Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Mill Street Plaza.A22-93 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 0 08 93 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737- 073 -38 -004 A22 -93 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Mill Street Plaza GMOS Exemption & Special Review for Open Space Project Address: 205 S. Mill St. Legal Address: Lots D,E,F,G,H,J, Block 81, Aspen Townsite APPLICANT: Mill Street Plaza Associates, Anthony Mazza Applicant Address: 205 S. Mill St., Aspen, CO 93Z 3835. >!('j, REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann Representative Address /Phone: 230 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 925 -6958 FEES: PLANNING $1149.00 # APPS RECEIVED 7 ENGINEER $ 93.00 # PLATS RECEIVED 7 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $1242.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF PROVAL: X 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES 41 1!' VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date It City City A tt o rney Bldg IDeptctor � REFERRALS: Aly Cit Attorney � Parks Dept. � School District Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: _ City Atty _ City Engineer Zoning _Env. Health Housing _ Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: April 4, 1994 RE: GMQS Exemption for Commercial Expansion - Mill Street Plaza SUMMARY: The applicant, Mill Street Plaza Associates, Anthony Mazza, seeks to add floor area to the Mill Street Plaza without adding net leasable square footage or reducing the open space below the 25% requirement for the CC zone district. LOCATION: 205 South Mill Street, Commercial Core, Aspen ' APPLICANT: Mill Street Plaza Associates, Anthony Maize, as represented by Sunny Vann PROPOSAL: The applicants propose to increase the floor area of the ground level of the Mill Street Plaza with a 400 square foot addition. The applicant proposes to eliminate 460 square feet of commercial net leasable square footage in the lower level of the plaza in the northwest corner of the building. In addition, the proposed addition will reduce the required amount of open space on the parcel. A 25% open space requirement exists in the Commercial Core. For this parcel that represents 4,500 sq. ft. Currently, the parcel has 4,910 sq. ft. of open space based upon the recent Code interpretation with regard to open space. The applicant's proposal will decrease the amount of required open space on the parcel from 4,910 sq. ft. to 4,510 sq. ft., leaving 10 sq. ft. of open space left to comply with the 25% requirement of the CC zone district. STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 A.1(d), the expansion of an existing commercial or office use in a building which does not increase its net leasable square footage shall be exempted by the Planning Director. The applicants propose to add 400 square feet of floor area onto the East Hopkins Street side of the plaza building. In order to avoid adding net leasable square footage, the applicant proposes to convert 460 square feet of net leasable space in the lower level to on -site tenant storage which is not considered net leasable according to the definition of net leasable in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. The HPC has reviewed this proposal and granted final development review at their January 26, 1994 meeting. • The proposed addition has been downsized to preserve the mid -block pedestrian link on the East Hopkins Street side of the building and to avoid reducing the required open space on the parcel below 25% percent. The applicant is utilizing the recent Planning Director Code Interpretation that acknowledges exiting open space on the site whether that open space technically meets the code's definition of open space. The interpretation recognizes previously approved open space and areas of a parcel that look feel and act like open space although the space may not comply with the definition of the open space in the code. The code definition is better utilized for new development verses negatively impacting existing development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption to add 400 square feet of floor area, as represented and approved by the HPC in their January 26, 1994 meeting, with the following condition of approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new addition, the applicant shall convert the net leasable area in the lower level and the zoning officer shall inspect the converted space. 2. The applicant shall prepare a calculation sheet for the building permit file which includes the remaining percent of open space on the parcel and the floor area square footage and net leasable square footage of the parcel with the proposed /approved addition. I hereby approve the GMQS Exemption for the addition of 400 square feet of floor area, pursuant to Section 24- 8- 104.A.1(d). Dian Moore, Planning Director MESSAGE DISPLAY TO LESLIE LAMONT CC BILL DRUEDING From: Bill Drueding Postmark: Apr 04,94 10:11 AM Subject: MILL STREET PLAZA Message: I HAVE REVIEWED THEIR NUMBERS. MATH IS O.K. NEED TO GO OVER SOME QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR YOU. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE AVAILABLE. X VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants February 11, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Building GMQS Exemption Dear Leslie: The proposed addition to the Mill Street Plaza building received final develop- ment plan approval from the Historic Preservation Commission on January 26, 1994. As the Applicant wishes to construct the addition this spring, we need to complete the GMQS exemption process in as timely a manner as possible. As discussed in my April 5, 1993, application, the proposed addition complies with the provisions of Section 8- 104.A.1.d. of the Land Use Regulations and, therefore, may be exempted from the growth management quota system by the Planning Director. No increase in the building's total net leasable area will occur, as a portion of the lower level will be converted to on -site tenant storage. While the remodel represents an increase in floor area, the building's total floor area is significantly below that which has been previously approved. As the accompanying architectural drawings illustrate, the addition has been downsized to preserve the present mid -block pedestrian link, and to avoid reducing the building's open space below the CC, Commercial Core, zone distri- ct's minimum twenty -five (25) percent requirement. As a result special review ap- proval to reduce the building's open space is no longer required. The building's revised floor area, net leasable area and open space calculations are summarized in Table 1, below. Please note that the figures have been revised to reflect both the 1987 Gordon's restaurant and the 1993 Cache Cache restaurant additions. Table 1 Floor Area /Net Leasable Area /Open Space Calculations Mill Street Plaza Building 1. Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 18,000 230 East Hopkins AVO IUe • Aspc c. Colorado 816" • 303,925 6958 • Fax 303;920 -9310 Ms. Leslie Lamont February 11, 1994 Page 2 2. Maximum Allowed Floor Area 36,000 @ 2:1 (Sq. Ft.) 3. Approved Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)' 29,811 4. Existing Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 26,920 Lower Level 2,700 Ground Level 12,140 Upper Level 12,080 5. Existing Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.) 24,610 Lower Level 7,980 Ground Level 10,600 Upper Level 6,030 6. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 27,320 c" i Lower Level 2,700 Ground Level' 12,54.0; Upper Level 12,080 7. Proposed Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.) 24,610 Lower Level cC 7,520 Ground Level 11,060 Upper Level 6,030 8. Minimum Required Open Space 4,500 @ 25% (Sq. Ft.) 9. Original Project Open Space (Sq. Ft.)' 5,270 Lower Level 1,630 Main Level 3,640 10. Less 1987 Gordon's Reduction (Sq. Ft.) 360 Lower Level 140 Main Level 220 //l Ms. Leslie Lamont February 11, 1994 Page 3 11. Revised Original Open Space (Sq. Ft.) 4,910 12. Remaining Open Space above 25% (Sq. Ft.) 410 13. Proposed Reduction in Open Space 400 1 See Applicant's April 5, 1993, GMQS exemption application. 2 From takeoffs prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Architects. All areas calculated based on current floor area regulations and rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet. 3 Excludes affordable housing units, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corri- dors, mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants of the building. Includes 1987 Gordon's restaurant and 1993 Cache Cache additions. ' Includes four hundred (400) square feet of new floor area. 5 Excludes four hundred and sixty (460) square feet of existing net leasable area which is to be converted to tenant storage. 6 Includes four hundred and sixty (460) square feet of new net leasable area. From takeoffs prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Architects. Open space calculated based on applicable 1981 land use regulations. 6 From architectural plans prepared by Harry Teague Architects. As you know, Section 8- 104.A.2. requires that an application for a building permit for the proposed expansion be submitted prior to the Director's approval of the GMQS exemption. As the Applicant wishes to confirm his ability to expand the building prior to the preparation of construction documents, we respectfully request that this requirement be waived. A building permit application will be submitted upon the receipt of the requested GMQS exemption. To avoid confusion, the exemption approval could require confirmation of our floor area, net leasable and open space takeoffs in connection with the issuance of the building permit. Ms. Leslie Lamont February 11, 1994 Page 4 Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Your prompt attention to this matter would be sincerely appreciated. Yours truly, VANN SOCIATES at unny n, AICP SV:cwv cc: Anthony J. Mazza Larry Yaw c: \bus\city.ItrUtr21092.113 VANN ASSOCIATES ' P `% Planning Consultants � 2 May 24, 1993 1 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Building Open Space Dear Leslie: As you requested, summarized below is our position with respect to the applicability of the City's open space regulations to the proposed remodel of the Mill Street Plaza Building. Please note that we have based our position upon the Planning Office's concept of "non - conforming" open space. 1. The Mill Street Plaza building was constructed in compliance with the open space regulations in effect at the time the building permit was issued in 1981. The amount of open space exceeded the minimum requirement of the underlying CC, Commercial Core, zone district. 2. The majority of the building's original open space became non - conforming with the adoption of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in 1988. Although the build- ing's original open space continues to function as open space, various areas became non - conforming with respect to the design criteria (e.g., maximum depth below grade, etc.) imposed under the definition of open space which is contained in Section 3 -101. 3. The building's open space, however, did not become non - conforming with respect to the minimum open space requirement of Section 5- 210.D.9. (i.e., the dimen- sional requirements of the CC zone district). The building's original open space exceeded the CC zone district's minimum twenty -five (25) percent requirement. While portions of the building's existing open space are arguably non - conforming with respect to various provisions of the open space definition, the amount of open space continues to exceed the minimum requirement. 4. Section 7- 404.A.3. permits a reduction in open space below the minimum requirement of the CC zone district subject to special review approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This provision, however, is not triggered unless an Applicant wishes to provide less than the twenty -five (25) percent open 230 East Hopkins Aver tie • Aspen. Caiorado 81611 • 303 925 6958 • Fax 303 %920 -9310 Ms. Leslie Lamont May 24, 1993 Page 2 space requirement. For example, if a project contained thirty (30) percent open space, all of which is conforming, a reduction to twenty-eight (28) percent would not necessitate special review approval. 5. Although portions of the Mill Street Plaza building's open space are non-con- forming with respect to various definitional requirements, it exceeds the mini- mum twenty-five (25) percent dimensional requirement of the CC zone district. A reduction, therefore, which does not reduce the building's open space below the minimum dimensional requirement does not require special review approval. 6. Pursuant to Section 3 -101, a "non - conforming structure" is a legally established structure which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Pursuant to Section 9- 103.C.1., the City's non- conform- ing structure regulations, a non - conforming structure cannot be extended or enlarged so as to increase a non - conformity. 7. As the Applicant's proposed remodel will not reduce the building's open space below the minimum twenty-five (25) percent requirement, no increase in non- conformity with respect to the dimensional requirements of the CC zone district will occur. The proposed remodel, therefore, complies with the non - conforming structure requirements of the Regulations. 8. With respect to the various requirements imposed under the definition of open space, I believe that the requirements are design criteria which should be applied to new development, as they are intended to dictate the type of open space we apparently want in today's projects. You also asked that I recalculate the building's open space to reflect the reduction which occurred in connection with the 1987 Gordon's Restaurant bar addition. Please note that the original figures which I provided contained an error in Cottle Graybeal Yaw's open space takeoff. The correct figures are included in Table 1, below. Table 1 Open Space Calculations Mill Street Plaza Building 1. Lot Area (sq. Ft.) 18,000 2. Minimum Required Open Space 4,500 @ 25% (Sq. Ft.) 3. Original Project Open Space (Sq. Ft.)' 5,310 Lower Level 1,620 Main Level 3,690 Ms. Leslie Lamont May 24, 1993 Page 3 4. Less 1987 Gordon's Reduction (Sq. Ft.) 380 5. Revised Original Open Space (Sq. Ft.) 4,930 6. Remaining Open Space above 25% (Sq. Ft.) 430 1 From takeoffs prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Architects. 2 From Joe Wells' 1987 commercial GMQS application for Gordon's Restaurant. As the table indicates, the amount of open space located on the building's lower level has increased. As a result, the building's total open space is now virtually identical to the open space figure provided in the Gordon's Restaurant 1987 commercial GMQS application (i.e., 5,310 sq. ft. versus 5,306 sq. ft.). That application also indicated that approximately three hundred and eighty (380) square feet of open space would be lost as a result of the Gordon's Restaurant addition. The building's remaining open space presently exceeds the minimum twenty-five (25) percent requirement by approximately four hundred and thirty (430) square feet. To avoid reducing the building's open space below the minimum allowed, the Applicant will revise the design of the proposed remodel to eliminate approximately one hundred (100) square feet. As a result, special review should not be required. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VANN ASS ' IATES f Sunny Va A , CP SV:cwv c:Wus\city.Io-vtr21092.II2 PROJECT NOTES Open Space Calculations 5/18/93 Outlined below is an example of the payment -in -lieu fee calcula- tion formula as explained to me by Alan Richma', the author of the legislation. 1. Assumptions a) 10,000 Sq. Ft. Site b) 25% Minimum Open Space Requirement c) 500 Sq. Ft. Reduction d) Appraised Value $100.00 /Sq. Ft. 2. Minimum Open Space Requirement 10,000 x 0.25 = 2,500 Sq. Ft. 3. Percent Site Required to be Open Space Which is to be Devel- oped 500 Sq. Ft. _ 10,000 Sq. Ft. = 0.05 4. Payment -in -Lieu $1,000,000.00 x 0.05 = $50,000.00 Based on the above interpretation, the payment -in -lieu for Mill Street Plaza would be calculated as follows. 1. Assumptions a) 18,000 Sq. Ft. Site b) 5,040 Sq. Ft. Original Open Space c) 530 Sq. Ft. Reduction d) $150.00 /Sq. Ft. Land Value 2. Payment -in -Lieu 530 Sq. Ft. _ 18,000 Sq. Ft. = 0.03 0.03 x $150.00 x 18,000 Sq. Ft. = $81,000.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Mill Street Plaza Special Review for Reduction of Open Space DATE: May 18, 1993 SUMMARY: Mill Street Plaza Associates request a reduction in required open space. Open space may be reduced in the Commercial Core by Special Review from the Commission. APPLICANT: Mill Street Plaza Associates as represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: 205 South Mill Street, Aspen ZONING: CC - Commercial Core APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To reduce the required open space of the Mill Street Plaza building. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the proposed addition and granted conceptual approval. Members of the HPC believed the existing open space was useless as it is north facing, bringing the building to the sidewalk enhances the pedestrian experience and fits better with the rest of the building. STAFF COMMENTS: Proposal - According to the application, the applicant proposes to remodel a portion of the building's Hopkins Street facade. The addition will extend 9 feet to the property line and enclose the westerly stair arcade. The remodel will increase the building's floor area by approximately 879 square feet. Approximately 840 square feet of the addition will be considered net leasable. However, the applicant proposes to convert undesirable net leasable space, on the ground floor, to tenant storage space. Therefore the remodel is not considered an increase in net leasable space. Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 of the code, the expansion of a commerical use which does not increase the net leasable square footage is a GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director. The applicant shall receive a GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits. Background - In 1981 -1982 when the building was built, it conformed with the open space requirement as open space was defined in the code. The addition of the stairs to Gordon's in 1987 reduced the open space by 530 square feet. The code was amended in 1988 and the definition of open space was changed which effectively rendered the Mill Street Plaza nonconforming with respect to open space. The 4,510 square feet of conforming open space was reduced, according to the plans submitted with this application, to 1,270 square feet which is 7% of the building site. Note: the Zoning Officer believes there is more conforming open space that may be counted than is indicated on the plans. Table 1 Yr. Sp. Ft. % Conforming Open Space 1981 5,040 28% 1987 4,510 25% 1993 1,270 7% Nonconforming Open Space - The applicant contends that the addition does not reduce required open space because the area to be enclosed is nonconforming open space according to the definition of open space in the code. The Planning Department agrees that the westerly staircase is non- conforming open space because it is more than 4 feet above existing grade of the street and it does not have a minimum frontage on the street of one -half the length of the lot or one hundred feet whichever is less. The Department also agrees that the area in front of the building on the Hopkins Street side, which the new addition is proposed to extend into, is non - conforming open space because the westerly staircase breaks up the minimum frontage on Hopkins Street. However, it is staff's position that although the open space is nonconforming it is still open space that meets several aspects of the open space definition. Article 9. Nonconformities of the Land Use Regulations clearly states that nonconformities shall not be extended or enlarged. Therefore, the proposed addition will extend and enlarge the nonconformity of the Mill Street Plaza's open space. Enclosure of the westerly stairs and the addition onto the Hopkins Street facade will increase the nonconformity by obstructing the open space from the ground to the sky, reducing the minimum depth, eliminating the area from open to view from the street at the pedestrian level, and eliminating a mid -block pedestrian link. 2 Reduction of Open Space by Special Review - Pursuant to Section 24- 7 -404 A.3., required open space in the commercial core may be reduced if the applicant demonstrates that the provision of less than the required amount of open space on -site will be more consistent with the character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open space according to the standard. When the Commission determines the open space is inappropriate on the site, it may be reduced or waived if the applicant makes a payment -in- lieu into a separate interest bearing account to be used solely for the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes within or adjacent to the Commercial Core zone district. The following guidelines may be considered: 1. It may be appropriate to have open space on the site when the building is located on a street corner. RESPONSE: Although the building is a corner building, the area to be enclosed is in the middle of the block. 2. The open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian amenities. RESPONSE: The westerly staircase serves not only as an additional entrance to the interior of the Mill Street Plaza, but also as a mid -block connector to the Wheeler Opera House open space parcel. However, the applicant has contended that the connector is rarely used. 3. The open space provides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic land mark. RESPONSE: The Lily Reid cottage used to be adjacent to the Mill Street Plaza. In 1992 the cottage was relocated to a prominent position on the corner of Hopkins and Monarch. 4. The open space is intended for a particular functional purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree. RESPONSE: The only functional aspect of the space to be enclosed are the westerly stairs. However, there will remain three more entrances to the Plaza, one on the Mill Street side, the primary entrance on Hopkins and the service entrance off the alley. But as mentioned above the mid -block connector will be eliminated. The HPC recommended that the southwest corner of the new addition, the area that will enclose the staircase, be designed in such a manner as to install a door if future pedestrian traffic should warrant. 3 5. Open space may be inappropriate on the site when other buildings along the street front are built to the property line. RESPONSE: The redevelopment of the Lily Reid parcel is not built to the property line and a small portion of the Plaza building next to the Lily Reid development is not built to the property line. The portion of the Plaza that is currently occupied by Eddie Bauer is built to the property line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special review for the reduction in open space for 205 South Mill Street finding that the nonconforming open space does not protect a historic resource, is not on a corner, and the majority of this space is nonfunctional. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall receive a GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu for deposit in a separate interest bearing account to be used solely for the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes within or adjacent to the Commercial Core zone district. Said payment -in -lieu shall be assessed based upon the formula outlined in Section 24 -7 -404 A.3. of the Municipal Code and approved by the Planning Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall receive final approval from the Historic Preservation Committee for the new addition. 4. All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to during development. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Special Review for the reduction of open space for 205 S. Mill Street with the conditions as outlined in Planning Office memo dated May 18, 1993 finding that the nonconforming open space does not protect a historic resource, it is not on a corner, and the majority of this space is nonfunctional." ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Site Plan 4 1--J1 ft ( , “ TI VI .111111•16 L I I \ i \ eir I r ../ . ' . lt,...4...a 0 , ipiii: \ ci IL — , r r --- C - 4._ l 1 i 1 , 1 t c t-4 A 1 I II I PT4 , I l I i Air' ii 1 / 1 Isnl C / 0 T - 3. )1 ZI 1--1 PI 1 0 A 1 cb. __ Ati- 1 ,.., , , _ ‘,5 z P 1 0.4 . 4 . ' 4 1 . , A , 0 _ (it _ 1-...„ 1 tz , Nilgo cp Es i 1 1 2 , f&wriel 41 1:4 I '-•,- I I I Z CO c , , ' I I I I I I i I III I I .....L._--__„. J I VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants April 5, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Building GMQS Exemption Dear Leslie: Please consider this letter an application for a growth management quota system (GMQS) exemption for an addition to the Mill Street Plaza building, which is located at 205 North Mill Street (see Exhibit 1, Pre - Application Conference Summa- ry, attached hereto). The application is submitted pursuant to Section 8- 104.A.1.d. by Mill Street Plaza Associates, the owner of the building (see Exhibit 2, letter from Anthony J. Mazza). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3. An application fee agreement is attached as Exhibit 4. Project Site The Mill Street Plaza property consists of Lots D, E, F, G, H and J, Block 81, Aspen Townsite. The six (6) Lots contain a total of eighteen thousand (18,000) square f t of land area and are zoned CC, Commercial Core. The applicable external floor area ratio is 1.5:1, which may be increased to 2:1 by special review. Sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area above 1.5:1, however, must be utilized for affordable housing. Based on the above, the Mill Street Plaza building is limited to twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet of floor area. An additional nine thousand (9,000) square feet of floor area may be approved by special review, of which five thousand four hundred (5,400) square feet must be utilized for affordable housing purposes. The maximum commercial buildout potential of the property, therefore, is thirty thousand six hundred (30,600) square feet. Background A commercial growth management quota system (GMQS) application for the Mill Street Plaza building was submitted on September 1, 1980. The project contained 230 East Hookins Avenue • Asoen. Coloraao 81611 • 303/925 -6958 • Fax 303'920 - 9310 Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 Page 2 twenty -seven thousand (27,000) square feet of commercial area and one thousand five hundred and fifty (1,550) square feet of on -site affordable housing, resulting in an overall FAR of 1.59:1. The project's affordable housing was to be provided via special review approval of a 0.09:1 FAR bonus. No additional commercial floor area above 1.5:1, however, was requested. An existing commercial building located on the property was to be retained, resulting in a GMQS credit of six thousand five hundred (6,500) square feet. A GMQS allocation for the remaining twenty thousand five hundred (20,500) square feet of commercial floor area was awarded to the Applicant on November 24, 1980 (see Exhibit 5, City Council Resolution No. 20 -80). The resolution also authorized the project to apply for such additional approvals as were necessary to obtain a building permit. It should be noted that commercial GMQS applications competed for floor area as opposed to net leasable area in 1980, and that the proposed building's lower level was included in the calculation of floor area. Replacement square footage was exempt from growth management competition and from the mitigation of impacts (i.e., affordable housing, parking, etc.) attributable to its reconstruction. As you know, commercial GMQS projects presently compete for net leasable area, and subgrade areas are exempt from floor area calculations. While an applicant need not compete for replacement commercial area, the reconstructed square footage must be included in the calculation and mitigation of development impacts. In May of 1981, the Applicant submitted an application for special review approval for the affordable housing FAR bonus, a GMQS exemption for the on -site afford- able housing units, and an exemption from the City's residential parking require- ment. These approvals were required for the project to complete the land use review process, and were granted by the P &Z and City Council in June of 1981 (see Exhibit 6, Caseload Summary Sheet). A revised development program for the project was also approved in connection with this application. Apparently, the Applicant decided to demolish rather than renovate the existing commercial building. This decision, and the preparation of detailed construction documents for the new building, resulted in minor changes to the project's floor area. As the attached Planning Office memorandum indicates (see Exhibit 7), the building's commercial floor area decreased slightly, while the size of the affordable housing units increased. Construction of the new building commenced in the fall of 1981 and was completed the following year. A commercial GMQS application for an addition to the building was submitted on August 1, 1987, by Gordon's Restaurant, a tenant of the building. An allocation in the amount of one thousand and thirty -three (1,033) square feet of floor area was awarded on October 12, 1987 (see Exhibit 8, City Council Resolution No. 24 -87). As Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 Page 3 noted previously, the original GMQS application requested a floor area bonus of fifteen hundred and fifty (1,550) square feet to accommodate the project's affordable housing units. No corresponding increase in commercial floor area, however, was requested at the time. The 1987 allocation represents the additional commercial floor area to which the project was entitled based on the original affordable housing commitment. The applicable calculation is as follows. 1,550 Sq. Ft. Affordable Housing = 0.60(x) x = 1,550 Sq. Ft. - 0.60 x = 2,583 Sq. Ft. 0.40(2,583 Sq. Ft.) = 1,033 Sq. Ft. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted special review approval for the above bonus commercial floor area on September 22, 1987 (see Exhibit 9, Planning Office Caseload Disposition Memorandum). The P &Z also granted special review approval for a reduction in the building's trash and utilities area. Please note that commercial GMQS applicants were still competing for floor area as opposed to net leasable area in 1987. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no further requests for additions to the building until this year. As you know, an application for a GMQS exemption to permit a small addition to the Cache Cache Restaurant was submitted for your review on March 19, 1993. While the Cache Cache application is obviously related to this request, I believe that the two applications can be considered independent of each other. For your convenience, the Mill Street Plaza building's floor area history is summarized in Table 1, below. Table 1 Floor Area History Mill Street Plaza Building 1980 1981 1987 Application Application Application Lower Level -- 8,160 8,160 Ground Level -- 12,675 12,675 Upper Level -- 7,943 8,976 Commercial -- 6,149 7,182 Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 Page 4 Affordable Housing 1,550 1,794 1,794 Total Floor Area 28,550 28,778 29,811 Floor Area Ratio 139:1 1.60:1 1.66:1 Maximum Allowed Floor 36,000 36,000 36,000 Area @ 2:1 1 All areas expressed in square feet. As Table 1 indicates, the building's total floor area was well below the maximum allowed in 1980, 1981 and 1987. Proposed Addition As the accompanying architectural pla llustrate, the Applicant wishes to remodel a portion of the building's Hopkins eet . • . = The proposed addition will extend the building's facade approximate nine (9) fee to the property line, and enclose the existing westerly stair arcade. .s " . • - , •elow, indicates, the remodel will increase the building's floor area by approximately eight hundred and seventy (870) square feet. Of this amount, approximately eight hundred and forty (840) square feet meets the City's definition of net leasable area. The proposed addition received conceptual development plan approval from the Historical Preservation Committee on February 10, 1993. Table 2 Floor Area/Net Leasable Area Calculations Mill Street Plaza Building 1. Existing Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)1 26,740 Lower Level 2,700 Ground Level 11,700 Upper Level 12,340 2. Existing Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.) 23,940 Lower Level 7,310 Ground Level 10,600 Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 1 Page 5 `' - U Upper Level 6,030 3. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 27,610 Lower Level 2,700 L, Ground Level3 12,570 Upper Level 12,340�zC{�/ 4. Proposed Net Leasable Area (sq. Ft.) 23,940 Lower Level° 6,470 Ground Levels 11,440 Upper Level 6,030 From takeoffs prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Architects. All areas were calculated based on current floor area regulations and rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet. z Excludes affordable housing units, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors, mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants of the building. 3 Includes eight hundred and seventy (870) square feet of new floor area. Excludes eight hundred and forty (840) square feet of existing net leasable area which is to be converted to tenant storage. s Includes eight hundred and forty (840) square feet of new net leasable area. Review Requirements The proposed addition is subject to the receipt of a GMQS exemption. Although identified in the Pre - Application Conference Summary, special review approval for a reduction in the property's open space is no believed to be required. Both of these review requirements, however, are addressed below. 1. Growth Management Quota System Exemption Pursuant to Section 8- 104.A.1.d. of the Land Use Regulations, the Planning Director may exempt from the GMQS the expansion of an existing commercial use in a building which does not increase its net leasable square footage. Section 8- 104.A.2., however, requires that an application for a building permit for the pro- posed expansion be submitted prior to the Director's approval of the GMQS Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 Page 6 exemption. As the Applicant wishes to confirm his ability to expand the building prior to the preparation of construction documents, we respectfully request that this requirement be waived. A building permit application will be submitted upon the receipt of final HPC development plan approval and the requested GMQS exemp- tion. As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, the Mill Street Plaza building's existing floor area is significantly less than that which was approved in connection with the 1987 GMQS application for Gordon's Restaurant. This reduction is attributable to the fact that subgrade areas are no longer included in the calculation of floor area. As a result, the proposed remodel's approximately eight hundred and seventy (870) square feet of additional floor area does not increase the building's total floor area above the 1987 approval. Similarly, the building's existing net leasable area is significantly less than the original project's approved commercial floor area. While the proposed remodel will result in the addition of approximately eight hundred and forty (840) square feet of new net leasable area, an equivalent amount of the building's existing commercial space will be converted to tenant storage. As you know, such areas are exempt from the calculation of net leasable area pursuant to Section 3 -101 of the Regulations. The proposed storage area is depicted on the accompanying architectural plans. Based on the above, the proposed addition meets the City's requirements for a GMQS exemption. No increase in the building's total net leasable area will occur, as a portion of the building is to be converted to on -site tenant storage. While the remodel represents an increase in floor area, the building's total floor area is signifi- cantly below that which has been previously approved. 2. Special Review Pursuant to Section 5- 210.D.9., the minimum open space requirement in the CC, Commercial, zone district may be reduced by special review. It is my opinion, however, that no reduction in the Mill Street Plaza building's open space will occur as a result of the proposed addition. As the accompanying open space drawings illustrate, the area of the property in which the proposed addition is to be con- structed does not meet the City's current definition of open space. Open space which is open to a street must be a minimum of ten (10) feet deep measured at right angles to the lot line. As the area in question measures only nine (9) feet, it is not, by definition, open space. No reduction in the property's existing open space, therefore, will occur. It is my understanding, however, that the Planning Office has previously taken the position that areas which function as open space, but fail to meet the present open space definition, are in fact "non- conforming" open space. Apparently, this Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 Page 7 concept has also been applied to areas which formerly met the definition of open space. Although the non - conforming open space concept is not addressed in the Regulations, I believe it was specifically applied to the recent reconstruction of the so- called Guido's building on the Hyman Street mall. A review of the Planning Office's caseload file indicates that the small area between the property's original two buildings was determined by the staff to be open space, despite the fact that it did not meet the minimum frontage requirements of the present open space regula- tions. Should the Planning Office's wish to apply the same logic to the area of the Mill Street Plaza property in which the addition is proposed, then the remainder of the property's original open space areas continue to constitute open space despite recent regulatory revisions. As the accompanying open space drawings illustrate, the Mill Street Plaza building's original open space consisted of the lower level court- yard, the ground level plaza and walkways, and the Hopkins Street setback. Portions of these areas, however, are all non - conforming with respect to present open space requirements. For example, existing regulations limit open space to a maximum of two (2) feet below grade. At the time the building was approved, the limitation was ten (10) feet. The building's lower level courtyard obviously still functions as open space, but is non - conforming with respect to the Regulations' maximum below grade limitation. Similarly, the building's Mill Street arcade was included in the project's original open space calculation. Subtle changes in the present open space regulations, however, result in the exclusion of this area. Again, the arcade area functions as open space, but is technically non - conforming. A further change requires that open space be visible from the street. As a result, much of the ground level arcade is no longer technically considered as open space. Table 3 Open Space Calculations Mill Street Plaza Building 1. Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 18,000 2. Minimum Required Open Space @ 25% (Sq. Ft.) 3. Original Project Open Space (Sq. Ft.)' S Lower Level 1,350 ' Ground Level 3,690 9) Less Reductio D ?e to Addition (Sq. Ft.) 530 Ms. Leslie Lamont April 5, 1993 Page 8 5. Revised Original Open Space (Sq. Ft.) 4,5105 6. Current Project Open Space (sq. Ft.) 1,270 G a 0 All open space figures from takeoffs prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Archi- tects. All areas were calculated based on current floor area regulations and rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet. Regardless of which of the above arguments you believe is correct, no reduction in the building's open space will result from the proposed addition. If the area in question is determined not to be open space, then obviously no reduction will occur. If it is the staff's position that the area constitutes non - conforming open space, then its removal will not reduce the project's open space below the minimum required. As Table 3, above, indicates, the project's original open space totaled approximately five thousand and forty (5,040) square feet, or twenty -eight (28) percent of the property. The proposed addition will arguably result in the removal of approximately five hundred and thirty (530) square feet of non - conforming open space. The remaining four thousand five hundred and ten (4,510) square feet of open space, however, continues to exceed the minimum requirement of the CC zone district. As no reduction in open space will occur under either scenario, special review approval is not required. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VANN ASS• ATES Sunny Vann, i P SV:cwv Attachments c:Wus\city.app\app21092.exe CITY OF ASPEN EXHIBIT 1 PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: Yt' m 11 SCc Plow APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: c2 %'.r i \ REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: Cpl 5 - OWNER'S NAME: _ — =aa ct1 -'..w %ail_ „LA SUMMARY inn ate' ��y� . P -DX f" • 1 . - ' V � �� ' �`"`� y o 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action /type of development being requested: IN 4 / e 1 - ` %on ,ILL _ . ■ 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 4. 6; -4 4 - C Only) (P &Z then to CC) Revi is: ( 5. Public Hearing: (YES) 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: 4 .y + +r f — �9�� O a c 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: &t ..tom - t--61 7- 9‘ 3ij h 8. Anticipated date of submission: �( 9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS :C R: � �.�� ► •• %La* silk • fl • tlLS Ir �r to S! .i�� A + 11 / ( f rm.pre_app UL Ub 93 14;27'C303 9ZO 0. oo nagn I a [� EXHIBIT 2 M & W PROPERTIES SUITE 301A 205 SOUTH MILL STREET ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN. COIARADC 81611 AREA Coos 303 FMNK J. Woona III TELEPHONE 925.8032 FAx 826 -8996 December 28, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised that the Mill Street Plaza Building is owned by Mill Street Plaza Associates, which is comprised of Frank J. Woods, III and Anthony J. Mazza and a minor interest by Joan Slattum. The existing mortgage on the Mill Street Plaza Building is held by Commercial Federal Mortgage. al uiY yours, Anthony J. Mazza* AJM:dr EXHIBIT 3 March 30, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Lamont: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent Mill Street Plaza Associates in the processing of our applica- tion for a GMQS exemption to remodel the Mill Street Plaza building, which is located at 205 South Mill Street in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned appli- cation. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, An . y J, Mazza Mill Street Plaza Associates 205 South Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925 -3835 SV:cwv c:lbus\city.ItrU tr21092.111 EXHIBIT 4 ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and /V ` 7 / ' '�• (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Cic,C� exe./- /,°r7° / • (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ /, es which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT • By: a By: • Di Moore City Planning Director Date: 3' z For Planning Office Use Case Number Case Name Deposit or Flat Fee Amount: Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health: 2 k _________ _______ .... . _ ...... . . EXHIBIT 5 4••$•,-_, .....-41-k, - *mama aw a/ at cm cast I 14;44. . " or 111E Cm of Rsl. COLORADO y a .. /J /\ ;i rrr r Resolution No. �G� h�� (Series of 19 0 WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, September 1, 1980 was established as a deadline for submission of 1981 applicationsforcomnercial and office development within the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance, three commercial projects, totaling 40,420 square feet of commercial and office space, were filed for the 1981 commercial allotment of 24,000 square feet, and WHEREAS, duly- noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on September 23, 1980, and before the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1980, to consider the Growth Management applications and evaluate and score these applications in con- formance with criteria established in Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate, rank and score the projects submitted in the fol- lowing order: P and Z HPC Total AVerd a Avera e 1. Park Place Building 18 6 12.6 31.2 (8,800 square feet) 2. Ajax Mountain Associates, Bldg. #2 19 5 11.5 31.0 (11,120 square feet) 3. Mill St. Station Mall 18 7 11.7 30.7 (20,500 square feet) WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 10.3(8), the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended, and City Council concurs, that additional commercial square footage in the amount of 6,000 square feet be added to the 1981 commercial quota, and WHEREAS, City Council also wishes to utilize 10,420 square feet of prior years' unallocated quotas in order to approve all three projects, ) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of 1 Aspen, Colorado, hereby allocates commercial development allotments to the { Park Place Building in the amount of 8,800 square feet, to Ajax Mountain 1 1 $4.141x). no is chi 6 1 0104 o1 12.120 s4114re teat. and to m111 Street Station 1 " 1 ' . Nall, 1n the amount of 20,500 square feet, and that these projects are authorized to apply for any further development approvals required by the City of Aspen to secure building permits. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 4,719 square feet of additional commercial construction authorized in accordance with Section 24- 10.3(a), in conjunction with the 1980 allotments, be subtracted from the remaining unallocated quotas of prior years. Adopted by the City Councillpf the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held on November 1980. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO by �� He an Ede-, Mayor ATTEST: a ?�/ Kathryn Kec City Clerk • EXHIBIT 6 No. 3/ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET lee —13-t 6-0 P6 City of Aspen • /� J 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 4420/Rl STAFF: ( 0 /& fie- 2. APPLICANT: P1 4h'111 5. 1-10- Z:-0. --' — as -,30/3 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 1 I .11 1 10 .• 4. PROJECT NAME: ■11 Sire& Shop ;vl' Pik "-- - Seth Ri'ati 5. LOCATION: ; / ( reef As 'no . P Q .a• I nf- 1) C, F, O., N ald1, - Block el - ;✓ ! 154'1- 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. _ _Exception 8040 Greenline Exemption View Plane ,� Special Review Conditional Use _Growth Management 70:30 _HPC Residential Bonus Other }ippl ea'ion fofof FAR ' ' t ' x ;on - Cr. Y'1 , 1 or Giird6 e 1-1GU:ni. : fn,f �,eouer - for £a'en1f,/;e 7 1)ork;j,„ R /re/I•iei 7. REFERRALS: v V X Attorney Sanitation District School District X Engineering Dept. le Fire Marshal /b4 Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas X Housing Parks State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell • • 4t C;444 P on Sune a,ISVI 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: • • _ -) 9. DISPOSITI ON: / p & Z ,./ / Approved ✓ Denied I Date li, — 8 I ‘c n 1- ' n n a A? n. ,1 -n O y _P • 4 7 1 0-x'1 �' ,L (S11; - 1 , Cx( -L Tln 1S I� ?tf `� l a7 I HOC _u;* j z e--I p ' � R IQ l ��(1 _ I7. f'r !-N f'� 1 4"�. /: CC U'. , 1 54i'1!lrr VI4 I %-1 (\ e. )(q , ^r. --1-1 7s 0, ?. I r rtiy 1'T— rn -e-r. E-11 . �(' �i- ' 1'. 1 * i �` vi (� t - I 1: � Q r �, i - 1 AL. ( .S 1 n4—k �-)e . nLI tj 1 Ul f\�` . 7,`. f - 1` r Al' 1I - 470• - r S� ( _ �, r ` 1 '1,.._, eIeal V 1 0 -cl -c C 1 A0t j R "' •' • J (n �'l�� !FZ 9 r-1 I—i �.�1'l << 1 rn� / 1' t 't (11 m r of. +ts:" ss._-\ F- e. Si flCt;c .Pno - -to r e ea.t'�,'t-'=4°,U). .�8rt„,- ✓✓ ,/ Denied Date -�,., a.a 2 13 ,j, Council Approved_ I1 �kct 1 ;c l •t_I - - Q'.v l• C M I . l i ile <II il.:r7l L 4,,4a. VI'c ))\02 c,.....,1741,- r' 1J 2 t 0..A.A ,.7 4 ,1,e eiv) I -..>; on. : 11,. f ;‘,Cr . r■ s4, I 1 4 I , 3 i ,-- ' OD .1. -+t 1 M t- _ ruc- - of -E , -,0 A �'ri'.-A-- q�tA•ra.2I '1�..('t. • . (- `) S l sCCL s -kvi cii 0-. l YEC,e -.-e ta. I,t-,or t t2G2 \ t °- k I I / \, �o V .L 1 1 1 - O— - . 1' t;t Y� '°.Q lK; r-t? : La , :, I )0 tJ ✓N etn(17;J._t'y-� �c cic_ -1. . P� \ .< ;4 o-r-\ t v-\ 41 ^ ;\ _ ,."'1 • t ti-a 1 10. ROUTING: / ' Attorney = Building ✓ Engineering Other • MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT 7 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Mill Street Shopping Plaza - Exemption from GMP for Employee Houssin - DATE: June 15, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: !try c l� ( / � Cr.. f ` J ; . cf" %,/ Zoning: CC Location: Lots D, E, F, G, H and I, Block 81, City of Aspen Applicant The applicant is requesting to use a .5:1 FAR bonus for �" Request: employee housing; exemption from GMP for said employee housing; and exemption from parking requirements for said ' employee housing. Referral Engineering Department Agency Comments: 1. It should be noted that the sketch plan submitted with this application differs significantly with the corre- spondingofficelevel floor plan in the original Growth Management Submission. While the written application shows an increase in gross square footage of only eighty -six (86) square feet, the revised office level floor plan shows an increase of roughly nine hundred (900) square feet of usable office and restaurant space on that floor alone. According to the applicant's figures, both the GMP submission and this application devote all floor area in excess of the 1.5:1 to employee housing. 2. While the site would require three parking spaces to accommodate the three proposed employee studios at one space per bedroom, the site is well suited to a parking reduction, or in this case, elimination due to its location within the downtown core and proximity to public transpor- tation routes. 3. It should be noted that during the Growth Management phase of this structure I noted a deficient trash /utility access area. The applicant should be required to submit all revised floor plans to check both the trash area and other increases in commercial floor area. Housing Director No comments received. City Attorney 1. Permission to use a .5 to 1 FAR bonus for employee housing is subject to the special review criteria of Section 24 -3.5. .2:1 additional commercial space is allowed if .3:1 of the space is approved for residential space in accordance with housing price guidelines enacted pursuant to Section 24- 11.4(b)(3). 2. Employee units are exempted under 24- 11.2(g) if constructed in the commercial office and lodge districts pursuant to award of density bonus as provided above and the units are constructed and deed restricted to conform to housing price guidelines enacted pursuant to Section 24- 11.4(b)(3). 3. Off- street parking requirements for all low, moderate and . middle income housing units approved and deed restricted within Section 24- 11.4(b)(3) are established by special review of the City Council upon the recommendation of the P & Z pursuant to Section 24 -4.1. Memo: Mill Street Shopping Plaza - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing Page Two June 15, 1981 Planning The Mill Street Station Project was submitted for Growth Office Management Plan competition in September of 1980. The Review: result of that competition was an allotment for 20,500 square feet of new commercial space in addition to the retention of 6500 square feet of existing commercial space. Three employee apartments were included in the plan, but would be part of a floor area ratio bonus, which requires special review. One of these units was of substandard size, however. The present configuration of the building reflects several changes, the most major of which is removal of the existing Mill Street Station and construction of a totally new struc- ✓ ture. This new direction was reviewed by HPC and approved on February 10, 1981. Copland, Hagman, Yaw Ltd. is the architectural firm designing the project. Recent changes in the design are explained in a letter, dated May 20, 1981, from their firm: "As the project proceeded from Design Documents into Construction Documents, the building necessarily evolved. Starting with the Lower Level, the building was put on a structural grid. In the process, many walls moved slightly to align with structure above, and the foundation was "straightened out." At the Main and Upper Levels, stairways have been reorganized to comply with the U.B.C. and the steps at the Mill Street Arcade have become ramps for handicapped access. A programming change in the restaurant dictated using a dumb waiter instead of the elevator. Finally, with an additional stairway replacing the elevator, both the Upper Level Restaurant and office spaces are provided with the required two exits without the long circula- tion corridor as proposed earlier." These changes constitute the following square foot totals: Lower Level = 8,160 Square Feet Main Level = 12,675 Square Feet Upper Level = 7,943 Square Feet Total = 28,778 Square Feet Living Units = 1,794 Square Feet Total Retail /Commercial = 26,984 Square Feet The total project square footage has increased by 228 square .feet, with the employee housing units increasing a total of \/\ 244 square feet. The three units are now 548, 530, and 548 square feet respectively. These employee units are studios and are within the parameters outlined in the Code (400-600/ square feet). Retail /commercial space has decreased by j 16 square feet. If approved, the employee units will be f 7 part of a .5:1 FAR bonus, with the applicant electing not to take advantage of the bonus commercial square footage "- allowable. Planning The Planning Office recommends the following action: Office - ____._j Recommendation:. Approval of the exemption from Growth Management for the employee units in the Mill Street Station project, and approval to build these into the project as part of the .5:1 FAR bonus available. This approval must be conditioned upon deed restricting these employee units as per Sec. 20 -22 of the Aspen Municipal Code and recordation of these deed restrictions prior to receipt of a building permit. The Planning Office recommends that these deed restrictions be held to the low income category of the Housing Authority guidelines. i Memo: Mill Street Shopping Plaza - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing Page Three June 15, 1981 P & Z Action: At its regular meeting on June 2, 1981, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the exemption from GMP for the employee units as part of the .5:1 FAR bonus. This approval is conditioned upon deed restricting these employee housing units as per Sec. 20 -22 at the low income level and recordation of these deed restrictions prior to receipt of a building permit. Council Action: Should Council concur with the Planning Office and P & Z's recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: • "I move to exempt from GMP the employee units in the Mill Street Shopping Plaza subject to the following conditions: 1. Deed restricting the employee housing units as per Sec. 20 -22 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 2. That these deed restrictions be for the low income category of the Housing Authority guidelines. 3. That these deed restrictions be recorded prior to receipt of a building permit." ■ /✓i W•tJ4: /..in.{l I /1 I't -` - ` r J • • EXHIBIT 8 r RESOLUTION NO.=; (Series of 1987) A RESOLUTION GRANTING A COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENT TO GORDON'S RESTAURANT IN THE MILL STREET STATION BUILDING THROUGH THE 1987 CC /C -1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24- 11.5(a) of the Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for commercial development allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, one application was submitted for evaluation in the CC and C -1 competition category, entitled Gordon's Restaurant Expansion, requesting 1,033 square feet; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on September 22, 1987 to consider the CC and C -1 GMP Competition, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the project; and WHEREAS, the Gordon's Restaurant project met the minimum threshold of 25.8 points by scoring 26 points; and WHEREAS, due to exemptions from the commercial quota, there is less than thirty (30 %) percent of the original quota available in the CC and C -1 zone district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(k) of the Municipal Code, a minimum of thirty (30 %) percent of the original quota shall be available; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant in scoring the project and granting special review approvals for bonus floor area ratio and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves reduction in required trash and utilities service area, including but not limited to the following: 1. The additional space from the enclosure is designed primarily for additional waiting room in Gordon's and will allow for 34 bar seats and 113 seats in the restaurant, compared to the existing capacity of 4 bar seats and 105 restaurant seats. 2. Architectural features of the addition include a maximum height of 28 feet, significant transparency, setback from the existing masonry parapet surrounding the deck, and a new external staircase, as meet final review approval by the Historic Preservation Committee. 3. The exterior staircase shall be constructed according to diagramatic design option #8 approved by the Commission on September 29, 1987, containing all drainage within the staircase and channeling it into a single drain. 4. Energy conservation features of the project include: thermal insulation which exceeds the City's require- ments of R -20 in floors, walls and ceilings as specif- ied in proposed standards in the application, heavily insulated hot water lines, and water saving fixtures in the new restrooms. 5. Five (5) large planters filled with evergreen shrubs and flowering plants will be placed at street level in the setback area along Hopkins Street, as shown in the application. Smaller planter boxes will be placed on the second level deck area at the present entry. 6. A bicycle rack similar in design to the existing rack on the site will be provided and installed at the applicant's expense in a location where the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission has identified a need for one, as determined by CCLC prior to issuance of a building permit for the addition. 7. The applicant agrees to provide either a fourth trash dumpster in a configuration where it is physically possible to be filled, as determined by the Engineering Department, or a trash compactor. The trash arrange- ment shall be determined prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 j 100 Leaves 8. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit for employee housing cash -in -lieu to house 5.25 employees. An agreement shall be made, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit, stating the arrangement by which a cash payment shall be made by the applicant to house the equivalent of 100% of all new employees generated, based on two affidavits provided to the Housing Authority to verify the number of employees at the restaurant. The first affidavit shall verify the number of employees in the year prior and the second affidavit shall verify the number of employees for the year following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed addition. (The affidavit commitment reads as amended by City Council on October 26, 1987.) 9. The three studio employee units in Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appropriate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure proper occupancy and rental rates. 10. The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the Building Department a mechanized means for handicapped access to the second floor restaurant functioning during the hours of restaurant operation. ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the recommended Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scoring for this project does wish to grant the requested allotment to Gordon's. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that 1,033 square feet of the CC /C -1 zone district commercial quota is hereby allocated to Gordon's in the Mill Street Station building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, i 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Colorado that this allocation shall expire pursuant to Section 24- 11.7(a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans, specifica- tions and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the proposed expansion are not submitted on or before May 1, 1990. Dated: AHAe-n-C-1.-e-A,) /7, 1987. /7/ & ? William L. Stirling, Mayo I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a meeting to be held on the cas5 day of 4%if24-4Lt/L) , 1987. ) J Kathryn S. och, City Clerk sb.log 4 EXHIBIT 9 CASE DISPOSITION GORDON'S RESTAURANT EXPANSION (MILL STREET STATION) HPC: HPC reviewed the proposal for historic compatibility on July 27, 1987 and granted conceptual review approval subject to the condition that the applicant further address at final HPC review transparency of the addition and seating back the addition from Hopkins Street. On October 13, 1987 Final HPC review was granted to the proposal as presented subject to the condition that the mica slate tiles be replaced by plum slate tiles. P &Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the Gordon's application on September 22, 1987. The project received a score of 26 points, which exceeds the minimum threshold of 25.8 points. Also considered and approved by P &Z were the following special reviews: a. Bonus FAR: P &Z approved the request for bonus FAR subject to the conditions that: 1. The three studio employee units in the Mill Street Station shall be properly occupied under the appro- priate employee housing guidelines to be verified by the Zoning Official and Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit . The leases for all employee units in the building shall henceforth be subject to review every six months by the Housing Authority to insure property occupancy and rental rats. 2. The exterior staircase shall be constructed according to design option #8 approved by P &Z on September 29, 1987, containing all drainage within the staircase and channeling it into a single drain. b. Reduction in trash and utilities area: P &Z approved a reduc- tion of the trash and utilities access area subject to the condition that the applicant agrees to provide either a fourth trash dumpster in a configuration where it is physically possible to be filled, as determined by the Engineering Department, or a trash compactor. CITY COUNCIL: On October 12, 1987 City Council adopted Resolution 87 -24 (attached) allocating commercial GMP allotment to Gordon's Restaurant. sb.commquota2 VANN ASSOCIATES „ ' )i Planning Consu ) J May 24, 1993 J Ij i HAND DELIVERED Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza Building Open Space Dear Leslie: As you requested, summarized below is our position with respect to the applicability of the City's open space regulations to the proposed remodel of the Mill Street Plaza Building. Please note that we have based our position upon the Planning Office's concept of "non - conforming” open space. 1. The Mill Street Plaza building was constructed in compliance with the open space regulations in effect at the time the building permit was issued in 1981. The amount of open space exceeded the minimum requirement of the underlying CC, Commercial Core, zone district. 2. The majority of the building's original open space became non - conforming with the adoption of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in 1988. Although the build- ing's original open space continues to function as open space, various areas became non - conforming with respect to the design criteria (e.g., maximum depth below grade, etc.) imposed under the definition of open space which is contained in Section 3 -101. 3. The building's open space, however, did not become non - conforming with respect to the minimum open space requirement of Section 5- 210.D.9. (i.e., the dimen- sional requirements of the CC zone district). The building's original open space exceeded the CC zone district's minimum twenty-five (25) percent requirement. While portions of the building's existing open space are arguably non-conforming with respect to various provisions of the open space definition, the amount of open space continues to exceed the minimum requirement. 4. Section 7- 404.A.3. permits a reduction in open space below the minimum requirement of the CC zone district subject to special review approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This provision, however, is not triggered unless an Applicant wishes to provide less than the twenty-five (25) percent open 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen. Colorado 8161 •303'925 -6958 • Fax 303,920 -9310 Ms. Leslie Lamont May 24, 1993 Page 2 space requirement. For example, if a project contained thirty (30) percent open space, all of which is conforming, a reduction to twenty-eight (28) percent would not necessitate special review approval. 5. Although portions of the Mill Street Plaza building's open space are non-con- forming with respect to various definitional requirements, it exceeds the mini- mum twenty-five (25) percent dimensional requirement of the CC zone district. A reduction, therefore, which does not reduce the building's open space below the minimum dimensional requirement does not require special review approval. 6. Pursuant to Section 3 -101, a "non - conforming structure" is a legally established structure which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. Pursuant to Section 9- 103.C.1., the City's non-conform- ing structure regulations, a non - conforming structure cannot be extended or enlarged so as to increase a non-conformity. 7. As the Applicant's proposed remodel will not reduce the building's open space below the minimum twenty-five (25) percent requirement, no increase in non- conformity with respect to the dimensional requirements of the CC zone district will occur. The proposed remodel, therefore, complies with the non - conforming structure requirements of the Regulations. 8. With respect to the various requirements imposed under the definition of open space, I believe that the requirements are design criteria which should be applied to new development, as they are intended to dictate the type of open space we apparently want in today's projects. You also asked that I recalculate the building's open space to reflect the reduction which occurred in connection with the 1987 Gordon's Restaurant bar addition. Please note that the original figures which I provided contained an error in Cottle Graybeal Yaw's open space takeoff. The correct figures are included in Table 1, below. Table 1 Open Space Calculations Mill Street Plaza Building 1. Lot Area (sq. Ft.) 18,000 2. Minimum Required Open Space 4,500 @ 25% (Sq. Ft.) 3. Original Project Open Space (Sq. Ft.)' 5,310 Lower Level 1,620 Main Level 3,690 Ms. Leslie Lamont May 24, 1993 Page 3 4. Less 1987 Gordon's Reduction (Sq. Ft.) 380 5. Revised Original Open Space (Sq. Ft.) 4,930 6. Remaining Open Space above 25% (Sq. Ft.) 430 1 From takeoffs prepared by Cottle Graybeal Yaw, Architects. 2 From Joe Wells' 1987 commercial GMQS application for Gordon's Restaurant. As the table indicates, the amount of open space located on the building's lower level has increased. As a result, the building's total open space is now virtually identical to the open space figure provided in the Gordon's Restaurant 1987 commercial GMQS application (i.e., 5,310 sq. ft. versus 5,306 sq. ft.). That application also indicated that approximately hundred and eighty (380) square feet of open space would be lost as a result of the Gordon's Restaurant addition. The building's remaining open space presently exceeds the minimum twenty -five (25) percent requirement by approximately four hundred and thirty (430) square feet. To avoid reducing the building's open space below the minimum allowed, the Applicant will revise the design of the proposed remodel to eliminate approximately one hundred (100) square feet. As a result, special review should not be required. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VANN ASS IATES : 1a unny , CP V:ewv aWus\ci ty.ItrUtr21092.u2 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Bill: That helps us understand why you took that approach. Jake: If we find that the mansard roof is a better plan we can give a FAR variation to accommodate that calculation. Straw Poll on proposed roof shape and height as presented; five members in favor. Two opposed. Wayne: Some glazing is important. MOTION: Joe made the motion to grant conceptual approval for 232 E. Hallam and that the applicant be directed to restudy the windows and possibly look at the height of the addition; second by Roger. Les: A revision would be the only way I would vote for this. To me this addition is not soft and needs more work. It is too abrupt and too much visually. Joe: There is one group that likes it to relate to the old and one group that likes simplicity and to have it relate to the new and this is something in between that doesn't seem to fit. You need to sell this to us. Motion withdrawn. Jake: The job is to relate to the historical resource not relate to the old addition. I am clear on that. Pull out details on the historical structure that you like and simplify and bring them into the new addition that you are doing. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development approval for 496 sq. feet to the Vigoda addition of 232 E. Hallam with the condition that the applicant restudy the fenestration (windows) on the north elevation; second by Jake. Jake: I would like to add restudy of the roof form (mansard roof). Roger: I feel that is included in the motion. Chairman Bill Poss called the question: Carried 5 to 2 - Opposed were Les and Don. Linda didn't vote. Wayne: I may do a model of just the addition for the next meeting. 205 S. MILL - MILL ST. PLAZA - CONCEPTUAL - PUBLIC HEARING Roxanne: The applicant is requesting an addition of around 875 sq. feet. A facade addition to the Mill St. plaza. This parcel is not designated but is located within the Commercial Core Historic 5 C Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 District. A pre -ap was held with the HPC at your last meeting. This is similar as the last presentation of addition something on to an addition that does not meet the standards. The first standard is character and compatibility to the adjacent parcel. The Mill St. Plaza is surrounded by six landmarks particularly the Katie Reid. The proposed addition is a ground level addition that project out 10 feet closer to the street edge. We find that is appropriate to have pedestrian traffic close to the sidewalk. The east elevation of the Mill St. Plaza meets the standards, the north elevation is very problematic and those were the issues that were dealt with. In regard to proportion, store front, pedestrian interaction, how the cross walk connection works, stairway, detailing, materials all those issues. We recommend a massing model be presented so you can see clearly how this will work. Because of these issues we find that Standard number 1 has not been met. Standard number 2 is character compatibility within the neighborhood which is the entire commercial core district and we also have a concern here particularly the pedestrian/ cross flow traffic and the elimination of the stairs which has entirely changed the way the entire building is working from the north. Also how the storefront windows work. The guidelines are listed beside the memo as a check list as to what works and what doesn't and why. Other concerns are listed in the memo. Standard number ( 3 deals with the cultural value and that standard can go either way. Enhances or detracts from the cultural value of particularly the Katie Reid project. Standard number 4 deals with architectural integrity of the designated landmark. Our recommendation is to table and continue to a date certain to allow the applicant time to restudy per direction of the HPC. Larry Yaw, architect: This is an addition of around 875 sq. ft. The north side of the building is problematic in its present state as it has no street level entry. The display levels windows are eye level or above them and the existing stair is not an invitation to enter (too grand). The open space is not inviting. With that addition we intend to mitigate all those negatives and get a better relationship with the Katie Reid building. At the heart of the character of the building what can we intensify upon and make it a stronger personality. We did that and one of the major steps was to take the slate that is the exterior material for the building above and we brought it down into a significantly into this building so the entire facade would have the slate. There are awnings proposed. We took the dark red /brown material down into the building. Joe: What treatment are you doing on the window? Larry: We are enlarging and making bigger windows but the material will be the same as the existing brick. 6 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Roger: Are both entrances on the Hopkins Street side airlocked? Larry: Yes. Roger: How far out are the three windows going to be bayed? Larry: Four inches, like a relief sculpture to break up the hard edge. Roger: There was talk about a kickplate under the windows? Larry: I do not consider it to be an important detail under a window within a brick wall. Larry: Kickplates are to protect something. Roger: Do you feel the proportions of the windows to the scale of the building is right on? Larry: Close enough to right on because in our research generally the windows on the lower floors were dominantly glass, historic reference. Roger: Is there room for benches? Larry: Around the project there is but not on sidewalk. Don: Is the area on the north west going to be reversible to an entrance in case of multiple tenancy? Larry: Yes, depending on who will be in there. Right now we may not have a door there and just put in a window. Roger: Would you mind having a door even though the north west is not an entrance, similar to the GAP? Larry: I have no problem with that but will discuss with owners. Roger: You don't show any lighting on the outside? Larry: There is low illumination up /down lights. CLARIFICATIONS Karen: The elimination of the north south mid -block crossing, would you explain that. Larry: The stairs are eliminated and I do not feel people use that 7 Historic Preservation Committee C Minutes of February 10, 1993 area at all. Leslie Lamont, Planner: It is a great way to connect midblock to the Wheeler etc. In the definition of open space it talks about mid -block pedestrian loops. Bill: This is a zoning issue and was it a previous application GMQS application or what? Leslie: I have not gotten an application from the applicant and when I do will review all the files. Larry: We cannot afford to solve all the problems of this building with this little addition. Bill: If this is an historic element then we would review it but if it is a P &Z issue then they should review it. Sunny Vann: OUr position would be that it is still a mid -block connection and we are prepared to argue that at P &Z and at the time we will be requesting to be exempt from the open space which is being eliminated by this addition. You should act on the application based on the architecture. This whole project is premised on the elimination of that entrance and maintaining the other stairwell which is 50 feet away and is an L turn. We would ask that you review it based on the submittal. If the Board feels closing the open space in front of the building is problematic that is an appropriate comment. Roxanne: Character compatibility within the district means a lot of things. If the Board feels this is an important thing that deals with the character of the community and how this building contributes to character then you do need to address it. This is a design consideration. COMMENTS Jake: I support this move. I feel the problems that Larry outlined are true. That open space is a no mans land and is useless as it is on the north side. I am in favor and like the differentiation of using slate and establishing its own statement but relating to the overall structure around it. Roger: I believe this project meets all the guidelines. I also like the use of the materials and solves the solution for the owner and the building. It softens and works well. I would request that the west entrance which is not an entrance but could be is in fact an entrance and always would be and the reason for that is that I would like to see the ability to pass through that area. 8 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of February 10, 1993 Don: I have to take this as an addition to an existing building. I feel Larry has handled it very well and agree with Roger that the two entrances should serve as entrances. They definitely should be doors. Bringing it out to the sidewalk is a benefit. Karen: What you have done is an improvement. From a compatibility standard I feel the arched awning is much stronger as it links the second part of the building to the first part. I also feel the massing is long and plain in comparison with the massing of the adjacent building. I feel the building would be more compatible if the plane were broken up more in whatever way. I also agree that the windows should be brought down. I also liked the second stairway and it is too bad it has to go. Joe: I also feel that it meets the standards with respect to the adjacent properties in my opinion; by bringing out the building you encourage people to walk down the street. I also feel there should be the two entries. Les: I feel you are going in the right direction but personally would like to see a restudy of the massing windows. I feel the length should be broken up. Linda: I agree with most of the comments made and feel it is compatible with the mother building. I am pleased with bringing it out to enhance the flow. Bill: I agree with the committee members and feel this is a remodel of an existing building. I had a few problems with the corner entrances because historically we only allow corner entrances on corners and this is mid -block but the committee is in support. I would rather have seen corner windows and a central entrance. By bringing the building out it strengthens the street a- lignment. The clipping of the corners allow the architect to soften it as we go back to the Lily Reid on the west end and open his entrance to the mini mall where the stairs occur. The materials are a good choice. MOTION: Roger made the motion that HPC grant conceptual development for the 875 sq. feet plus or minus facade to the Mill Street Plaza building 205 S. Mill with the following two conditions: 1) The west entry is in fact an entry with a door. 2) Either through use of materials or brick a restudy is done to show the verticality of the building; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carries. Karen didn't vote. 9 Historic Preservation Committee / Minutes of February 10, 1993 1 Bill stepped down. Joe chaired. PROJECT- MONITORING Joe: 801 is almost done and they may tear it down. 612 W. Main, nothing is happening. Lily Reid is coming along and Larry Yaw will check the mortar sampling this week. MOTION: Roger made the motion to adjourn; second by Linda. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Assistant City Clerk 10 LIC . ti... ( l A (1 c _ < ff 1 MEMORANDUM V A 5 ) ` ,-� TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission �Il' . . FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Mill Street Plaza Special Review for Reduction of Open Space DATE: May 18, 1993 SUMMARY: Mill Street Plaza Associates request a reduction in required open space. Open space may be reduced in the Commercial Core by Special Review from the Commission. APPLICANT: Mill Street Plaza Associates as represented by Sunny Vann LOCATION: 205 South Mill Street, Aspen ZONING: CC - Commercial Core APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To reduce the required open space of the Mill Street Plaza building. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Historic Preservation Committee reviewed the proposed addition and granted conceptual approval. Members of the HPC believed the existing open space was useless as it is north facing, bringing the building to the sidewalk enhances the pedestrian experience and fits better with the rest of the building. STAFF COMMENTS: Proposal - According to the application, the applicant proposes to remodel a portion of the building's Hopkins Street facade. The addition will extend 9 feet to the property line and enclose the westerly stair arcade. The remodel will increase the building's floor area by approximately 879 square feet. Approximately 840 square feet of the addition will be considered net leasable. However, the applicant proposes to convert undesirable net leasable space, on the ground floor, to tenant storage space. Therefore the remodel is not considered an increase in net leasable space. Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 of the code, the expansion of a commerical use which does not increase the net leasable square footage is a GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director. The applicant shall receive a GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits. Background - In 1981 -1982 when the building was built, it conformed with the open space requirement as open space was defined in the code. The addition of the stairs to Gordon's in 1987 reduced the open space by 530 square feet. The code was amended in 1988 and the definition of open space was changed which effectively rendered the Mill Street Plaza nonconforming with respect to open space. The 4,510 square feet of conforming open space was reduced, according to the plans submitted with this application, to 1,270 square feet which is 7% of the building site. Note: the Zoning Officer believes there is more conforming open space that may be counted than is indicated on the plans. Table 1 Yr. Sq. Ft. % Conforming Open Space 1981 5,040 28 % 1987 4,510 25% 1993 1,270 7% Nonconforming Open Space - The applicant contends that the addition does not reduce required open space because the area to be enclosed is nonconforming open space according to the definition of open space in the code. The Planning Department agrees that the westerly staircase is non - conforming open space because it is more than 4 feet above existing grade of the street and it does not have a minimum frontage on the street of one -half the length of the lot or one hundred feet whichever is less. The Department also agrees that the area in front of the building on the Hopkins Street side, which the new addition is proposed to extend into, is non - conforming open space because the westerly staircase breaks up the minimum frontage on Hopkins Street. However, it is staff's position that although the open space is nonconforming it is still open space that meets several aspects of the open space definition. Article 9. Nonconformities of the Land Use Regulations clearly states that nonconformities shall not be extended or enlarged. Therefore, the proposed addition will extend and enlarge the nonconformity of the Mill Street Plaza's open space. Enclosure of the westerly stairs and the addition onto the Hopkins Street facade will increase the nonconformity by obstructing the open space from the ground to the sky, reducing the minimum depth, eliminating the area from open to view from the street at the pedestrian level, and eliminating a mid -block pedestrian link. 2 Reduction of Open Space by Special Review - Pursuant to Section 24- 7 -404 A.3., required open space in the commercial core may be reduced if the applicant demonstrates that the provision of less than the required amount of open space on -site will be more consistent with the character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open space according to the standard. When the Commission determines the open space is inappropriate on the site, it may be reduced or waived if the applicant makes a payment -in- lieu into a separate interest bearing account to be used solely for the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes within or adjacent to the Commercial Core zone district. The following guidelines may be considered: 1. It may be appropriate to have open space on the site when the building is located on a street corner. RESPONSE: Although the building is a corner building, the area to be enclosed is in the middle of the block. 2. The open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian amenities. RESPONSE: The westerly staircase serves not only as an additional entrance to the interior of the Mill Street Plaza, but also as a mid -block connector to the Wheeler Opera House open space parcel. However, the applicant has contended that the connector is rarely used. 3. The open space provides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic land mark. RESPONSE: The Lily Reid cottage used to be adjacent to the Mill Street Plaza. In 1992 the cottage was relocated to a prominent position on the corner of Hopkins and Monarch. 4. The open space is intended for a particular functional purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree. RESPONSE: The only functional aspect of the space to be enclosed are the westerly stairs. However, there will remain three more entrances to the Plaza, one on the Mill Street side, the primary entrance on Hopkins and the service entrance off the alley. But as mentioned above the mid -block connector will be eliminated. The HPC recommended that the southwest corner of the new addition, the area that will enclose the staircase, be designed in such a manner as to install a door if future pedestrian traffic should warrant. 3 5. Open space may be inappropriate on the site when other buildings along the street front are built to the property line. RESPONSE: The redevelopment of the Lily Reid parcel is not built to the property line and a small portion of the Plaza building next to the Lily Reid development is not built to the property line. The portion of the Plaza that is currently occupied by Eddie Bauer is built to the property line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special review for the reduction in open space for 205 South Mill Street finding that the nonconforming open space does not protect a historic resource, is not on a corner, and the majority of this space is nonfunctional. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall receive a GMQS Exemption from the Planning Director. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu for deposit in a separate interest bearing account to be used solely for the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes within or adjacent to the Commercial Core zone district. Said payment -in -lieu shall be assessed based upon the formula outlined in Section 24 -7 -404 A.3. of the Municipal Code and approved by the Planning Department. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall receive final approval from the Historic Preservation Committee for the new addition. 4. All representations made in the application or by the applicant at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting shall be adhered to during development. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Special Review for the reduction of open space for 205 S. Mill Street with the conditions as outlined in Planning Office memo dated May 18, 1993 finding that the nonconforming open space does not protect a historic resource, it is not on a corner, and the majority of this space is nonfunctional." ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Site Plan 4 I f 1 t � 14, u • U � n t . I 0 WI + t W Ir gq'I I 1 L � d ! it W 1 - I.4 I � 3 1 W e o b' z 1 :� N O I _^ �s ► �0 ter, W Ea — — I I I:'I IQ_ IOW' t x • ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5197 April 27, 1993 Sunny Vann Vann Associates 230 E. Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Mill Street Plaza GMQS Exemption and Special Review for Open Space Case A22 -93 Dear Sunny, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 18, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case at 920 -5101. Sincerely, Suzanne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant • formsvin no pia ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Zoning Administration Building Inspector FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Mill Street Plaza GMQS Exemption & Special Review for Open Space Parcel ID No. 2737 - 073 -38 -004 DATE: April 27, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Mill Street Plaza Associates. Please return your comments to me as soon as possible. Thank you.