solar energy devices
and heating and cooling devices to
tticiently. - vdfff�"'r
�ilr+ ser„rt ell m"
insulation, passive sole bilk
and efficient fireplaces
maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
•1 1• • •• }� -! 1• ,• • 1 •
g.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2
• The outside dining • - and • - ,
ap,pi��ar to be standard amenities of this project,
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: The applicant Proposes to provide a 96 s. f. area for
trash and utilities and install a trash compgctor Code req
2
SUBTOTAL: 13
2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ( maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing 1 ev el
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and without
treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, consi-
dering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provides services according to established
response times without the necessity of upgrading available
facilities.
RATING: 1 Jz
COMMENT: The Water Department stated that the project can be
served from an 8 inch main in Galena Street The7 Fire Mars a
of the project --
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
KZJ • • W W q 1' V 1 Le •- 11 sIL" 4L
-
3
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
".RWOR Me
• •• 1 1 1 • /" / • I' ••LISLI "I
• I 1IMP• I • • / _ • /
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 1
COWIENT: The application proposes to re tai virtually all run-off
•)Ig�it•1�•!Il�•1•1'1•s�N7�s
that this
would
improve
i��r��uv�r-�-
the
-
historic
- —
drainage
- -
- —
on the
si te.
•ff
is collected
in the•
drains
'
and
Presently
there is
standinci
/
water
and ice
buildur) on
the
site
whi_Qh will
be
eliminated,
however
the PlanninQ
Office
ge-ner
ly Qnly
feels
tha-t
service
to the
neighborhoods
is improved
when
all
run-off
would
be retained
• /
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: No on -site parking is required by Code nor provided in
this proiect, The existing on -street parking will remain in the
vicinity, While1• substantial impact! p_ • on -street
parking -is currently used to maximum capacity, and the additional
commercial square footage adds p—arking demand.
SUBTOTAL: 5
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
4
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
nroi ect are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING: 9.75
FT•T4rs PW*T-VW4-M T•T�]Uii;•=•1zl ww!ri�•r�-►- -�" `
3 II 1 • 1 / • • I • • • 1 • : 1 • 1
1• /� • • 11 y1 • M.- P• 1 111 1 1
!11 • � 1 • 11 11 • • - ' • • !: 1 • / " 11 ! • "
reason for changing the proposal.
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
5
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
13 ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
5 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
9.75 (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
27.75 (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: AsMnZP tk n Planning Office
SB.101
0
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.5
/ • 1 _ 1 1 • =17143iI 4 @MeW III I&M1 • / � / • •
•/ • ••- 1 I • •pl1 • /• / - •1 •-
• • 1 • 11 • I / ! 1 • 11 • • �' / /
• 1' / • 1 i 1 M i /• • 1_ 1
./• y• • /• ..1� 1• 1t1 1 i /•
-.3 VT. WTI 0 M. we • 1! 1 • • •1 /� MW
i . 1 1 • 1 • • • 11 • GII - 1 I 1 . • 1
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the
quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open
undergrounding of utilities,
space areas, the extent of
and the arrangements of
�.,q improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
--t51 � for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2 Ih11iti► )^
COMMENT: The southern orientation
percent of site) and the mid -block
s; de of the property are very positive
of the open space (27.5
pedestrian link on the east
features of the site. The
open space has a great deal of usable
paved surface (possibly in
h'V QII.I N`l Tlr•T�KJ
I Ih
A fvd;4y ,r,.d
r*-k , NI. t-1141U 1—OVA
2.
part for outdoor dining) but a minimum of green space. The high
quality landscaping of the Pitkin County Bank Building will not
be carried west on to this site. No special provisions are
proposed to avoid potential service access problems in an already
camped and congested alley,
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Energy Center gave a high evaluati on
to the insulation and solar enemy aspects of this application
given the specif is commitments made in this area It was noted ;�Yw"-
t that solar hot water was not included in the design.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2
• I • , 1 . - 11 - IT r4mw*711
1•� �� 1� •1 1' • 1 1 •. p •1 1
• • 11 1 ! : 1 • 1 ! 1 _ 1
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
• 1 •- Me IN-16 iI MTN1 1•
1610ARNW-4 ifloW 1 • . • 1 •
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
lfi, briiI(
COMMENT: A 250 s f trash and utility area would be _provided 'Ii
parallel off the alley, meeting Code rt-quirements Landscape ,�il w�
?- o. - nA_t-&h-Qw n-on site _ _Dla
SUBTOTAL: 13.5 1 ' 11.'�
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
2
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing 1 ev el
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: 1 _
• � �-•. a-� • �. � . • � .-
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
MiMMENT: The Sanitation District stated that this project ca.-F be
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
3
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: _1__
it if MWEAU
• • � - } � 11 I • 11 11 ' I •
• - / - - • / • 1 • • / / 11 .
•
. • • • - • / • 1 � 1
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2
COMMENT:• / Proposes t• retain all storm drainage • I
/ • • / • -1 " 11 • 1 I • / • 1 - subsurface
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 0
• I • • - I 1 1 . •
• - it«Ij��•-j-��71CW1541W1•Ir�f•«•ls
1 11 •
1PW. - / . / . . 1 •
SUBTOTAL: 5
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
4
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: 10.4
COMMENT:• • • units wouldbe provided • I housing
employees. Elev1 employees w• • • - generated association with the additional commercial space of the project;
therefore, 45 percent of the employees would be housed. Th
Housing Authority rec• g - 1approval.of the employee housing
program subject to a deed restriction for low to moderate income
-m pl •
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
�ili)u•Iui�7�41i�lyT�� • 1 1 1 • •jaWW*14W@ • - 1 • •"=WWWOMZ•Tii1Tr-�!•���1•S.
5
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
13.5 (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
5 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
10.4 (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
28.9 (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4 --
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: AsMn/Pitkin Planning Office
SB.50
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Growth Quota Files
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Quota Available - 1986 CC/C-1 Competition
DATE: September 22, 1986
Following is a summary of the status of the quota for the CC/C-1
competition in 1986:
1. The annual quota in the CC/C-1 zone district is 10,000
sq. ft.
2. There is no square footage to carry over from prior
years due to Council's action in Resolution 85-29.
3. There have been the following additions/deletions to
the inventory between 9/1/85 and 8/31/86 which need to
be accounted for in the inventory since they were
exempt from the competition requirements:
Additions Deletions
Hotel Jerome + 5162 sq. f t. Hotel Jerome - 6836 sq. ft.
The Grill + 145 sq. ft. Brand Bldg. - 3284 sq. ft.
Total + 5307 sq. ft.-10,120 sq.ft.
4. The quota available is therefore as follows:
10 ,000 sq. ft. (original quota)
- 5,307 sq. ft. (additions to be deducted from quota)
+10,120 sq. ft. (demolitions to be added to quota)
14,813 sq. ft. (available CC-C-1 quota for 1986)
Aff(, Jl mle 4 � S
MEMORANDUM
(0) 4-� b )
L_
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
DATE: September 10, 1986
RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Application
Having reviewed the above application, the Engineering Department
has the following comments:
TRAFFIC AND PARKING
This project will not significantly impact adjacent streets as
these are currently operating below capacity.
The CC zone does not require on -site parking for uses other than
residential and this project does not offer any. The addition of
bike racks will serve as an auto disincentive.
SIDEWALK
The sidewalks must be at least 8' wide. The plan for the sidewalk
area must be approved by CCLC. If any permanent planter boxes
are to be installed in the sidewalk, an Encroachment License must
be obtained.
DRAINAG E
The application proposes to retain 100% of the water run-off.
This would improve the historic drainage of the site. We would
like to see more detailed plans of their retention system.
UTILITIES
The application commits to underground all utilities.
TRASH/UTILITY AREA
Nature's Storehouse presently generates two cubic yards of trash
daily. In their new location, I assume that their hours of
operation will be extended through dinner. This would probably
add another cubic yard of daily refuse. For an operation of
seven days per week, the trash generation would be 21 cubic yards
plus six cubic yards per week for the bakery, a total of 27
cubic yards per week.
The applicant proposes to use a trash compactor. We strongly
Page Two
September 10, 1986
The Storehouse Building GMP Application
support this proposal. If the compaction ratio is 4:1, then
there will be about seven cubic yards of trash per week. A
dumpster for this amount could be contained within the proposed
area. We request that the compactor be placed inside the building
and not next to the dumpster.
riAtz 4is
August 14, 1986 � k /
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept.
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve,
I am acting as agent for Gregg Gibb, owner of Lot 5, Block 87, City
of Aspen, known_ as the Storehouse Building to be located cri the site currently
occupied by Little Cliff's Bakery.
Pursuant to section 24-3.5(b), I am requesting special review approval
for reduction of the trash and utility access area provided for in Section
24-3.7 (h). While the code states this review must be accomplished prior to
the Growth Management competition, it is my understanding it will be reviewed
at the time of the scoring.
The code requires a utility trash service area for a building site up to
6,000 square feet of twenty (20) feet by'ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet verticle.
Of this space, fifteen (15) feet is for box storage, utility transformers or
building access and five (5) feet for trash facilities. As the site consists
of only one lot thirty (30) feet wide, we are requesting special review approval
for a trash and utility area of eight (8) feet by twelve (12) feet by twelve
(12) feet verticle.
Discussions with the City Engineer, suppliers for the tenants of the
building and with Tony Vagneur of B.F.I. Waste Systems have resulted in ap-
proval of the design based on the following solutions:
a) An efficient delivery system will result from installation of
a motor driven conveyor belt from inside the service door to the
basement storage room. Unloading will be accomplished by employees
and suppliers efficiently with no need to stack boxes in the service
access area. Deliveries to the bakery are made by two suppliers, one
on Tuesday and one on Friday. Nature's Storehouse receives supplies six
days a week, from one supplier each day.
b) The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the placement of all
utility meters on the west wall of the trash and utility access area.
c) B.F.I. Waste Systems serves the current bakery three times weekly
to empty a two cubic yard container. Nature's Storehouse historically
generates two cubic yards of refuse daily. Assuming seven days a week
operations, this is fourteen cubic yards, or twenty cubic yards weekly
with a bakery. According to Mr. Vagneur the generation from the office
520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000
r9s/Ze, I?W4 ffAte 411 OCkAi
space will be "minimal".
In discussion with Mr. Vagneur, the building will require installation of
a compactor. Space analysis indicates that if a compactor will not fit in
the service area adjacent to the alley, a compactor will be placed in the
basement storage room in proximity to the conveyor belt. As the belt will be
motor driven, transportation of trash to the container will present no problem.
The proposed compactor provides a four to one reduction, creating five cubic
yards weekly, or fifty percent of capacity, requiring service three times
weekly. This system and schedule of service, should it under estimate actual
vol:ame. need -nly have an increase in removal_ frequency to insur;: its adequacy.
While this Proiect requests a reduction from code requirements due to
site constraints, we meet all the requirements of adequacy of trash and deliv-
ery vehicle access, unique measures for compaction of trash, adequacy of area
for utility meter placement and access, and unique measures for facilitating
and expediting deliveries to the building.
The second special review being requested is pursuant to Section 24-3.7
(d) (8) and is for a commercial restaurant dining. The site plan shows garden
seating for thirty-three (33) seats. Nature's Storehouse has traditionally
had outdoor dining at the present location and hopes to continue this tradi-
tion. The siting of the open space is such that it is ideal for outdoor
dining. As the intent of open space is for the public views and public use
allowing outdoor dining enhances the public use of open space with no distur-
bance of the public views. Thus granting special review approval will in
no way derogate the purposes of the open space requirements and will in fact,
enhance the usability of the open space.
P11/lw
Should you have any questions or need further information please call.
Sincerely,
Perry Harvey
520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
DATE: September. 11, 1986
RE: Hunter Plaza - Commercial GMP
so
The Engineering Department offers the following comments:
DRAINAGE
The application proposes to retain all surface run-off on -site.
This will improve the historic drainage of the site. It will
also greatly reduce the amount of hydrocarbons from the Texaco
Station that entered the City storm sewer system. The catch
basin system is adequate in that area and does not need the
additional basin that the application offers to install.
TRAFFIC
The streets adjacent to this project can easily handle the
increased traffic.
The removal of the curb cuts on Cooper and Hunter Streets will
improve circulation in that area and eliminate the pedestrian
vehicle conflicts.
PAR -KING
Off-street parking is not required nor provided. However, about
8 on -street parking spaces will be gained by the elimination of
the existing curb cuts on Cooper and Hunter Streets.
SIDEWALKS
The addition of new sidewalk will improve pedestrian circulation.
The plan for the sidewalks must be approved by CCLC.
SIGNAGE SYSTEM
The buildings integral signage system must comply with Section 24
Article V of the Aspen Municipal Code.
STREET LIGHTS
The City has already installed sidewalk street lights. This
won't be necessary for the applicant.
HvAteY-PI�Z�
oil , Jl rp-e ei l (a)
Page Two
Hunter Plaza - Commercial GMP
September 11, 1986
TRASH/UTILITY
The applicant requests Special Review to reduce the size of the
trash/utility area from 301x10' as required by Code to 251xl0'.
we do not have any problem with this reduction, however, we would
recommend installation of a trash compactor.
EE/co/Hunter
CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
TALLY SST
PRQ7ECT NAME: Hinter Plaza Date: 9Z30/86
1 2 3 4 5 6
RQMr Wel DaviAIL_ _Iia_
A. Quality of Design
1.
Architectural
Design
2.
Site Design
3.
Energy
4.
Amenities
5.
Visual Impact
6.
Trash and Utility
Access
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1.
Water Supply/Fi re
Protection
2.
Sewage Disposal
3.
Public Transporta
ti on/Roads
4.
Storm Drainage
5.
Parking
SLI TAL :
1 1.5 1 1.5 1 2
1 1.5 1 _1 1 1
0 v:
22�r
5.8
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 10 14— 10 10 10 10 10
'TOTAL 29.5 31.5 29 31 30 31.5 30.4
D. Bonus Points 0 Q_0 0 0_0 0—
OPAL POINTS
CA7.'F GMUES A, B, C
and D 29.5 31.5 29 31— 30 31.5 30.4
SB.30
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP DATE: 9Z22186
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.5
COMMENT:/e proiposed building wouldcontain
/ • stand 28 feet high, (4• 11 FAR is 1:1 with
bonus subject t• special review/ height is 40 feet in the
zone.) The bay window store fronts on Hunter and Coop!Qr Streets
relatively low height will re• perception of bulk and•11•
ment AspQn Square and Aspen Chateau buildings, Brick and terra
cotta are compatiblematerials within the
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2
1
COMMENT:
pedestrian • - - 1 - • give visual reliefThe 2nd floo
terrace will be landscaped for additional visual relie
space in the courtyard will be small, The ]2ropQsed street tre
will be an attractive feature,- access off the
through 1 1 •1 red
• II
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2.5
evaluationCOMMEN T: The Roaring Fork Energy Center ciave a fairly high
for the insulation, solar-1- •y and high efficiency
cias boiler . • • • - • in this arnplication.Not 1
aiDT)lication were the building components that achieve the
insulation values, and mass to store solar energy.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: The snowmelt courtyard, ornamental fountain, benches
and bike racks are amenities of this project, The courtyard is
primarily forof 1 - -• shop exposure. Some greenery
provided • - The roof terrace• • - • be
m._1 •r tenant sp. - and access to shops.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 3
CO MMEN T: The stepped back second floor and 28 foot height wil
helip ipreserve the view of Aspen • 1 1 up Hunter Street as we
reduceas 1 - Perception of bulk,
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
trash and utility area would be provided
reduceabutting the alley, The at)iplicant r�_auests special review t_Q
_the We reauired by •
The Engineering Devartment• 11 • • 1 of 1
compactor in as• • • with the reduced
SUBTOTAL: 14
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing 1 ev el
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of
the water supply system to provide for the needs of the
proposed development without system extensions and without
treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, consi-
dering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provides services according to established
response times without the necessity of upgrading available
facilities.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Water Department stated that the project can be
3
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Sanitation District stated that this project can be
Served from the eight (8) inch line in the alley,
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
-1 1.1 I •/ .- -. 1 . . i-fQ4
•
presently c• 1 • - - • in this area, althou_qh the str�-tsare rated
to be able to handle t1 - increased traffic generated by 1
• •
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RAT ING : 1
statedCOMMENT: On -site drywells will be used to decrease (not elimi-
nate) historic storm water runoff, The Engineering Department
that elimination of 1 - Texaco Station will reduce the
amount of hydrocarbons entering the City storm sewer system,
however, thisdoes 1 •t effect cat)acity of 1e drainage system,
4
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
- • • • • • - 1 • 1 N-o
SUBTOTAL: 5
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 12% housed
RATING: 10
COMMENT:1- aipplicant Proposes to !.y cash -in -lieu to the
Housing Authority equivalent to housino 9.2 low income employees,
or 1 ipercent of !- additional employees generated, 1- Housin•
4 _ 1 • - • - • • • • _ • • I • • • . p
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commi ssi onm embers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
5
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category l: 14 (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: 5 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: 1— (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3 2— (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be el i gi bl e )
Points in Category 4 --
TOTAL POINTS: _24—
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: AsMnZPitkin Planning Office
SB.10
6
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: % - l DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Fate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: z�
CO MATE N T :
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2--,S'
CO MATE N T :
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2.0
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING
COMMENT•
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas. 47
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
2
SUB TO TAL :
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading. /
RATING
COMMENT • _
3
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension. /
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety. /
RATING
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed /
RATING: ` D
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS: G)
COMMENT:
5
r
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
I ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Ilam'nn (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
v I (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
TOTAL POINTS: �C
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
r
CITY OF ASPEN
MTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Fate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: Z
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT:
2
SUB TO TAL
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
f ormul a:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
91
RATING:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network. %
RATING: I
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety. /
RATING: t/
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: �.
COMMENT
4. BONDS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
5
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
_ (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
� (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
�MIX
e2
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
0
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: I` F
DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design..
Fate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMD ENT :
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: —?--
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. /
RATING:
COMMENT:
2
SUB TO TAL :
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
M
RATING:
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT•
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING:
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
G1
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
( minimum of 5.4 points needed
/ to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
1.1
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: t'fl a-�FDATE: "l- 1�0 'd �0
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: Z, S
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 7,__
COMMENT:
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: -2, 0
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: Z
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
2 �►3,
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
ezi
RATING :
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
K
RATING:
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: .�
COMMENT
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
COMMENT:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: Imo'
COMMENT
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
67
I
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
r
32,E
Name of Planning and Zoning Member
AA
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
A
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:�� '�V �`''' `' DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2��r---
CO MATE N T :
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2
COMMENT
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
r
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: Z '
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways. _
RATING: �- <
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: :?I
COMMENT:
2
SUBTOTAL:
i
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: /
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
3
RATING:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: l
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: I
COMMENT:
e. PARRING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: - 1-�—
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
rld
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: r 0
COMMENT
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
5
0
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
—i ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
6,;-to remain eligible)
° (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
3 ) �
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
wt,fiPn Aoik rs0A
2
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: S-0
XOMERMV, tll1��[�urf.
9AQ( P aA.V,hQ�V— .v
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2c
CO MME N T :ri�h� Cl/YC�/Y\C2 t S 'M Dr 2- � � C� ann " ber Q ,t
bgA �S
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2.5
COMMENT
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2" S
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 3
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
COMMENT:
6
RATING: 9-
SUBTOTAL : / S. S
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: I
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
3
RATING:
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING : I
COMMENT
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COWENT:
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: (-tD
COMMENT
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT
5
f
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
�S (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
S'S (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
0,0 (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
31.0
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: �( �L1 LA-g—
U
Fr
M 0 W E
D
MEMORANDUM I1 120
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
DATE: September 11, 1986
RE: Hunter Plaza - Commercial GMP
The Engineering Department offers the following comments:
DRAINAG E
The application proposes to retain all surface run-off on -site.
This will improve the historic drainage of the site. It will
also greatly reduce the amount of hydrocarbons from the Texaco
Station that entered the City storm sewer system. The catch
basin system is adequate in that area and does not need the
additional basin that the application offers to install.
TRAFFIC
The streets adjacent to this project can easily handle the
increased traffic.
The removal of the curb cuts on Cooper and Hunter Streets will
improve circulation in that area and eliminate the pedestrian
vehicle conflicts.
PARKING
Off-street parking is not required nor provided. However, about
8 on -street parking spaces will be gained by the elimination of
the existing curb cuts on Cooper and Hunter Streets.
SIDEWALKS
The addition of new sidewalk will improve pedestrian circulation.
The plan for the sidewalks must be approved by CCLC.
SIGNAGE SYSTEM
The buildings integral signage system must comply with Section 24
Article V of the Aspen Municipal Code.
STREET LIGHTS
The City has already installed sidewalk street lights. This
won't be necessary for the applicant.
Page Two
Hunter Plaza - Commercial GMP
September 11, 1986
TRASH/UTILITY
The applicant requests Special Review to reduce the size of the
trash/utility area from 301x10' as required by Code to 251xl0'.
We do not have any problem with this reduction, however, we would
recommend installation of a trash compactor.
EE/co/Hunter
H UAfer PlkzA
04 ( `ilk-??il (4)
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
October 30, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Co 81611
: a-7120W[E
i
NOV 2 06
`j
Re: Hunter Plaza Commercial GMP Application/
Clarification of Employee Housing Proposal
Dear Mr. Burstein:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify for the
record the Applicant's representations with respect to
the provision of employee housing for the proposed
Hunter Plaza building. As you know, the City Council
concurred with the Applicant's position regarding the
Palazzi property's existing floor area and net leasable
area credits at its October 20th meeting. Consequently,
the net increase in floor area for the new building is
7,260 square feet (i.e. the Applicant's revised GMP
request), while the applicable net leasable area for
employee generation purposes is 5,697 square feet. The
project's original and revised floor area calculations
are summarized below.
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Original
Application
1. Lot Area 12,835 sq. ft.
2. Proposed Floor Area 12,835 sq. ft.
3. Proposed Net Leasable 11,272 sq. ft.
Area
P.O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 •303/925-6958
Revised
Application
Same
Same
Same
4. Existing Floor Area 4,710 sq. ft. 5,575 sq. ft.'
Credit
5. Existing Net Leasable 4,710 sq. ft. 5,575 sq. ft.'
Area Credit
6. 1986 Commercial GMP 8,125 sq. ft. 7,260 sq. ft.
Request
7. Net Increase in Net 6,562 sq. ft. 5,697 sq. ft.
Leasable Area
'Includes 865 sq. ft. of covered canopy area.
Based on an employee generation factor of 3.5
employees per 1,000 square feet of additional net
leasable area, the building will generate approximately
twenty (20) new employees as opposed to the twenty-three
(23) employees identified in the original application.
The Applicant, however, will continue to pay a
dedication fee which is equivalent to housing forty (40)
percent of the additional employees generated by the
project, or approximately eight (8) low income
employees. The exact amount of the above fee, currently
estimated at approximately $160,000.00, will be
determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to give
me a call.
Very truly yours,
V)4ANASSOCIATES
I
nn, AICP
chony J. Mazza
t
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
MEMORANDUM
TO: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office D c' owl
FR: Steve Standiford, Director 6
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
Review comments on energy related aspects of the Hunter Plaza
Commercial GMP
R-values for both walls and ceiling are significantly above code
requirements. However, it would be helpful if the proposal defined
the building components used to reach these values.
SOLAR ENERGY
it is commendable that 80% of the windows are south, southwest or
west oriented and that 1" insulated glass will be used. It is
difficult to discern if any particular mass will be utilized to
store some of this energy during winter months. Awnings are a good
idea to save on cooling expenses in the warmer months.
WATER CONSERVATION
The building's hot water use for other purposes than space heating will
be minimal. Point -of -use hot water heaters will also save energy and
"standby heat losses". It would help to know the water use ratings
for each plumbing fixture.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
There appears to be no consideration of solar energy to provide domestic
hot water. However, this may not be cost-effective based on the
building's total energy needs. The high -efficiency gas boiler is an
excellent choice for space heating.
U
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 * (303)963-0311
page 2 - Hunter Plaza comments
OTHER COMMENTS
The overall proposal is very concerned and addresses the need for
maximizing energy efficiency. Window orientation will take advantage
of passive solar energy for space heating and lighting. The specified
mechanical system is very efficient and well thought out. Insulation
levels are well above code and energy efficient glass will be used.
Without further details it is difficult to determine a precise
energy efficiency rating (ie. BTU per square foot per degree day).
In relative terms, the Hunter Plaza seems well designed to use energy
efficiently.
0>
M E M 0 R A N D_U M
TO: FRANCIS KRIZMANICH, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1986
RE: HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
ISSUE: Does the application meet the Aspen City Municipal Code
and the Housing Authority generation requirements?
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is request-
ing a 8,125 s.f. commercial GMP allotment. The property is
located at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi
Texaco, Service Garage and a parking lot), more specifically,
southerly portion of Lots K and L and all of Lots M, N and 0,
Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado. The applicant proposes to
demolish the existing building and construct and approximately
12.835 s. f. commercial structure on the property. The ground
floor of the new structure, to be known as the Hunter Plaza
building, will contain approximately 9,372 sf of floor area, and
will be devoted to those retail commercial uses permitted within
the c-1 zone district. A smaller, second floor will contain
approx. 3,463 sf of floor area and will also be utilized for
retail commercial purposes. An approximately 2,991 sf basement
will contain the building's mechanical area and tenant storage.
The net increase in external commercial floor area for the
project is 8,125 sf, the new building's 12,835 sf of external
floor area less 4,710 sf of existing commercial area to be
constructed.
The applicant proposes that the net leasable floor area of the
project is 11,272 sf. Assuming an existing leasable commercial
floor area credit of 4,710 sf. the net increase in net leasable
floor area is 6,562 sf.
Based on the an employee generation factor of 3.5 emf. per 1,000
sf of net leasable floor area, the project will generate approxi-
mately twenty-three (23) new employees. The applicant proposes
to satisfy the employee housing requirement of Section 24-11.5
(c) of the municipal Code via the payment of an employee housing
dedication fee.
1
The applicant proposes to pay a dedication fee which is equival-
ent to housing approximately 9.2 low income employee or forty
(40) percent of the additional employees generated by the
project. The exact amount of the above dedication fee will be
determined in cooperation with the Housing Authority prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The payment of the fee will
comply with all applicable guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff approves the computations and
recommends approval of the application.
ACTION NEEDED: Approval of staff recommendation.
2
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
S& R 1986� t �
I
TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: CC/C-1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC AL GMP APPLICATIONS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 198
----------------------- -- -- 1 ---------------
Sorry to be late wit r review on the above referenced GMP
applications. This is a very busy time of year for us. Without
going into a great deal of detail for the time being, all three
projects are located int he commercial core and water service is
available to all three projects without any special conditions,
provided, the applicant complies with the Water Department's
policy pertaining to water service.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Housing Director
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
46m=wAspen Consolidated Sanitation District %
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: August 20, 1986
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the
applications follows:
PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067
s. f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on
the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s. f. of commercial
space and tow residential units (2,3785 s. f.) which were removed in
1982. - HiS Pseo3eci c-^— Ae ses -en /3v
S A' 17'^7"a -- / STA0' C i
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f.
comme-r-cial GMP allotment. The property is- located at the corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and
a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and
L and all of Lots M, N and O, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s. f. commercial structure on the
property. T/f/5 !O-036- r GAS— /3L SON. —Or> jay -r-/*z ^L/la- Co.sc��onTB�
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s. f. of commer-
cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena
(Little Cliff's) The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
building and construct an approximately 4,497 s. f. commercial
structure. TNIs rate-3Er_,— CAS- P'P_ I;EX�E, /3Y
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing.
Thank you. W-"-4 "�L
Ac s i�>
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Housing Director
City Engineer % 1986
Aspen Water Department
'f'wwAspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: August 20, 1986
Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the
applications follows:
PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067
s.f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on
the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s.f. of commercial
space and tow residential units (2,3785 s.f.) which were removed in
1982. 7His Pieo3rci Fie SCE•-c/> /3Y
j A _,Tnr.,0 . h/STA,ci
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f.
commercial GMP allotment. The _property -is- located at the corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and
a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and
L and all of Lots M, N and O, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s.f. commercial structure on the
property. Tit/s 00-030C.r !.5Y rnE /lc�s� co.�so"��ren
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s.f. of commer-
cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena
(Little Cliff's) . The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
building and construct an approximately 4,497 s.f. commercial
structure. /'Ac-3Ec-j— G14s— Y T'%LQ /y rlp- Goy S�c.lDA>e�
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing.
Thank you. A�
C S /�
R 1 1%6 jl
f,
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: CC/C-1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC AL GMP APPLICATIONS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1981 =
------------------------- -- -- - --------------
Sorry to be late wit r review on the above referenced GMP
applications. This is a very busy time of year for us. Without
going into a great deal of detail for the time being, all three
projects are located int he commercial core and water service is
available to all three projects without any special conditions,
provided the applicant complies with the Water Department's
policy pertaining to water service.
ANTHONY J. MAZZA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
530 EAST M kIN
ASPEN, CiOLORADO 81611
AasA Cons 303
TELEPHONE 025-8800
August 18, 1986 14 @ � Q %
!I
AUG 201%6
:v
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin County
Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan:
Please be advised that Sunny Vann is authorized to
act on a GMP application for Hunter Plaza Associates tendered
for the present Palazzi site.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this
matter.
AJM:dr
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1986 CITY OF ASPEN CC/C-1 ZONE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL GMP
APPLICATION REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, September 30, 19 86 , at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
three 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications. A brief overview of the applications is as
follows:
PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center- Joint- Venture, is requ.estinq.a-
3,067 s.f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a
building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County
Bank, 520 E. Hyman. The applicant proposes to reconstruct
4,755 s.f. of commercial space and two residential units
(2,378 s.f.) which were removed in 1982.
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a
8,125 s.f. commercial GMP allotment. The property is
located at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue
(Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and a parking lot) , more
specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and L and all of
Lots M, N and 0, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado. The
applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s.f. commercial structure
on the property.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s.f. of
commercial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S.
Galena (Little Cliff's) . The applicant proposes to demolish
the existing building and construct an approximately 4,497
s.f. commercial structure.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext.
223.
s/C- Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 28, 1986.
City of Aspen Account. N.12
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Housing Director
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: August 20, 1986
Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the
applications follows:
PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067
s. f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on
the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s. f. of commercial
space and tow residential units (2,3785 s. f.) which were removed in
1982.
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f.
commercial GMP allotment. The property is located at the corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and
a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and
L and all of Lots M, N and 0, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s. f. commercial structure on the
property.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s. f. of commer-
cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena
(Little Cliff's) . The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
building and construct an approximately 4,497 s . f. commercial
structure.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing.
Thank you.
I
'EN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
-,�-
RE: ��c.c� !`t%•�,t_ /1l �ltr :�Ct l GSITIi'
Dear"
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of your 7 ��,,� ��' (1321 . application for complete-
ness. We have determined that your application
is complete.
is not complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) .
Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) .
j
Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount of $ is due.
. _ A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it
f or r ev i ew � t pre t A ,,��� - _=�.� � L o ,.��� v 41-
We will be calling �y�we need any addi `iona information
prior to that date, In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review _Rem."andum available to you. Please note that it
`7 yz �b (is ' your responsibility to post your property with
-/'Jr)ul sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Please feel free to call
l'Firril<:?L ,, r__�
who is the planner
assigned to this case, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman ,Planlifing and
Development Director
AR: jlr
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
RE:
Dear S"~w�
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of your C_�- - ��Ai �--�' application for complete-
ness. We have determined that your application
is complete,vo)L�;Ck
is not complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) .
Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) .
Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount of $ ___ is due.
A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it
for review by the �'�� on _—�+ 3�
We will be calling you if we need any additional information
prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review memorandum available to you. Please note that it
(is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Pl ease f eel free to call e-, , who is the planner
assigned to this case, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ASPENN/PIITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman, Planning and
Development Director
AR: jlr