Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Hunter Plaza.Mezzaluna 33A-86 ` 1 HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES MAR 0/0 ANTHONY J. MAZZA MA \ 3 I SUITE 301A 205 SOUTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 - AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-8032 March 23, 1988 Mr. William Drueding Aspen /Pitkin Building Department 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Mezzaluna Outdoor Dining Dear Bill: 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 Burstein so if you have any questions you 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. V y truLy yours, i �Aytho a AJM:dr Enclosures cc: Mr. Steve Burstein Mr. Charif Souki Mr. Rich Perez Front - fence with gate 0O Nr-hu.) O O n O ~ N ro rt r-. o' cn il � C N 'd 'C n CD o w N C p O N P. w m y 1-3 r ' H � • w ct it) m rr w m rn rn B K O O < 0 15'5" cr CD CD .01 ct c1 co V 0 Planters (movable) w n v CITY,i ,.'Y ,w PEN 130 1 , !„45 - m xi •reet o X81 611 a sP � � I'�92�MOZO 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 HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES do ANTHONY J. MAZZA SUITE 301A 205 SOUTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81811 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 926 -8032 January 22, 1987 Paul Taddune, Esq. JAN 22 City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Paul: 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 HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES o/o ANTHONY J. MAZZA SUITE 3O1A 205 BouTH Mud. &rnEar ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 - s032 November 17, 1987 Paul Taddune, Esq. City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Paul: Enclosed is a letter in the format you requested. Enclosed please also find a check in the amount of $15,000 frog 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 work necessary to bring thr plaza and /or sidewalk in compliance with the GMP application and /or receipt of an amendment to the GMP 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. Yeky truly yours, Anthony J. '- _ AJM:dr Enclosures HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES do ANTHONY J. MAZZA Burrs 301A 205 Boum Mua, &razor ANTHONY .1. MAZZA ASPEN, Cowawno 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-8032 November 17, 1987 Paul Taddune, Esq. City Attorney 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Taddune: 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 interest - bearing account. Interest shall accrue to the benefit of hunter 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. Hunter Plaza Associates intends to seek approval of the as -built plaza and /or sidewalk as a modification to the GMP 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 t Paul Taddune, Esq. November 17, 1987 Page Two approved, the City shall promptly refund the security 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 ECTiLAcA ASSOCIATES y V i An ony J. Mazza ACCEPTANCE: CITY OF ASPEN By HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES do ANTHONY J. MAZZA SUITE 301A 205 SOOTS MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 926 -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. Very truly yours, Anthony J. Mazza AJM:dr cc: Mr. Steve Burstein • A s Aspen /P ' .Q ring Office J ; " 130su it n . tteet aspen, ";Ito :1 ' 'n 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council �7/ THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager (W FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office 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, Pitkin 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 meetings 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 4N 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 '3J-- (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. 3 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 employee 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 4 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 con di 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." 6 1 M 4. Hunter Plaza 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 $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit." City Manager's Recommendation: I ( 3'1(- u r. i7- (IH ti ter:) F y ,c fig O I or/ M^ rh 7J ("CU 61, giC (N "OP (hit✓'n' Ouoiit 5r P *$ 5P20 7 cote CASH ,'/ { D( x-405 /PI F/'Y��i7 S(Zr„s 'Plfrkk 5�9NS -Q / /r i, > 7kte Ariz QUIfr of LnfC3/ee /12Hs /N4 t'5ic y Av/fru)15 , ATrG //1" rim kwt tf,eV L ie A4-( l) - c,tsr rwo a ;fie ` � /eit -a e /0414'4 ` t+oo,S ?Ns ftz. F icles W,4 6 M✓lp Ann >r /p Srim+y'14//Ir Sal tvi ()a /1au5i t /-1 - Lot tr cg 4ti 4i4Q Paces 0' 7 M E M O R A N D U M rN 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.j of — commercial gmp allotment. The property is located at 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. sfie,, rea Es 4A 4 s ter February 11, 1987 Ms. Ann Bowman Pitkin County 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 Txaco 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 - nents 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. Ps 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. Sincerely yours, 1/ / 1 Perry y PH /kc 520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000 " W✓ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots K, L, M, N, and 0, in Block 1G0, City and Townsite of Aspen,'except the following portion thereof: A parcel of land being part of Lots K, L, and M, Block 100, 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 lire of Lots K, L, and H to the center of a masonry wall; thence S 14' 50' 49" W, 32.24 feet along the center of said wall; thence Ii 75' 09' 11" W, 16.30 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 09' 11" 'd, ,- ,-,---..c,,, 46.14 feet along the center of said wall to a point on the 'Westerly line of F said Lot Y.; thence N 14' 50' 49" E, 36.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. w Containing 12,835 square feet more or less. i I hereby certify that this improvement survey plat was prepared for Texaco 0. +�> _ Refinirg and Marketing, Inc. on March 24, 1986, that the boundary lines are as shown hereon, that there are no encroachments on said property, that there is no visible evidence of any easements, rights of way, public or private \ • passageway across said premises, or 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 must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within six years after you first discover such / _ defect. In no event, may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. ' '' V NOTICE: This survey does rot constitute a title search by Bell Surveying (� Company to deter ;wire ownership or e-asercents of record. O • r. ___ 1 _ ' r Richard A. Gossett L.S. =73t' ' 4 . 1 Sys` �r `` G y, L M S /MPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT La rS ,c, L, .vA N, . 'VO 0 SzaC.-- /o0 , 6i ry ;/ TwN3.7" a< - 4SOerA/ , L ✓' Y OF T.r>../G SCP.E 1 r c ZG APi -AOVEO dt CP.A >vN By 5 ✓-.- en *E. 3 -2>r - ea 1 — rl.1 rf if . / A //_ 0 ,r e Q o 'P ! K" p ' LN G • S - k. a ' �'o -� %. /' / 7 8 7 9 Ti le J C...1- o sT r _ • li7 S �tiE / i 57.- (� aS E S> t I . tO n, I 6-"' ! _ A V • Q � a ril � 2" ^f " 1 ( . 1 -et ( QN 1 O for ch �� o • ¢p ;I E F c C � •• >p ,P - '7 fr� = �y • M G 1 N 1 5'cnt t /": 20 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 GNP 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 1 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.NEXT 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 9/1/85 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) 8,125 sq. ft. 2. Hunter Plaza 3. Nature's Storehouse 3,077 sq. ft. Total Quota Request 14,269 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND ANCILLARY REVIEWS: 2- 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 0, 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. z 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 uir ements. 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 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. Availability of Public Employee Quality of Facilities Housing Bonus Total Design of Services Need Points Points Z - 520- E. Hyman 13.5 5 10.4 0 28.9 Hunter- Plana 14 5 10 0 29 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. 3 520 E. HYMAN (PITKIN CEMTER) Application: A. 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. 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 in -come employee housing guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be filed with the tiJ l 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 reoe,.J 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). � I RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the parking special review for the two I + 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 (r2 :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 5 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 maaimtse 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- , strate that no employee housing parking is needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of `o "' 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. 6 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 ti ,.U`t reduction is stated, including: 4 k ' (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 7'). • (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 ,lv and 0.687 moderate income employees. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 conveyor for efficient delivery of goods. (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. SB.64 8 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMMIAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: BUNTER PT.AUA COMMERCTAT. GMP DATE: 9/22/86 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 ln,$) 1 COMMENT: The proposed building would nontai 12.835 s. f. (PAR Dorms sn ject to special review and height i s 40 feet in the C -1 (r f L zone.) The bay window stare Roosts on Ranter and Cooper Streets rr ' r and within the Moyer Street courtyard should be an attractive commercial streetscape feature. similar to the Aspen SQ;?are Bui 1 di ng and Aspen Grove Mal 1 . The - recessed second story and r ef atively law height will redone per cepti on of toll k and compl e- ment Aspen Bra re and Aspen Chateau hui1dinits. Brick and terra i ,i(le cotta are compatible material a wi thin the area. P' lay! b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the ttPla. 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: 25 percent open space i s nrovi ded i n a southfaci nq courtyard and a 10 foot setback of the main segment of the Cooper Q" Avenue facade (68 feet 1 (mg) . Roth areas will he nsahl e for � �i pedestrian movement and give visual relief. The 2nd floor at terrace will he landscaped for additional visual relief. Green - 1 . 1 ' M • • •: _ n . 9 - • • •.• - _ • _ _ c _ - 5 hi d1nA�� w111 he an attractive feature. Servi ce access off the alley is exrW through the trash /ntil ity area which i s al read( reduced from '7Db “ %4mi required size. and conflicts in use may resul t. �Y14d2 PMIono, )- Ovnune, Fri I Il b b c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 4,}64 'l� orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces Al and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of P4 energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2.5 �� 'F f n COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Energy renter gave a fairly high g. eval nati on for the i nsul t•ti on, sol ar energy and high pffini entre A SI1' • _ •.• - • • L • _ - • • • - . • • • 1 I. • _ • • • 1 1 application were the building components that achieve the J insnl ati on values. and piass to store sol ar energy. ka•„i edgq)1701v) d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space 4 yrewyA and pedestrian and bicycles ways. n cK p 1F RATING: COMMENT: The snowmelt courtyard. or namental fountain, hennhen p 1 i. • _ _ v 1 •. c . 1 , a. ` - tl a, r• _ • _ k r6,7 . Y9iil,,l primarily for use of increased shop exposure. Some greenery is 4 NA 4,6 ser , _ provided for visual relief. The roof terrace appears to be d +� mainly for tenant space and access to shops. i e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic r� areas. F " RATING: twt ( gt . COMMENT: The stepped back second floor and 28 foot height will (/I l help preserve the view of Aspen Mountain up Bunter Street as well as reduce the_nernention of Nil k. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2 A" I COMMENT: A 250 w: f.: trash and utility Area would he provided 1, 6e reduce the size required by Cade Cal cul ated at 30 feet x 10 feet for a building of this size (11 .272 s. f. net leasable space) . The Engineering Department recommends installation of a trash compactor in association with the reduced area. SUBTOTAL: — 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 formul 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. 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: _— COMMENT: - / - •,= u - , - • 1 • served from an A inch main in Cooper Avenue without any specsi a1 • 1 . . 1 t Is - - u .. - 1 > - • • . Area are adequate and response time from the Fi re _ nesertment 1 • • •. • • • • • ' - 0 1 - • 1 . • II . • 1 - • • - 01 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 (RI inch line in the alley. c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROMPS - 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— ;dip i � . • ti t,/ A {I , y 4: rAf� COMMENT: / • • - .j u 1 - s 1 ± _ •m . -• • Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue. thereby reducing pedestrian - vehi cle cuofl acts. 'Phi s i s non& dered an improvement to ci rcul a- tion by the Engineering Department. However, removing curb cuts is an improvement to an existing problem of the site necessary to be made for al most any redeyp3 n gnt and does not offer major off -site benefits to the quality of service in the area. The prof ect i s within two hl ocks of Rohey Park and l ess than a hi ock f rom Mt. Val 1 ey and Hunter Creek has routes. Cooper Avenue is • • • - . • - • 1 . , • 9 ' _ . 0 . . - . a > a ' - _ - • •1 1 project. 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: On -site drywells will he used to decrease (not elimi- nate/ historic storm water runoff. The Rngineering Department c»•r,fi"t'h stated that elimination of the Texaco Stati on_will reduce the re ,g kt amount of hydrocarbons entering the Ci ty storm sewer system. tti.pr�sr however, this does not effect capacity of the drainage system. pr z, ror �tW /1�✓L 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 COMMENT: No on -site parking is regni red by Code nor provided in c000t+"n, 4IK the elimination of curb cuts. according to the Engineering Department. Tt appears to the Planning Office that availability of new on- street parking will he mainly for the use of this . .' ••• • • •• n •,• - •• 'n• .i • - • • - • .� 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: • - •• <• • ••• • -'• • • • _ • • . • •. • =,• - 1 • • • • • • t • •.. • • i • Ip.' ' ❑. • ! • , - or 40: percent of the additional employees generated. 'IM1ie Housing Authori ty recommends approval of this program. 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. 5 Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BMUS POINTS: COMMENT: The Planning Office does not award hones points. 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 1 (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 29 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 -- TOTAL POINTS: �— Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Aspenlpitkin pl anning Office SB.10 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: THE STORRHOUSE BUILDING DATE: 9/22/86 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. 3. -- 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 and he' 33 feet high at the tallest point It would be a relatively small brick structure with two storefronts. The BPC save conceptual approval to the design nsti ng positive features Add of size. height. and massing. Victorian elements Such as 40 . w ish4 massing. hrick (but no sandstone) and vertical proportions of tl 44„„noksi door and windows should echo and complement the= hi stori c Gni en nirndayt 1 . Y• Na rtr- iye'l • s'.c • 1 1 • • 1- .1 . -Y • • - a i4y . • GO MI C Set et I 1) m n,;, J1' 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 COMMENT: Two open space/outdoor Ai ni na ArPAS woul he provided _.. - •.. _.,. •. • • •_ .- 1 • 1 - _ - 41 - - • - • - • _ • • 1 - • • . • : • 1 - .• 1 : 1 • • • . 11 modate nine tables. A 'smaller area of About 50 s.f. is next to the proposed bakery and could accommodate 2 tables without 1 t extending into the right -of -way. 'The street trees and planters w �ip� "1 in the diagonal plaza shone d help screen the hai 1 cling and make the si tting space more inviting. The service entrance off the allev would avoear to work safely and efficiently. C / 1 ,µ! e N'��511,6 C �I t; S r Ir c. ENERGY Considering the use of insulation, passive —f� L orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2 COMMENT: 1- ;.. • ,• • . 1 • -/ - /• - 1• 1 - heating system should he qui to effi ci ent. (2) the fl nori ng wil het p store sot ar energy: and (3) skylights may lessen need for electric lighting. R- values are not specified and no solar hot Water is proposed. This appears to he a fairly standard eneraY deli gn. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: -2_ COMMENT: The outside di ni ng areas, snowmel t and hi ke racks e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2.. COMMENT: Concepts for the scat ing and location of the bii °1 di no Inc] ode to create a storefront that is cx>mpl enentary- in seal e and to ltwor the wwtrnetl et wma11 erreaglan ', not entpnwer_oir +nn t1 3! .000 R. f i nt . No maj or ppht ilf.r- vilointurim it hes iaspweied. 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 uti]itipG and install a trash compactor. code requires 1 - - • - • - 1 • • 1 •1 .: • - yl - 1 • • 1 - - • 1 1T , 1 - •._ ❑ - 1 . 1 • • •d _ 1 - • . 1 c - • M 11 • - tnr /dumpster arrangement. Engineering recommends that the compactor he pl aced inside the hui 1 ding and not next to the dumnster. 2 ' 4 � 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 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 capaci 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 f� COMMENT: The Water Department stated that the project can be C±V time from the Fi re Department should he good given the nroximitv of the proiect. 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 proj ect can he served with existing lines and sewage treatment capacity. 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 COMMENT: The project is one block from the Mali and one block from RFTA services on Main Street. The addition of bike racks Kill serve as an auto di si ncentive. Engineerina Department stated that this project refill- not sianificantly effect adjacent streets. d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: I (21 COMMENT: • - .•• • '•o • ••_.- . - _ • - •1 - 1 • •/ • . _••' 1 - 7. 11r - Ir <1141, n • • that this would improve the historic drainage on the site. presently all runoff is collected in the City's storm drains and ib0' there is standing water and ice buildup on the si te which will be eliminated. however the Planning Office generally only feels that service to the neighborhoods is improved when when all run -off would he retained on -site. 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 project. The existing on- street parking will remain in the vici nity. While no substantial impact is anticipated. on- street . parki na is currently used to maximum ca.paci ty, and the addi tional S<4mmerci al square footage adds parking 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 project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: 9.75 COMMENT: The apps icant originally proposed to pay cash -in -lieu for the equivalent of 39 percent of the total empl nyeeR gener- ated. calculated to he 3.5 low income employees for 570,000. pp Af ter meetings with the Reusing .Office. Rousing . Authority. w^ �` appl icant and Planning Office, technical clarifications were made .„i, Pi41kk L to the numbe of employees generated and the proposed empl (wee a ev yu V14 housing program. The revised proposal is 570.000 cash-in-lieu for the equivalent of 3.043 low- income employees and 0.687 moderate income empl ayeen, or 39 percent of the empl oyees aenerated. The Housing. Authority rergmmended approval of the revised proposal, recognizing that misinformation was the only 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. BONDS POINTS: COMMENT: The Planning Office does not award boons points. 5 6. TOTAL POINTS • Points in Category 1: .13— (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: 9.75 (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 27.75 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 — TOTAL POINTS: 27.75 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Aspen /Pitkin P7anningJ)ffioe SB.101 • 6 • CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: PTTRTN CENTER - 520 E. HYMAN DATE: 9/22/86 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 bui i di ng would contain 12,000 's. f. (FAR 2:11 and the eastern and western portions would stand 34 and 36 feet high. respectively. The structure i s stepped hack from the front property line in four segments. reducing the frontage • -.1 •, • 11 %1 -- - 1• /• N• - ••.- • = • • = • - view of the Pitkin County Rank Building to the east. The bui ldi ng hetght i s approximately one foot tal 1 er than the Mason and Morse Building and 11.5 feet shorter than the Elks Building. not out of character on this block. The rusticated sandstone. tumbled nr nld brick and historic storefront and window pnrtiona simulate features of the Elk's Building. Pitkin County Rank. Ute City RRngne raid should complement the character of the street. 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 � I tr improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access 7 \ t y `\ for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. ,�t;4c � hk� RATING: 2 ih ipl;�l COMMENT: The southern orientation of the open space (27.5 percent of site) and the mid -block pedestrian link on the east open space has a great deal of usable paved snrfac a (possibly in 44'� 11 I,.f lr(TdnTv M / r5bM N9�,r _ f1 ft./4 " �1K j f"� h '. e / �R � — fff ,,. 6 I(11Zb1 —h.,� Qh�) " fig fib sdpili Lars, 1.":IJA� }wilt) twol'- • part for outdoor dining) but a minimum of green space. The high gnat ity landscaping of the vitki n County Rank Building will not be carried west on to this site. No special provisions are • • r• _ ' • • _ • • •, •• :. a 4' •:- y' _ _ • • •. -u = • : • = •■ cramped 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: >u" COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Energy Center gave a high evaluation � �� F.�:I'�`S 1 : ., 1 . _. i a • - K • 1 _ _ •; • 1 given the specific commitments made in this area. Tt was noted ; vo,„. that solar hot water was not included in the design. � y., i ,11 d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The nrhan park and mid -block link are amenities of this proiect. The park appears to he primarily for rise of increased too mach paving and have little visual interest. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: �— COMMENT: • • •. • 1 • • 1 • • . • 1 - 1 1! - • other three story structures and not nut of character. No f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: A 250 s. f. trash and utility area would he provided t'f. nri l Ir parallel off the alley. meeting Code regnirements. Landscape && AIUJJ -.1 •• _• •• 1 . q• '•1 • 11 _ 1•x.1 •1 - - • - ifir' • nor considered necessary ty staff. 11^1-lt;!r1.0 !( SUBTOTAL: 13.5 2. 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 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. gg / RATING: 1 . 44 del COMMENT: The Water Department stated that the project can he served from the 12 inch main in Hyman Street without any special conditions. The Pi re Marshall stated that fire hydrants in the . area are adequate and re -ponce time from the Fire Department . I• • I.- • •.•. • - 1 - • - • , - I • 1 • •• 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 he served from the eight (81 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 - 3 loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proiect is within two blocks of Rnbey Park and 1/2 block from the Hyman Avenue Mall. therefore. having good transit and pedestrian access. The Ragineering Department commented traffic generated by this project will not significantly impact adjacent streets. It should be noted that streets are Presently congested in the CC zone district. 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: Applicant proposes to retain all storm drainage water on • 1 1 • 1 - 1 1 y_ - 1 1 • • 1 1• 1 • 1 c •- «' - 1 • • 1 -- • 1 Sit "1 !• 1111 - 1 "• 1• 1 • /• • • _ _ ' • 1 1 • • - • • 1 - 1 • - - • 1 1 • • - • 1 and should be reviewed by the Department. 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: Q COMMENT: • •., , 1 » . s , - 1r • i s so II a i - b pi 1 di ng and two covered 1 , y ces are provided o€€ the alley. for the sir (61; residential limits. The E'nde dues not regns re _ off- . b - 1• 1 61 11- •. 1. 1.- o.. s1__ =.! -, • i - - • - • 1 - WI - . 1• • 1 • 1 • 1 - 1111 - 1 and Planning Office believe the residential- parking is inadegn- ate. Fnrthermore. the alley is presently very congested without • . • • - • 1 ! II 1 • •_ •. 1 . . 1 • . •' 1 . g e l 11 of the day. SUBTOTAL: 5 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE SOUSING (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: Four (41 studio units would he provided nn -site, housing ••. .)nu • .., . I • .- • therefore. 45 percent of the employees would be housed. The Housing Authority recommends approval of the empl oyee housi nq program subieat to a deed restriction for low to moderate income empl Qyees. 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmenbers 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: The P1 anni ng Office does not award bonus points. 5 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 13.5 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 5 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10.4 (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 28.9 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 — TOTAL POINTS: 28_9 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Aspen /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. ft. 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) �1 S fo r� 0 U 5� Affa ChYY1 .. h y I MEMORANDUM (G)4 -(b) TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department DATE: September 10, 1986 RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Application ================ = === =ea ====== aeaaast== 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. DRAINAGE 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. l �F ECEIWE 45f2e Omse4he August 14, 1986 k 6) 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 cn'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. Narure'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 lammosiattimsitp„, km) 4ige„ fi,&tg 4ij�cicds 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 volume, need nnly have an increase in removal frequency to insure 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. Should you have any questions or need further information please call. Sincerely, te/inyh � Perry Harvey PH /lw 520 E. Durant, Suite 204. Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -2000 MEMORANDUM S8 ' 2 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: 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. pARRING 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. � U Ater PI Ai 14(61-0fi (a) Page Two Hunter Plaza - Commercial GMP September 11, 1986 TRASH /OTTLITY The applicant requests Special Review to reduce the size of the trash/utility area from 30'x10' as required by Code to 25'x10'. We do not have any problem with this reduction, however, we would recommend installation of a trash compactor. EE /co /Hunter CITY OF ASPEN CO!€ CIAL GBP APPLICATEMS TAiLY SHEET PROJECT NAPE: Hinter Plaza Date: 9/30/86 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL PAZ warm NEPBERS Mager Weltn =id Jason Al _ 3l A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design _2.5 2 L 2-_ 1-_ 2z 2. Site Design 2- 2.5 2-_ 2-_ 3. Energy 2..5 23 .2- 2..5 2- 2- 4. Amenities 2 2.1_ 25 2.5 2- 2- 5. Visual Impact ,1_- 2_ 2.5 3 2- 2-_ 6. Trash and Utility Access 2- 2- 2- 2-_ 2__ _2___ SUBTOTAL: 14.5 15_ 14- 15.5 15 13 14.6E B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 1-_ 1_- 1-_ 1__ 1_- 2- 2. Sewage Disposal 1-_ 1-_ 1____ 1-_ 1-_ 1-_ 3. Public Transporta tion/Roacb 1__ 1 1- 1.5 1_- 2- 4. Storm Drainage 1- 1..5 1- 1_- 1- 2- 5. Parking 1-_ 1.5 1-_ 1-_ 1-_ a___ SUBTOTAL: 5 6.5 5 5.5 5 2- C. Provision of Employee Housing 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- 10- TOTAL 22.1_31.5_ 29 31- 3!_ 31.5 30.4 D. Bonus Points 2- 2-_ 2- _0- 0 Iran EMITS (ATEGH1tt&S A, B, C and D 29.5 31.5 29 31- 30_31.5_ 30.4 SB.30 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH ?MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP DATE: 9/22/86 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 12.835 s.f. (FAR • -1• 1. . -- 1' • • V.. 11 11 4; - • ,, 4; bonus subject to speci al review and height is 40 feet in the C -1 • 1 - T . - .. • 1 .. • - • 1 • 1 , / - . 1 . • • .. - - And within the Cooper Street courtyard should be an attractive commercial streetscape feature, similar to the Ar,.pen Square .' 1. -t• 4 •-• •J - 4•. y, - - ! _ • c. • /. • •• relatively low height will reduce perc@ption of hulk and compl e- ment Aspen Square and Aspen Chateau buildings. Brick and terra cotta are compatible materials within the area. 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: s- - • .• -• • - • • • • • -• '• _• • •• • • .•• 1 •. - • • • u. • _ - sin -• • _ • •. ..- Avenue facade (68 feet 1 ong) . Both areas wil l he nsabl a for pedestrian movement and give visual relief. The 2nd floor terrace will he landscaped for additional visual relief. Green will be an attractive feature. Service access off the alley is through the trash /utility area which is al ready reduced from regni red siz and conflicts i n l zse may resul t. 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 COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Energy Center gave a fairly high eval nation for the i nsnlj -ion, sol ar energy and high efficiency aas boiler proposed in this application. Not stated in the application were the building components that achieve the '• • _ ' •1 • _ -•• 11 - • • - • • -•- n d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The snowmel t courtyard. ornamental fountain. benches and bike racks are ameniti es of this project. The courtyard i s primarily for use of increased shop exposure. Some greenery is provided for visual relief. The roof terrace appears to he 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 hack second floor and 28 foot height will help preserve the view of Aspen Mountain up Hunter Street as well as reduce the perception of hulk. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2 2 COMMENT: A 250 s.f. trash and utility area would b . provided abutting the alley. The applicant requests special review to reduce the size requi red by Code calculated at 30 feet x 10 feet for a building of this size (11.272 s.f. net leasable space). g- 1 • 0" ' 1 • P ' • 1 1 ' 1 - • 11 11 - / • - 1 • 1 • 1 compactor in association with the reduced area. 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 formul 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. 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 he served from an 8 inch main in Cooper Avenue without any special • 0- - / • -0 0 .1 - Area are adequate and response time from the Fire Department should he good given the proximity of the project. 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: _I — COMMENT: The Sanitation District stated that this project can he ,served from the eight (R) 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: _A — COMMENT: The project will elminate existing curb cuts from both Bunter Street and Cooper Avenue. thereby reducing pedestrian- vehi cl a conflicts. This is considered an improvement to ci rein a- ' •• • 1 !• • -' . T- •11 ••& - - 11• ••• • _ c is an improvement to an exi sting problem of the site necessary to be made for almost any redevelopment and does not offer major off -site benefits to the quality of service iA the___area. The proiect is within two blocks of Rubey Park and less than a block •1 1 = f - • • • • - - .. O - .• •.: - 1 - • - - - • • • • - - • • .• .1 • • 1 1 - "- - - - - • to be able to handle the increased traffic generated by this project. d. STORK DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: 1 COMMENT: On -site drywe] is will be used to decrease (not elimi- nate) historic storm water runoff. The Rrlyineeri ng Department stated that elimination of the Texaco Station will reduce the amount of hydrocarbons entering the City storm sewer system, however, this does not effect capacity of the 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 COMMENT: No on -site parking is required by Code nor provided in this project. About 8 on- street •• -•._e •••-• • the elimination of curb cuts. according to the Engineering Department. 7t appears to the Planning Office that availability of new on- street parking will be mainly for the use of this 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 employes;. or 40 percent of the additional employees generated. The Housing Authority recommends approval of this program. 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. 5 Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT: The Planning Office does not award banns points. 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: _ (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 22— (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 -- TOTAL POINTS: _22 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Aapen/Pitkin Planning Office SB.10 6 • CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL IALLL 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: 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: 2 � 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. -7 RATING: 2' O COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 C COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: Z -\ COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: COMMENT: - SUBTOTAL: /4 2 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 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed /0 RATING: ` 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 ,✓ 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: I� (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: I (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 7 G� TOTAL POINTS: v I Pe1 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: / tidal LC`" loins /nl / f ae S 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCI ROWTH SCORE SHEET - PROJECT: � J i C� e `- 4 DATE : ( i l �/ . 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: ti 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: 21 COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: Z t 7 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: SUBTOTAL: I 1 2 • f w 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. 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: 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: COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 4 _ 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: / 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 • e % ..0- 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 1 T, 7 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 4 2 (minimum of 3 points needed to // remain eligible) Points in Category 3: /() (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- „/ C gories 1, 2, & 3 7( / ' (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: -fit__: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: �� 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH ?MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET G PROJECT: f T t gn 1 1 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: 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: 3 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: SUBTOTAL: 15 2 • 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 �.✓ a✓ 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 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: in 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: L COMMENT: 5 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: In (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: /C) (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 20_ (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: J Pr /F Name of Planning and Zoning Member: ... �I ht " �wr.� 6 r . • CITY OF ASPEN L1 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: 4h N ThftZ1 ( 1A`—CiskCCI O / DATE: 4' .( J 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: ofiLi 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: 29 COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: ' 1 r 2 i 35 C� • 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. lL 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: C/ 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 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: ro 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 • 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: A (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: e (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: IL (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate 52,0 gories 1, 2, & 3 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: 3 Z' ° Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 1 6 • A CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: / is 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: / r�� 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: C 7 •r-- 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: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 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. RATING: �✓ COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 2 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: 1' r 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: 'S 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: / l 0 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 • 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5.4 points needed � to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: �` (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 0 (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: W2\t'i /144do4 6 • CITY OF ASPEN 1 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET ' PROJECT: r\O�JIE pLA DATE: ieU 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. '' nn RATING: .0 COMMENT: (nrkfa t �7* OV\5 l)V� no V1l )1 04 u - 10 - nr\vVV1, -�Q.l ccvv`) n-C- —P42- ,e. \ CwNSC Nn\v\nrYl\ 21.x. -CF aVc a mA A.* b-cA • 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 & COMMENT: ,) GUYQ/Y'Ct r€- - IS tYnD- 11 0001, 1 �X !1 1 €- (JC koatk_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.R 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. RATING: 9- COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: / 5 . 2 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 formul 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. 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: 1 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: 65 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: I'D 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: 0 COMMENT: 5 • 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 6,, S (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 31.0 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: 3/'o Name of Planning and Zoning Member: \(,o-y-Y) -e- 727 6 Jai OWE MEMORANDUM I (11 I sus 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: 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. 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 LTGHTS The City has already installed sidewalk street lights. This won't be necessary for the applicant. Nu Ate r tz. � iffig c l,rr.rfi (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 30'x10' as required by Code to 25'x10'. We do not have any problem with this reduction, however, we would recommend installation of a trash compactor. EE /co /Hunter k M OWE • i`f NOV 2 VANN ASSOCIATES _ `�I Planning Consultants October 30, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Co 81611 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 Revised Application Application 1. Lot Area 12,835 sq. ft. Same 2. Proposed Floor Area 12,835 sq. ft. Same 3. Proposed Net Leasable 11,272 sq. ft. Same Area P O. Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 . 303/925 -6958 C fl 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, VAN ASSOCIATES / tunny :nn, AICP cc: , thony J. Mazza ft- ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963 -0311 MEMORANDUM @M a n I R TO: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office SEP 1 61 FR: Steve Stan di ford, Director ;41' RE: CC /C -1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications Review comments on energy related aspects of the Hunter Plaza Commercial GMP INSULATION 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. e> ra 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. e> f � I f ✓ 1 , ii `` SEP 1 1 1996 1 ME M0RAN DU M I U '� 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 r . 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 S� e1986 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: CC /C -1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC GMP APPLICATIONS DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 198 / / - 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. r,. MEMORANDUM ,S W n // l Ll ^�" TO: City Attorney Housing Director SEP 1 7 198 City Engineer Aspen Water Department �j `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. -7rns tto3rcr ses--en /3v 7Nis /4 sent4- co ...sIs..snnrct> S A,.,Tnt,e.- [ /ST.e HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s..f.. commercial GMP allotment. The 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. . 7/f /s rto=ecr cm.— ,sa sea.#.•> ray rn¢ Agrn.. co..so,,onre bisnes 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. TH's rA4Je r CAS Ps6 Stt'ti> (3Y TIa9 Aflp.- COMS•t.I.A *FA 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. `"+ /1c 413 /y�"� MEMORANDUM ' ( © /7 W71.6 TO: City Attorney Housing Director 7 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: PITRIN 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. which were removed in 1982. 7N /S PA 03OcT cPo- at ser-er, /3Y 7/ta A-S a... cA,..so.., 6, .i7 Atio STAR,cr HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f.. commercial GMP allotment.. The property at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and a parking lot), more specifically, southerly portion of Lots R 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. 7 Ms re. encr cA•— r o t spina r> 1» nit "grin_ co" o,., n rer> SA" , to s. hi at./ c r 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. TN /s I'/t °4ecr CA/- I% SSZ.er> fay ri+ss ysee/- CO/.SSC. /DAr c p s S/9'^"ry7,.— 7,/ S1 /,../ c� 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. �- AC$ /3 /y , el 11986 jR ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: CC /C -1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC GMP APPLICATIONS DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 198 / 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. i 1 ANTHONY J. MAZZA ATTORNEY AT LAW 530 EAST MAIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81011 Ann GODS 303 Damon 925 -3300 August 18, 1986 ��y 2 rf-- 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. y ours, 1 nt. Ma . HUNTER PLAZA ASS.- i ES AJM:dx 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, 1986, 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: PITRIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP - - -- -- The applicant, Pitkin Cente -r- 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 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 e and a parking L lot), nd and more specifically, southerly portion 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. &/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: PITRIN 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.. a ' EN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020 CZw�1�- L i e 1�a._ t. .- (1711-0-Qtr <-61-; C4?7' RE: �- C�. . c��� � Dear `a & -i-yy This is to inform you that the ffice has completed its preliminary review of your l ry g ,- M application fa complete- ness. We have determined that your application is complete. is not complete. The additional items we will r equire 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. k . — A. Since your application is complete,, we have scheduled it for review ' th c' e OQ� -K. -M�f - . °,c / orr � 77.y u. we will be calling'yd'u if we need any addidonal 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 arandum available to you. Please note that it ,4, (is - your responsibility to post your property with -j;l'K 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 VVF /o: 1e, ., , who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ' Alan Richman, ing and Development Director AR:jlr • ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020 1/4.) RE: Dear S"'^w`\ This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of your Co- -P &--P application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application is complete >":=k 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 et on + 2, • 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. Please feel free to call � , 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 • r i. :11 , � ya v a\ i Lir 1 ` i 1 -- '� A, V$ .l , !' 4 . l � U \\A ,,ii `. � I 2.1/ e. -4.• I■ i d \ I i )a. ';'• .. x 4tiN1/4.. \ , 1. { . LI r a • tam i ., , . i 1 1 , • I 1 . ! I � ' N. MS l� r z- * ,,,,a - , \., c_ i - i . ------- 7 i ' J ---1 --- — - -, ..,,,,,,,-;,...,;;,, -, t _ HU PLAZ4 ✓ COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION ,vi ✓ r VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants S0 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 r• 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 hesitate 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 y ' --. AICP i att - .1ment SV: / " j - P.O Box 8485 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • 303, 925 -6958 A COMMERCIAL w 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 r _ and HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 210 South Galena, Suite 24 as Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2867 r r TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 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 oo III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 10 r A. Quality of Design 10 1. Architectural Design 11 .- 2. Site Design 18 3. Energy Conservation 22 r 4. Amenities 24 5. Visual Impact 25 on 6. Trash and Utility Access 25 r B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 26 r 1. Water Supply and Fire Protection 26 r 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 r r r r I. INTRODUCTION The following application, submitted pursuant to Section 24 -11.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a commercial growth management T, 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. r An approximately 4,740 square foot commercial structure containing the r Palazzi Texaco station and service garage is presently located on the property. The application is submitted by Hunter Plaza Associates, a r 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. In 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 vapi opeaoleo uativ0 ops-o1a3 uatlsy "+ad 3 '3 aos 011 " S10311HOaW MVA N Vd d IlH VINDVH eNIOl1119 VZI MO s 1 Mb III > • i ■ • > > ) > Y 4 • 2 2 • 2 ar a a E o a E ¢ u a 2 I • fn as 2 L o a s { ' Z , 0 1 N lill z 2 ¢ O Q ft. E ., 0 • x • NM \4‘...s.. . 'l : .1 , _ 11.4 I: : ‘ • E • f X r V as 11, i 3 , r a. SSA\ - 1 r ,__, , UPI ' ,h4a, \\ • • am , _ I u r a F r a . J , � t. " a " 2 - 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 MN 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. OM 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 w 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 r 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 — 6 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 i The Hunter Plaza building's actual tenants have not been finalized; however, proposed uses consist of those retail and service 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 w 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 w zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. As a result, the functional character of this area of the downtown commercial r district will be uneffected by the Applicant's proposal. In fact, it w 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 w 8 w. 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 9 r employees, or forty (40) percent of the additional employees gene- - rated by the project. The exact amount of the above dedication fee r 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. r 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 r 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 r r 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 r 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 r 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 opa -3 oto0 uadsV opaJoio0 uadeV • ...boo '3 Zo9 011 `5103111-i3t!V /1I1VA NVWOVH DNIO'llfle VZV'1d tl31Nf1H al 1 1 I Z ! c .- _---.. 1 a 1 , 2 z r' a E J 1 n Q u ° a f LL //. -I v F. _ J z 1 ` �� - t_rz ° — z__� w I I E 1 o a a / - w a 9 9 4 1 M 1 1 a a 1 I- a MI 1 1 0 E � J — ts — ts - 1 I \ N-1 I 1 r I m I o I 1 1 a 1 z I a ril n 1 n 1 LL 1 Y I ,i_ j l__rt_� i. 1 1 i 1 -- 1 1 12 ope•o�a> ..• ..• ope..,o�o7 uedear ....doom - 3 209 I — 011 '513311HZRJV /V%VA NVWDVH DI%11011fB V ZV1d 1:131Nf1H 1 • I C F 2 • • E Q n a 2 I W ■ Q 3 Q • I a I LI z • 1 Y • m tl . . 7 • l 4 f , . { : z z I Q d 4 J IN I- f o et LL n r .. 2 L. 1 . �L IS U .o 4 \ °c 1.:----1 ; , 1 i. z zW a .4 U z4 I 91 1 ru 4 ¢ 2 • .—r: i r Ow • • W u 1 ■ 4 4 N _ , • 0 r F 2 J 1 III Q Q lib /\' • n g i 4 - - . .._L — A L _ _ _ ___ -_ i .L iB e3 L NflIi 1 _ 1 3 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 0... the building's bulk. While the height of the second floor currently I I exceeds that of the adjacent Ozzie's Shoes building, any future redevelopment of the property would most likely result in a two -story I I 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, II in the absence of significant regulatory change, any future structure on the Ozzie's property would, in all probability, be compatible with II the proposed Hunter Plaza building. II The building's proposed architectural elevations are shown 1 on Figures 5 and 6, pages 16 and 17. As the drawings illustrate, the building elevations utilize a "bay window" concept which has been I I designed to maximize storefront exposure and to breakup the street facades. The building's angled corners, horizontal bands of terra II 14 1 r ape-oio7 uedsb .P. oodeV ' „edoo',] '3 aos 011 ` 510311HObV /1AVA 1VVWOVH Dfj1O11f19 VZ'1d ti31Nf7H I _ 11 F 1 2 W ' 4 Q a 1 fl 1 Q I 2 1 W w a. m Q 7 Q W F Illi Q I U 2 1 i ! n _ E J I , ` ,: '3C , ,., u / EL / I ; O O 0. i I 3 J 1 LL D U I \. c O 6 u 0 - \ 9 2 a a O W 1 F W r Iliria /” n N to 1 W 1 Q • 1 • , 1 I L'/ 1 ■ ¢� ..!, / 1 . F / ..,. 1 , IN I a I r • a v ■ / 1 1 1 15 opeJolo3 uedsy ope.,oi00 uadsy ',adoo3 '3 209 ❑11 `S1331IHJibV MVA NV VJJVH EJNIO'll(l0 V2Vld 143JNfl1-4 lir) [ , a 1- 2 W E ,. F a Q a Q 2 W a N Q Q -- - _ W 1 Q I U I a 1, 1 1 0 p _ r W I� „ 2 r I r ri \ W ' w J Q W w W I Jz W o W' I r „. �� y { • I I YvI I }., m I jj I N W h im . 1 - 0 it 66 It 1 11 41 NOMMIll t r 5 1 r _ � 'I 'II W It 4 � ' " I 1 ( N 0 . : ,1'.' l N .,L t f a m. -,t 11 I __.... I r PP 16 _ ... opeJoio3 uadse ope,oloo uadsv 'Jac loa3 .3 a og C11 S133.1.1H3lite /NAVA NVIAISVH Onmp trzy id Llai_rsint-t (11) 1 . , w 0 , , . _. 2 .., . 4 ll 0 ., N,•4 i > H Ow 4 a : 1 m m W • 1 - , IN J III 3 e, .. : 0 : , 0 N W .".7.;!.41',' h 0 U III 1 1 d >. • Q . 1 :_. ., • 3 II I 111 cy -I I . —I 1 P - I ait • 1 I , W A i i 0 I— . . 1. - T1 ill i i 11 i I r 0 i r 1 U I , lik III [ r , N PO (1) . . . 1 MIMI 1 L ik , 4 4--. *.....,, -._., • - , .. .:•:im,, I : ,• , 1 . . .1fi , -: ti .-.: >,• ... 1 i P , 2 I . , 0 4 a 1 w I- I 2 4 ft w a 0 0 2 I U al C m L ° et 7 w a E w 1- I- a 1 4 4 I II 1 1 17 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 P. calculations, an additional 2,168 square feet of landscaped, outdoor 18 1 OPC.o�o7 ucd V OPi` -,aia7 , .+atity �.�tloO7 ' 209 II 011 `513311I -4 1 MVA NVW`JVH onaa VZV d31Nf1H P � -,217.4.410 z = - z 0 ii'■■■ ■N■N■■■ 111: i r — E �I IP'' ' �I'' 1 r k l �li� it _ _ Q VIVAILO, .u■■■rl■■ i dol °vw u�` ii = :: W . 1 J L3 El qunpri 4 3 bilk t .... 1 :: i , i / : ' 0 1. a hi �� Q W E J ■ I ■ Id ft ■ 1 - I11 01 Ir a — c _ _r_■NN■ /� I I 1 � . ii I �" III �I -- — J • 1 a I _� j F W . CX F a o 2 w o ° ° F a m Ni > a p rt Q a w Q ■ I • - - il�1li1 a N■ J J w 2 - Q 111111 P a ■ ■■ d 4 Q 2 w 1 r. = - - - a i l � / ; ...... o x I1 or ,11fIWi s e :■ it �� I �^ ... ■ .: �.. • �Iil Ili" ®.1. z - I ■ ■ ■ in ■ II . 4 , NI 0: X z • 1O■ 1 1 ■N ! 0 a :o F yaj pp Z > I ii 1 ° p Q a 0 a Y 2 0 y 2 J co M i ■■ 1 < ° J w 0 a 2 F J f 1 c m ro az °° a o 3 3 3 2 2 ° 2 2 5 i $ ° ° f w ;; ! R W Q 4 D 1III > Q 2 2 ° J p 0 ] 0 ' Q : :: / X 0 U J J w 0 2 U W 0 0 0 :1 ii 4111 '� W NI hi In W � _ ���.l== 0 a 1 1- 1 ,..�� r� v W / a leave__ LL i - -:/ /:- 1 i:: 19 1 °pe-10107 uadsy opoJalo3 uad•V ' Jedoo7 .3 ZO9 I ❑11 ` 51731IH31=1V MVA NVIN9VH EJNIO"11f19 'V 211 ti31N11H at al f 2 lit I I- • I n a • x m II 3 L d d a/ 1• d 1 I U 2 ("'" r I s � . • 0 . 2 2 p ly 0 It L I- 2 V \ �\ , ,_ 2 _., _mmnIOI l lll .,„„lnit*nuuuu,,N111IIr - I llII c tl 1 AIL / ail S, • �� II.I� I ......,,,ti lulu fall ■1111 I1 IWIIk - k Q 1 1\ lii'l ,___, W � , iNlwul�uuoun .. m 1. a G = / 1 +a M - �ueLI LI uIul. aw s ;. � �I ; Q / t 1 F • 2 7 0. I „>► -IS • J d W 2 i W ' I ry � ■ �� I I I1p' - iu IYIIIM3 111 1 11 1 1IIIIItN 111111�IlI I I IIIIII11 .111111111111111111114 Nlmlo � ® IIw11M� d II 0 IMIIIANIIIi .:;' "S n :; � _ IIIIVVIVIIIIIIII; �• 11VIIII�V1 u 1 11.111 I ~ 1331116 1131Nf1M 1 20 1 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 r 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. r The courtyard and roof terrace will be attractively lighted and all r utilities will be placed underground. The Applicant will work with the City Engineer to coordinate the location and installation of a r 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 r 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: r a) Building Orientation and Solar Utilization. The r 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 — r 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 r 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 r adjacent Ozzie's Shoes building, the Cooper Avenue facade setback, and the large open space courtyard all contribute to the maximization of r public views of the surrounding scenic areas, both from within the project as well as from neighboring properties. Similarly, a r substantial portion of the building's ground floor roof area has been r landscaped, and unsightly mechanical equipment eliminated, so as to enhance the roofscape view from the adjacent Chateau Aspen Apartments, W and from the Aspen Square building across the street. In virtually no instance is the view from the immediate site area significantly r impacted by the proposed building. Requested Score: 3 points r 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 r r 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 r 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 r _ 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 r 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 r 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 r eliminated thereby enhancing circulation and reducing the hazard to 27 •- 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 r 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 r 28 oiler -eoio7 ua dsy °P. I 0 ope:,olo7 oadsq '..adoo' .3 Z09 J1 ' 51�3 11I —ID MVA NV WE7VH ONIOII(10 VZVld ti31NIlH j i ii t 4 r • 2 Y L < • Q ° o } ° u 0 I 1 s 2 A ,o 1 i • _ 7 1 11 -- 11 E 1 to oo L ▪ — J • — Q � �. � d � ■ Q a r _ h Q , \ ��` - 1 1 z J - _ \ L I I .. `i 5 1-, E z AO flll�`�" — ,Nn,11 111]pin -1MMI 1 , 1 • l] _ a of • • I y_; I l I Ir . - `s:' ' �y � �\ ! 4 —_ ` \j Fil '0 • � 5 N Q , � , , , !alit E. 1 E. \ , I: } • al Z • ! ¢ �la o i . L _ \�`• _ IIID,nlI mmml I <` ----- „ — — — — �\� \1� U Rn ,m n 1 - L i C • , 1 _ a ! r t. ! F , • • • L u t A i — Fz- 1 L L -- t I .I �I ' • • y ! C _ _ _ i � 0 III ! - I 1 1 ( ! il • O 4 • 6 l i t{ ! • l - i ° >i ! , 11 ail s • 1 T H I, a ► ! �3f i1 I J 1 2Q - 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 r transportation and roads, storm drainage, and parking. Detailed dis- c. 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) r 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 y 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 r 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.). r 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 ant ISO • APPENDIX A 34 EXHIBIT 1 M. HOLLAND & HART DENVER OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 2900 SUITE 1200 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET 1875 EYE STREET, N. W. i DENVER,COLORADO 80202 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20008 TELEPHONE 1303) 295-8000 800 EAST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE 12021988 - 7390 TELECOPIER (3031295-8281 ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 TELECOPIER 12021466 -7359 -AA TELEPHONE 13031925 -3478 MONTANA OFFICE WYOMING OFFICE w SUITE 1400 SUITE 500 175 NORTH 27TH STREET 2020 CAREY AVENUE M. BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 CHEYENNE,WYOMING 82001 TELEPHONE1408) 252 -2186 TELEPHONE 13071832-2030 TELECOPIER 1408) 252 -1869 TELECOPIER 13071778 -8175 ARTHUR C. DAILY July 22, 1986 5. E. DENVER OFFICE SUITE 1250 7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE EN GLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111 TELEPHONE 13031741 -1226 Mr. Sunny Vann Vann and Associates P.O. Box 8485 .. Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Hunter Plaza Associates: Commercial GMP Submission for Texaco Site Dear Sunny: I- 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 +.1 process the subject GMP application from the following contract r provisions: Paragraph 23 of the Texaco /Palazzi Agreement reads as follows: .. "23. 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." and ,0 tom as HOLLAND &HART r 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 r - 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 tru],y yougs, r Arthur C. aily for HOLLAN & HART ACD /jg Enclosure cc: Anthony J. Mazza, Managing Partner - - MP was mad tow ISO w — OM APPENDIX B PM EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303 - 925 -2020 July 21, 1986 rw Vann Associates Sunny Vann, AICP ,. P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: 602 B. 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 r 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, m Marka unas, Director Aspen Water Department cc: Planning Department tiss r EXHIBIT 2 .aspen Consoli Sanitation IDistvrict " 565 North Mill Street ,,, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925 -2537 r July 22, 1986 Sunny Vann io Vann Associates P. 0. Box 8485 r Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: Palazzi Property Dear Mr. Vann: r 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 /44.2. � t Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District mg r r r ■XMISIT 3 a ii M 0 o C K d U . m t 0 ) x— 0 J d V Z o 0 19 2 w cc J Q 0 W z � u c Z m r • � za .. O " 0 V 0 X I- C .‹ m C • o \ ' $'P o � i. o u ,o , o. i � . ` 4ry'' ] r v # ` -o o _ -." c ".23....!F o-.. r 0 7 c ° p i i [ . 1: 5 7 . 71 5, iu . —= • s '^ t! °_ i ' O a,..o r , jr , 0 N r j N e n, nD I N J = A I 9 — n i h 3. 4 r • a Cr m d In O • n v [ nl m 0 n n D n l — o n 4 { I Q Cr scsr 0 _ r L— _--_ -- - - -_ tit .0 1 ' I r m el 21 7 a '' I d �C k v SP - ! In OI t N C h is,.. N q m ra 7 ° 14 E n h 3 j N to 1 CI t__ _._ -- __ __ _a, 9 _ _ J * 0 4 1 4 3 y a W 0 IVO MEM nun At mem wow tor mom nos YIN r APPENDIX C fin nee 4- EXHIBIT 1 At .44 @Afm,„ PA2te ca / w 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1303) 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 (c}fi Peter Wirth Fire Chief von as w r