HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Mezzaluna.600 E Cooper.10A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11‘10/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: /i//bi `y 2737- 182 -25 -005 107A -89
STAFF MEMBER: 7
PROJECT NAME: Mezzaluna GMOS Exemption
Project Address: 600 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Charif Souki
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Daniel Puricelli
Representative Address /Phone: 5 -5882
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $50.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ✓ Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
✓ Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D. �Q
DATE REFERRED: /02609 INITIALS : /✓eg
FINAL ROUTING DATE ROUTED: / / /a-1/ ao INITIAL
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
K Housing Other: //�� pp 7 / O
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: r/f701'1re� /`?o fl ftSo `G -9
Closing Memo to File
Mezzaluna GMQS Exemption for Commercial Expansion
Date: August 21, 1990 From: Kim Johnson, Planner frialliffiti9OP7
On July 3 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
commercial expansion of 168 s.f. in the basement of 600 E. Cooper
for use as a bakery /prep area. The area was previously used as
storage, which did not count as commercial lease square footage.
Conditions of the approval are:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete set of bakery plans and
$75.00 filing fee to the Environmental Health Department for
their review and approval.
2. The items referenced in the Environmental Health inspection
report dated 11/21/89 must be corrected and reinspected prior to
final approval for use of the remodeled space.
Prior to issuance of any Building Permits:
3. At the applicant's option, the applicant shall deed restrict
a dwelling unit to the satisfaction of the Housing Authority for
one (1) person or pay to the Housing Authority for processing to
the City Finance Department an affordable housing impact fee of
$8,750.00 (.35 employee.)
4. The applicant shall notify by letter the landowner of the
encumbrances of parking fee / cash -in -lieu payment for further
increase in net leasable square footage.
7/g790
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MEZZOLUNA GMQS E7EMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL
EXPANSION LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET
Resolution No. 90- 9
WHEREAS, R.C.T., Inc. represented by Gideon Kaufman, P.C.
submitted an application to the Commission to convert 168 square
feet of basement storage to bakery area in the Mezzoluna
Restaurant at 600 E. Cooper (Lots K,L,M Block 100); and
WHEREAS, the existing basement storage area does not count
toward net leasable square footage but the proposed 168 square
foot bakery area counts as new leasable area; and
WHEREAS, Section 8 -104 B.1.a. of the Aspen Land Use Code
(revised date August 1989) allows the Commission to approve
cumulative expansions up to 500 square feet of net leasable
square footage within a structure as Exemptions to the Growth
Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office reviewed the application and
referral comments from Environmental Health and recommended
approval with conditions including mitigation of employee
generation and parking impacts (.25 space) should be made by the
applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant argued that parking mitigation should
not be initiated until .5 space is required by the use; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 168 square foot
expansion as a GMP Exemption with conditions, requiring
mitigation for employee generation of .35 employee but not for
.25 parking space.
) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
Y +
L✓
That it does hereby approve the Mezzoluna GMQS Exemption for
Commercial Expansion less than 500 square feet with conditions as
follows:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete set of bakery plans and
$75.00'filing fee to the Environmental Health Department for
their review and approval.
2. The items referenced in the Environmental Health inspection
report dated 11/21/89 must be corrected and reinspected prior to
final approval for use of the remodeled space.
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
3. At the applicant's option, the applicant shall deed restrict
a dwelling unit to the satisfaction of the Housing Authority for
one (1) person or pay to the Housing Authority for processing to
the City Finance Department an affordable housing impact fee of
$8,750.00 (.35 employee.)
4. The applicant shall notify by letter the landowner of the
encumbrances of parking fee / cash -in -lieu payment for further
increase in net leasable square footage.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 3,
1990.
01 1 / / 2/11 019214
Welton Ander-on, Chair Jan Carney, Asst. City Clerk
jtkvj /mezzoluna.reso
}MINUTES
JUNE 5, & JUNE 19, 1990
Jasmine made a motion to approve these minutes.
Richard seconded the motion wityh all in favor.
UTE PARR SUBDIVISION, CONCEPTUAL PUD AND REZONING
PUBLIC NEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim Johnson made presentation. (attached in record)
This is the first affordable housing project that we have been
able to process so far. It is a private secter development of a
mix of affordable housing units and free market units. The
breakdown is 7 free market and 16 deed restricted.
Tom Stevens, architect for applicant: There was discussion
regarding the placement of the buildings with regard to avalanche
danger, architecture, vegetation, impact of the plan on the site
and the neighborhood.
We do not have room for surface parking. We will have
underground parking for the units. As we get deeper into the
hillside with the parking garage we cut it off at 20 underground
parking spaces for the deed restricted units with the remaining
12 on surface.
One of the recommendations of the Planning Staff is that we re-
work the surface parking. I agree with them. I can do a better
job with the design of that parking so that it does not back
right out onto Ute Avenue.
20 is a realistic number because what it edoes is anything past
20 we get into structural gymnastics on the parking structure
itself and gets beyond the point to where it is economically
feasable.
20 provides 1 space per unit for each one of the deed restricted
units and there are 4 they can fight over for a second car. All
of the parking for the free market units has been designed in the
parking garage. And we have now added 6 guest spaces.
The free market element of this is now designated for 7 3,000sgft
units. They are now in a 3 bedroom configuration. The deed
restricted units will need to see in the upper end of the middle
income classification which right not is $124sgft which comes out
at $136,000 per unit.
Without the free market element in this project, the deed
restricted units do not get built. They require a subsidy.
There is no way that we can provide a parking garage and the type
Welton: As far as the interesting gateway is concerned I think S
curves really do that beautifully. They slow you down and by the
turning of that last corner SLAM! there is Main streen right in
front of you.
Roxanne: What an idea! Why didn't we think of that?
Welton: I think we need to have another elelction on that one.
Baker: We probably will.
Richard: On the buses I think better bus stops, better
explanations posted- -when the buses go would augment the kind of
thing that Roger is talking about. Now there is that little sign
and it doesn't give schedules or anything. People tend not to
use it so I think a real bus stop with a bench or whatever.
Baker: Use friendliness.
Graeme: I would think that the new bridge coming into town would
be the appropriate place to do something. I think how that
bridge is designed - -it that is poorly designed - -a basic kind of
highway and then there is somelthing erected a block there, that
is going to read very ticky - tackily. It is the bridge itself
that -- Castle Creek - -that is a very powerful place that is - -and
maybe there is some light standards across the bridge -- something
over the bridge.
Baker: You are right. The bridge has to be part of that
transition.
Roger: And the protection of the vegetation just as you get on
this side of the bridge as much as possible because that is old
mature vegetation which gives you that sort of gateway into town.
Welton: That is all going to come down.
Doug Alan: I seems like there ought to be a visitor information
center before you get to the bridge somewhere on that property.
That would be the ideal place to put it.
Someone was saying something here. Impossible to hear him.
Baker: We will come back to you with summarization of what we
have tonight and what we hear from thge committee and Council as
well.
Welton closed the public hearing.
MEZZALUNA GMOS EXEMPTION
Kim Johnson made presentation. (attached in record)
.... .........
/Ch
Planning Office does recommend approval with conditions.
Welton asked applicant if they had concerns with conditions.
Gideon: I have no problems with the first 2 conditions. We do
have a problem with conditions 3 and 4 which relate to the
employee housing and parking.
First of all you have regulations that are set up in the growth
management plan when you are going to build something we don't
know what is going to be generated. We don't know thefacts. So
what we do is we set up a criteria that says there is going to be
some amount of employees generated from the development and we
set a range. In this particular case you have a set fact patter.
We have arestaurant that is in existance. We have 168 feet below
grade that we wnat to allow the bakery chef to use. Right now
what happens is you have 3 chefs competing for the same space.
You have got the prep chef. You have got your salad chef. You
have got your baker chef all in the same area. There is no new
employees. What we are going to do is we are going to enhance
their working ocnidtions.
What we are doing is we are moving it down - -in reality we know
what is going on. We know that the 3 chefs are going to not have
to compete at the same time. The restaurant is not increasing
it's seating. It is not increasing it's employees. It is just
going to make its work situation better.
We are even willing to say that if the use ever changes from a
restaurant to some other kind of use then we have to come back in
front of you to discuss at that particular imte because then
there could be some kind of employee generation. But given this
fact pattern we know that there will be no new employees
generated. And as long as it stays that way we don't see why we
should have to pay any fee.
In the GMP Regulations itself on page 830 under Commercial Spaces
it talks about that if it is determined that the proposed
development generates no new employees it shall be awarded the
full 15 points available. So even whenyou compete in the GMP
there is a acknowledgment that some development doesn't create
employees and it doesn't say you have got to pay X amount of
money to get your points. So to me that is an understanding that
there can be a situation where no new employees are generated and
you shouldn't have to pay for additional employees.
The same thing with parking. Giving the bakery chef some kind of
opportunity to have a good working condition I don't see how in
any kind of way incurs any kind of parking increase. So I think
what we have here is an issue of form over substance. I think
thereality here is there are no new emploiyees. There are no new
parking spaces and as long as we are williong to commit that as
long as thi Buse stays that is the way it is going to be it seems
to me fine, you are protected.
Baker: Gideon always has very good arguements. The bottome line
is that GMQS is imperfect too. I can guarantee that no one is
going to come in here and say "Even though the code doesn't
require it, I an going to give you additional employee housing
mitigation and initial parking mitigation because this is the
fact pattern ".
We very clearly and consistantly have gotten employee housing
impacts on thesemodest expansions. The last application to come
through is the Explore. And they paid something like $23
thousand dollars. So we are being consistant with that in terms
of affordable housing. In terms of the parking mitigation that
section of the code says that they are going to mitigate for the
demand that they arecreating. And we could be seeing 168sgft now
but we could see 332sgft in the future and they would still be
allowed to come under 6this exemption process. The total is
accumulation of 500sgft additional and we will never get any
parking impact mitigations. The whole intent of the cash -in -lieu
was to be put in place so that we could get stuff from the
downtown whether it is fractional or total spaces. We are paying
for the parking structure and the parking structure is a benefit
for the whole community esp3ecially for the downtown. So we feel
we are being fair and consistant.
Welton: So your point is that if we would waive the employee
housing impact fee it would be unlike other applicants in similar
situations.
Roger: Isn't a restaurant a conditional use in the C -1 and if so
where is the expansion of the conditional use we have to approve?
Baker: Restaurant is conditional use in the C -1. That is a good
question and I don't have an answer.
Gideon: It is not an expansion.
Roger: It is certainly an expansion of the conditional use if
this is for the restaurant.
Welton: Any time you add a square inch to a conditional use it
takes a conditional use hearing which is a public hearing and
this was not noticed as a public hearing so Roger I think it is
appropriate to move to table.
Gideon: Wait a second. First of all- -
Welton: Well, you were the one who created it as a conditional
use in the C -1 Zone.
Gideon: Well, that is the only way you can do a restaurant in
the C -1 Zone.
•
Welton: Yes. It was not permitted before you did it for the
Japanese restaurant.
Gideon: Roger, give me your site in terms of the reasoning you
think that it has to go through- -
Roger: It is my concept that it is a conditional use. It is
also an expansion of a conditional use. And if it is an
expansion of a conditional use we have to go through the
conidtional use hearings.
Gideon: There is an insubstantial amendment to conditionsal
uses. We would argue that this is an insubstantial amendment to
s conditional use. 168sgft in a basement.
Baker: That is correct. I would agree with Gideon that it would
be a Planning Directer's signoff from an insubstantial amendment
to a conditional use. So we would not need to notice for a
public hearing.
Roger: Then one of my problems with Mezzaluna is the restaurant
in the C -1 Zone is supposed to be fairly locally oriented and I
don't consider Mezzaluna in its opertation locally oriented.
Gideon: It was the P &Z that placed the conditions. We came
before - -and you voted for this, Roger - -We came before the P &Z
with the conditional use. We had talked about the time period in
which the restaurant was going to stay open and the restaurant
was going to be closed. And we had made an offer to have the
restaurant stay closed no more than 6 weeks out of theyear. The
P &Z made the suggestion at that time that it was unfair to treat
one restaurant differently.
For your own information Mezzaluna this year was only closed 3
and 1/2 weeks out of the total year. It was open all of the off
season in the fall and in deference to the employees who worked
that long a time they gave them 3 and 1/2 weeks off in the
spring. They were open again on May 20th which is well before
the season.
First of all the P &Z did not place that as a condition and second
of all we feel that it is a locally orientedrestaurant. It is
open virutally the year around. It's menu is affordable. And if
you go in there at any particular time to the bar and to the
restaurant you would see numbers of local people. So I think
your whole premis is incorrect in that particular situation.
But that is not the appropriate time now since the P &Z conditions
we have met every one of the P &Z conditions wehave met every ofne
of the P &Z conditions related to conditional use.
Roger: I am happey to hear that.
Welton: Tom has found a provision that allows it to be deamed an
insubstantial Planning Directer's signoff so the ocnditional se
auestion has been resolved. Except for the main issues which is
the exactions for employee housing and the parking.
Gideon: Under Off Street Parking: The code is clear that there
should be no parking requirement. The code says required number
of spaces with fractional spaces computed when any calculation of
off street parking results in required fractional space such
fractional space shall be rounded off to the next highest number
of spaces. If there is 1/2 or greater it shall be disregardewd
if there is less than 1/2 space. We are talking about 1/4 space
and therefore it is disregarded and no fee should be required.
Baker: The C -1 Zone requires 1.5 spaces per thousand square
feet. The exemption that Gideon is going under allows an
exemption if you are 500sgft or less. The applicant could come
in and do 3 168sgft exemptions and argue that his fraction is
less than .5 and therefore nothing has to be mitighated. If you
look at the whole 500 in combination it is .75 spaces which then
makes it a full space which is $15,000.
What we are suggesting in order tobe fair to the applicant is
that you pay the increment now and you keep paying that increment
and you are paying ultimately about $3,500 less that you would if
you rounded it up. That section of the code that Gideon speakes
to in my determination is geared more towards new development and
redevelopment as opposed to GMQS exemption and that the
fractional application that we have applied is really the most
fair in the long run to everybody - -the City and the applicant.
Gideon: I don't see how you can charge us for wyhat may or may
not happen. We are in front of you with a 168sgft. We have no
intention of coming back. If we come back then you can clearly
say 168 and 168 equals more than a half.
Welton: Does the Planning Office have files where if triggered
over the cumulative half of a space that it would jump up to a
whole space do you think we could track that?
Baker: Yes. We could track it. We have to keep track of these
files because of the cumulative aspect of the commercial square
footage expansion. So we could also track the parking and we
will create a record for that. We were under the impression that
we were being more equitable in the long run to everybody because
the net result was if Mezzaluna came in for ultimately 500sgft
they would be hit with a 15,000sgft parking as opposed to 11,500
if we do a percentage basis. So I can go along with that.
Welton: Does your client understand? I hate pay something that
could be exempted because of what might happen in the future. I
could see t6his as perhaps being the end of it as far as any
additional commercial use for you guys and so if you can be
exempted andprovisions are there for you to be exempted then I
feel comfortable with it.
Roger: Does this quarter already bump it over to rounding up?
Baker: They get afresh start. This is the first application
under the GMQS exemption that I am aware of. So they have got
.35 spaces in the hopper. As soon as they go to .16 above this
then it is $15,000 or whatever the new impact fee is going to be.
It just seemed fair to us if they were coming back again in the
future whether it is Mezzaluna or somebody else for 150sgft
expansion that they get hit for a $15,000 parking fee when they
are saying they are only increasing it by .34. So we wanted to
incrementalize it so it was fair to everybody in the long run but
we do keep records.
Kim: I think Tom hinted at an important consideration that
another user could come by within that building and apply for
GMQS exemption and bring it up to 500sgft. At that point $15,000
would be assessed to that applicant when partial of that 500sgft
is applied for Mezzaluna.
Gideon: The way it works is we are a tennant. We don't own the
space. The landlord gave us permission to do this. When the
next buy that comes along is going to have to take that into
consideration. No one else may ever come back and do it.
Baker: The thing we are concerned about is that Gideon is going
to be here hired by someone else to make a different arguement in
the future and he is getting very good at it. But we can keep
track. It was a fairness issue in our mind.
Roger: Maybe for fairness the owner of the building should be
notified of this - -that the cumulative effect of this is that the
next expansion any more than - -or increast in net leaseable space
is likely to bump it to the $15,000 charge for parking on whoever
does it. I think the owner of the building whoever has given
Mezzaluna permission to, do this should know about that.
Welton: Is the Commssion in general in agreement that Gideon's
case for rounding down and therefore exemption from the parking
exaction is a correct interpretation.
Does anybody not want to delete condition #4?
Roger voted no.
Welton: Let's argue Condition #3.
Baker: Condition #3 is a standard way we handle this. We have
handled it in other applications in the past this exact way. I
don't see that it is open to interpretation.
Graeme: It is clear to me that it is an expansion. Yo9u can
argue but there is a rule about it. We can say take out one of
your tables and put the chef there. There is that option. It is
an expansion. I don't see how it can be interpreted any
different.
Roger: To me it is on the basis of square footage and I think it
should stay that way.
Bruce: No comment.
Gideon: Reading the hand writting on the wall then I would like
to see the language amended so that it says at the applicant's
option we can either pay $8,750 or restrict some unit to
accomodate that. So we have th eoption to restrict.
MOTION
Welton: I qwould entertain a motion to recommend approval of
GMQS exemption for 168sgft of basement level with the conditions
#1 and #2 being the same as the Planning Office memo dated June
22, 1990 and with #3 being the same with the additional language
of an impact fee of $8,750 or restriction of a unit or part of a
unit to the Housing Authority's satisfaction. And deletion of
condition #4 concerning the cash -in -lieu for parking for 1/4 of a
space is rounded down to 0 and that the applicant's
representative would in written form with a copy to the Planning
Offince notify the property owner that the cash -in -lieyu for
parking was exempted because it was less than 1/2 space but if
any further increase in net leasable of the building takes it
abovce 1/2 space then the applicant and /or landowner will be
liable for the cost of the entire space.
Bruce: I will make that motion.
Gideon: I don't mind writting a letter and copying the Planning
Office.
Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor except Roger who
voted yes with protest and Richard who voted no.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:25pm.
Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk
. i
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11/10 //89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: ihra g9 2737- 182 -25 -005 107A -89
STAFF MEMBER: le--
PROJECT NAME: Mezzaluna GMOS Exemption
Project Address: 600 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Charif Souki
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Daniel Puricelli
Representative Address /Phone: 5 -5882
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $50.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
• Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ✓ Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
✓ Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D. / (� Q
DATE REFERRED: //// if l INITIALS: 02
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
•
ANO RS ,gCE TO ( PKfc our_ ouM asend
1-012. SOPa\ore_ Ri2ooucT- IS usIN * 15 S T7/4T
A r &e cn- eY1'sQ of S P SPADE. iS Z tQu 12Eb
lau25 o r= Ofl.2R \ 4J
OPEN AL.L WflLL 0 F SERSO+Y
L opc -kT x•30
N i 1 ES .
171NN Fr-R. G - 10930 -
QuESton) r-QE- C R'201NG
FFt•S ISScE
erDAfV '0 2 1 GCc_cs_ I ��- LUTI E CI re-F
ier_ Cr k ?LOmSCWITr-At TtN(rRA�
I ANA& _fe.
Mezzaluna • 600 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • Tel: (303) 925 - 5882
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FCHdi
1) Project Name c4 l I n&P\ EZZ � L.c_ V
(p
2) Project Location O'� F CoO pze
As ? /5.,J C o 8/ -i/
(indicate street address, lot & block ninter, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning 4) Lot Size
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Chan F So () K,
6 I o Co Imo foutui Lame. a.4- QC Co 5161 t.
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # AI. . . I . t I 1 I
77 5 17%0 C(A)RT
7) Type of Application (please dtedc all that apply) :
Conditional Use _ O.noeptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev.
Special Review _ Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline _ Conceptual POD _ Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Naigin _ Final MD _ Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane . Snhiivisicn Historic Designation
Qnlcmininmizaticn Text/Map Amendment _ C I Allotment
rot Split tot Line 1' GM2S Emmption
Adjustment
8) D of FSristirg Uses (number and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Ply) -
9) Description of Development Application
10) Have you attached the following?
Response to Attachment 2, Minimm Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
Response to Attadment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: fie. *.-711I0 7
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:1)6-A ( >(if
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: '115 - ` ) s 2
OWNER' S NAME: C4-f)( F $ 9 U K
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application:
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
re--AVQ\ »7 - ..o S c < �� % - 5 ?(C-cam
U As ■ "at n cL.&L 1\ we •
As y
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Accent Comments
4. Review is: (P &Z Only) (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Number of copies of the application to be]bmitted:
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:_C
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. CO I E TS /UNI' E CONCERNS:
X71A •0.-A..> 0- rl a z_,t C1CGV C
frm.pre_app
ASPEN*PITKIN 4•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Carolyn Hardin, Environmental Health Officer
RE: Mezzaluna GMQS Exemption
DATE: November 21, 1989
On Friday, November 17, Tom Dunlop and I went to Mezzaluna to
look at the proposed conversion of part of their dry storage area
to a food preparation area.
I have reviewed the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of
Colorado to determine whether or not the proposed modifications
are in compliance with the regulations.
Keith Zlomsowitch, the General Manager of Mezzaluna has agreed to
make the following improvements to the proposed food preparation
area:
1) Repair the leak in the ceiling.
2) Replace acoustical ceiling tiles with a material that
is smooth, non - absorbent and easily cleanable.
3) Paint the concrete floor.
4) Install a ventilation system that vents to the outside
for the new range and oven.
5) Install a handsink with soap and single- service towel
dispensers, or modify the existing prep sink to convert
it to a handsink (in which case it can only be used for
handwashing).
With these improvements the Mezzaluna restaurant will satisfy the
requirements of the Colorado food service regulations.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 131611 303/920 -6070
# U
S7-041C G 3U 2N &JZ
WOO ECT1 o..+ k x X
ov\w RP0\)6 c.
oV @2
I4 &ao V(NI S
/0 '
/2 '
s 1 o'&E Roo'
IS To ?LT �N
6 %ocw Alt ZC\ NG$
t CO � fc - \o O V tE \-1 W 11 1� (PIN) OJfcSZIt
s
tx � Ft ooeJ Sys r�^Y
Roo
UNN \ S I o
fi\oJE E_AIS \NG
D - GooOS T o t iS STbrt€ RooM
J s E. of oV -+JS "o2 ?R-E -P 1FR'}TIO
Mezzaluna • 600 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • Tel: (303) 925 -5882
.
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
NEIL D. KARBANK• 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
925-8166
ALSO ADMITTED IN MISSOURI AND New YORK ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEFAX 925
July 5, 1990
HAND - DELIVERED
Anthony J. Mazza, Esq.
205 South Mill Street, Suite 301A
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mezzaluna Restaurant -
GMQS Exemption for Commercial Expansion
Dear Tony:
On Tuesday, July 3, 1990, Mezzaluna received approval for
the conversion of 168 square feet of storage space to
restaurant space. During the approval process, it was agreed
that, since only 168 square feet of space was involved in the
expansion, no parking impact fee would have to be paid at this
time; however, a substantial employee impact fee will have to
be paid. It was further agreed that, in the event future
expansion takes place in the building, the parking impact fee
for one full space would have to be paid.
We appreciate your help in making this possible and would
be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding
our approval.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
By
Odeon Kaufman
GK /bw
cc: Tom Baker
cc: Brooke A. Peterson, Esq.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Mezzoluna Restaurant GMQS Exemption for Commercial
Expansion
DATE: June 22, 1990
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval with conditions
of the GMQS Exemption for commercial expansion of 168 s.f. in the
basement of the Mezzoluna Restaurant.
APPLICANT: R.C.T., Inc., represented by Law Office of Gideon
Kaufman, P.C.
LOCATION: 600 E. Cooper, in the Hunter Plaza Building (Lots K,
L, and M Block 100)
ZONING: C -1
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: GMQS Exemption for expansion of commercial
square footage not to exceed 500 cumulative square feet. See
floor plan, Attachment "A ".
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Environmental Health: Tom Dunlop comments that the project
complies with water and sewer requirements. In addition, noise
and air quality requirements must be complied with and will
depend on the specific equipment used. Compliance with Colorado
regulations for food service establishments (Title 12 Article 44
Part 2 C.R.S. 1973 and subsequent regulations) will be required.
On November 21, 1989 an inspection of the proposed bakery space
revealed several items needing attention. These must be
corrected and will be reinspected as part of the "preopening
inspection" prior to approval for use of the remodelled space.
The applicant will also be required to obtain a plan review guide
form from this office, return it with a complete set of plans and
a fee of $75.00 for the plan review. See Attachment "B ".
PROPOSAL: The application requests a conversion of 168 s.f. of
basement level storage (not counted in net leasable) to baking
area (counted in net leasable.) Facilities in the room will be a
gas range, oven, sink, and storage cabinets.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 8 -104 B.1.a. gives the Commission
authority to grant GMQS Exemption for expansion of commercial or
office net leasable area not to exceed 500 cumulative square
feet. It must be demonstrated that minimal impact will occur
upon the City. Impacts of additional employees, parking
required, visual impact on the neighborhood, and demand on City's
public facilities shall be considered in the review process.
According to the applicant, the proposed bakery area will be
staffed by the baker already employed by the restaurant.
However, the Land Use Code states that employee generation is
based on square footage of net leasable. The calculation for
employee generation based on the expansion is .168 (of thousand
s.f.) X 3.5/5.5(empl. per thousand s.f.) X .6 (threshold) = .35
to .53 employees. Based on the moderate income figures from the
Housing Guidelines, cash -in -lieu payment for employee housing is
$8,750 to $13,250. Planning feels that the expansion warrants
some form of mitigation, whether it be cash payment or deed
restriction of a housing unit for one person.
Parking generated by the increased square footage is .25 space,
based on C -1 requirements of 1.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f. This will
represent an impact on the City which should be mitigated by
payment of $3,750 cash -in -lieu (.25 X $15,000.) The applicant
states that since no additional tables will be added to the
restaurant, no additional parking is required. Planning staff
feels that based on the code requirements for parking relating to
square footage, the fractional parking space should be mitigated
by a cash payment.
Section 7 -404 B. allows the Commission to approve an in -lieu
payment when it determines that parking spaces cannot physically
be provided on site. The applicant has not addressed if this is
possible, but a site visit by staff indicated no available area
which could be used for 1 parking space.
There will be no visible impact resulting from this expansion as
it occurs in the basement of the building.
No added impacts are anticipated on public facilities as a result
of this expansion.
There have been no previous expansions of net leasable within
this structure. If this request is approved, there will be 332
square feet remaining for future GMQS Exemptions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for 168 s.f.
of basement level expansion at Mezzoluna with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete set of bakery plans and
$75.00 filing fee to the Environmental Health Department for
their review and approval.
2. The items referenced in the Environmental Health inspection
report dated 11/21/89 must be corrected and reinspected prior to
final approval for use of the remodeled space.
Prior to issuance of any Building Permits:
3. The applicant shall pay to the Housing Authority for
processing to the City Finance Department an affordable housing
impact fee of $8,750. This figure is based on employee
generation of .35 person.
4. The applicant shall pay $3,750 as cash equivalent for .25
parking space. This fee is payable to the Building Department
for transfer to the Finance Director.
Attachments: "A" - Proposed Floor Plan
"B" - Environmental Health Referral Comments
jtkvj /mezzoluna.memo
• ., ..... • • • • : I , ' .' : - 1 ]-7.,'%)
: 4 . t -.; g "::.':': I, :: '..," ..•' -'", i‘c iliii .
1.. 1 ,A•t•" i• :. - . •
' i ' • : . • - : -•- • t; ' .• : .7, •. , r::::7, : .'.... • 4 -.: ??•-• • : *.7. '•• • -,, , .•32 . \•;. g . -} c `. ,- ' : -
• ... ‘...." , , ' '' ,, , .. , .., .... 0. 4 : ,...::,::i_:,.-.., ,..7 ,... .:,■ i :4 ;;. ; k7, .. '-',." * : ., ' • ' ' . '
' • 0 "i"..);-,• ' . ::)Zetr;;''', ' ‘(4.'1kr...-' •;.: fr, 1 1' f.C,
. • , , ', ,' , ' .0 , l ',■:,. -. ; e/,,-, ,:,, II:'• ,-. ref.= qt v.a.r4 •, e1, , " i'v ..,,• • , • • 1- .11 .. . l• 3 4 : • ' • ' r
• ,• . ' ,„' , • , ,_ i I • . , • . ' , ., ' • • ;(., .:" .,. 1 r C -';•." 1 . ' l. •r It -S: ,'•; ei".4;: ii ii?,. , ,,,I, ? : n'" • r •:: •••• • — ,_ . .
' - • • ' ' • '' , • ' ' ' t - • - • ' - • i 4 AiYr 1, ■ ...' 1,ert ]•‘' ` ' • • , 7.: ;;;; "" 44rrr• • ' - ' - ' rrr '"' • :: -", .
,. ' ' ''. "'''' '"..: ....; ' -.Y:' "...' .'", ._ ''. •.. -, '.:. -.: .. . ',,, - .,' ,t'''..,' .._-. „,.,:. it= /: ztA • - .; :: . '
., , . - . , 7- 4 . ..1 ' - - . . ., -, .i • v . ..., -..:,..”. r; ) ..'... .m. , i ; = , : . . 9; !..f :} ;•••4-1 :' ti...:: - ' . ' •
•
• , • : •• .7'. - "': 1 , • • '..-• . -•• . . 1 ... -. 1.' ' -. ,„ '... Irc"; ..; :'• ' • '7 "•, ' ,7,7- 4 ', ‘ : - r•:' • '' *,
. ; :,, , .'.; ;1: t . - ,..:. „ .-..,•7 -.., , • - . . , • ;•..,n•,. 2,- *Ci:
--,-. 1/2 ii \ ...:,.,.4. .5- - . -,•:,:t
, ..,, , r. ..,. , . .,,,. •• ..,,_. .,. ? '' • z:k v .:** 7/..
. IS'J ,.' 'i" , 1 , ; ' . . , - :, '. 't . '..,. I ,., , 1 ." ■, ;' ,:ti.?er ' 1 NY ''.f..; , ...:t.....f,:,..i..f.'? .F", : ..!"-F.-...., t,, ..,...,:.: ;!..4 ; .'7 ... '• ; '1,......]. -- •
)1% '''.:' '.: :...` .: '..:' ' .. -,g :.....'.1.4.:3;"!-Iliii Ok ‘. 'ff ::•,?:a 's.,:: -: , ,4•5: ..:t.ift/A,t , t.1t i :' 15; 4'
" 2: . ., 1 .... ',- ; ‘, .. ' ,n.." • ..: ^ 4 ., g'.r. ' : ,,‘ f n . •.:':\".r;. ‘.1 - '1.-` , .," - -- 2 ; :41; keLi'."). : t :' , '
„. ::' ,'• - . • : • ' . ;, : .. ,:-.,, .. p: A t „wt:
,../. y - y r ,r o stii 'l t 4 4 .". '•;: •'''....-- m „ .„:„,.... t i„. ,..., ,,,.,•,' •
., ...,*--.' f 4 t:./ ,:i' i'l t 3 ? ',',. 1 ' 1 ' : . ' ,
.47,..t,„:.!ett-fir-,-.. ,. .,,,,--7, ffl.1 e• 4 •:' ,, : ' ' 4 . , __ ____
• ,., .. .i. • . .. . .- •.,.. r. . ). . T. • " .“' ;4.4 ,.?iii.? .."..,:..4..p...•:-.2-•••••••••:":•:te.`", •
.. . '
. .. • ::: '-..'::.'"'":"' ''' . ..': " ''' ' — " _ .__ tie .,... V ,W.',tV,I‘I'tet:t.!tri^ile4:;";1Lt f i l;i t'.., :r ;. e. 'V : .:'
I . ".,e ' ,..“'' , v'' .: '', ' ' - •. E 12 „),, 'It ,-.,,,-, : „.., ...i,i.,,,.,..,,L. ,,...., .,
.Y:...,..
411 Al
• . ,. .if '4' 1 : ' ' • ,, ';:-. 7. .. : .‘ , ,,• . . ..... tiS !kr I
.... 0 , , ', "' ' -* thili•• 0 ' . - ' ' *,1 4 1 .1; 1 4 , , '.' ,: i l it".:".■:. 1:, '\: 't, ,: it " , 1 :1, ' Or7
..4 . - ■ :-. . 4: iti,• ' , ' Il asi lk I r 2: ';',, ' N 41 `■:: :',•,' ,
1 4
J.,-......... _ ,_, 3 k i.,.. -;:.;.1„01.,: .7 's, • r.L.C ,...... til .... . ' ,
i. .1., ";,..rt . t '...5os, • t. ,4„% 4 ..;•*•: •1` ,;•,,,.
. - "‘ 2' ' • ‘: ' • :""' - - • ' '(••• - k:f.. '..?..,!\;•:. • , ' .
- 8 ) :Ile/ .7' "n , 1 ,; •,:, ,,,:.,.., 'tte ....., '.7\ itkl• 'II, ,,,/,,:- Z..) .., . • ..,,..i: _
. ' • - ' t nig/ :14'. .', 4 * . •;.^..- : ',...i. b :■ #4$ L ii,.-.-
1 1 :1. ''"16 ; r':'' '' .. ;; Lt. :Ntit.v....5 r itiii . 0:,-- i 1: '
1.t...--i • .: —: , . . L ..
, ., - ' SI '. ; 7 •••, ..; I •,.„,i),_. tPA■4:410}7 ',--, ''' ' f
''''.'' ;1 '"4 4 :f..t:' ',A ril i i(
I , `I V. 0 . - i '.• C '''. i '''." .- -, „ 1 /A ' 0 I I 44)
• . - -. • -
4 . 2 ' 'k' '-'; , ' r ti' ''± . , ''''''-.?,. -z x ''. ';',?'.+."
[ ' ' ' ' - i : ''?—'''' ' ^ .'' ' '' '" ' r "•4" `r-' ' . 1, , ,r'' r,- ' . ' r . ' . 1 k
CO '
.''.' ' ' DI -'
'4
', I '• . : ' ' ' r dH "' . .1 6 : ,. :: : - s ::' ,' '' 51, I .:: :;''.;') . 1 i ,. 1 ... 07 : !
1 • ' 1 .. ; ' '-' O . 4 ' .- i'A :;:i •
. .
.., . .
*k Kt z
%cotb
•
• •
4‘ w
,..
1 -
Nz cc (tit)
0 0
P:i
"
• •
1
/ — I • ..' % ;5 .
ta_
i n
1
. .
P, NI
tr___ '. •-11 , •
Q ASPEN*PITKIN ■sid Attachment "B"
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson,
Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: June 14, 1990
Re: Mezzaluna Restaurant GMQS Exemption
Parcel ID# 2737- 182 -25 -005
The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above- mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers ".
^ ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
�) The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department" distribution system. This
conforms with Section 23 -55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring
such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici-
pal water utility system ".
AIR OUALITY:
4 The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 83 -12, an ordinance regulating the installation of
restaurant grills, if a charbroiler type grill is to be
installed. If a grill is not designed for the space in question,
this ordinance is not applicable.
NOISE:
There may be neighborhood noise impacts during the construction
phase of this project. There may also be noise generated from
the exhaust fan that will be installed with the new ventilation
hood. The applicant shall take all precautions to minimize these
potential noise intrusions into the neighborhood. An example
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/B20 -SO70
Mezzaluna LUR
June 14, 1990
Page 2
might be to exhaust the bakery hood on the roof with the fan
mounted on the roof, too. This being in lieu of a wall mounted
fan at alley level.
Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16, Aspen
Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used
in the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
The applicant will be required to comply with Title 12 Article 44
Part 2 C.R.S. 1973 Food Service Establishment Rules and
Regulations Governing The Sanitation Of Food Service
Establishments In The State Of Colorado, July 1, 1978, or
subsequent regulations that may supersede the 1978 version.
During a November 21, 1989 inspection of the space in question
the following items were noted that need attention:
1) Repair the leak in the ceiling.
2) Replace acoustical ceiling tiles with a material that is
smooth, non - absorbent and easily cleanable.
3) Paint the concrete floor.
4) Install a ventilation system that vents to the outside
for the new range and oven.
5) Install a handsink with soap and single - service towel
dispensers, or modify the existing prep sink to convert it
to a handsink (in which case it can only be used for
handwashing).
These are examples of items that must be included in the plan
submittal to this office.
The applicant will also be required to obtain a plan review guide
form from this office, return it with a complete set of plans and
a fee of $75.00 for the plan review.
A preopening inspection will be required by this office prior to
approval for use of the remodelled space.
.(� CONTAMINATED SOILS:
Not applicable to this application.
ASPENOPITKIN
ENVIIQNMENTAL HEALTH DEPAr*II(AENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Carolyn Hardin, Environmental Health Officer
RE: Mezzaluna GMQS Exemption
DATE: November 21, 1989
On Friday, November 17, Tom Dunlop and I went to Mezzaluna to
look at the proposed conversion of part of their dry storage area
to a food preparation area.
I have reviewed the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of
Colorado to determine whether or not the proposed modifications
are in compliance with the regulations.
Keith Zlomsowitch, the General Manager of Mezzaluna has agreed to
make the following improvements to the proposed food preparation
area:
1) Repair the leak in the ceiling.
2) Replace acoustical ceiling tiles with a material that
is smooth, non - absorbent and easily cleanable.
3) Paint the concrete floor.
4) Install a ventilation system that vents to the outside
for the new range and oven.
5) Install a handsink with soap and single- service towel
dispensers, or modify the existing prep sink to convert
it to a handsink (in which case it can only be used for
handwashing).
With these improvements the Mezzaluna restaurant will satisfy the
requirements of the Colorado food service regulations.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070
ti .IMr
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 TELEPHONE
NEIL D. KARBANK' 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 AREA CODE 303
925 -8166
• ALSO ADMITTED IN MISSOURI ADD NEW YORK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEFAX 925
May 21, 1990
HAND- DELIVERED
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Application for Growth Management Quota System
Exemption of R.C.T., Inc.; Conversion of Below -
Grade Storage Space to A Baking Facility in the
C -1 Zone District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In connection with the Application for a Growth Management
Quota System ( "GMQS ") Exemption pursuant to Section
8- 104B(1)(a) (Expansion of Commercial or Office Uses) of the
Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen (the "Code "), this
letter is intended to address items 8 and 9 on the Land Use
Application Form annexed hereto.
8. Description of Existing Uses. Pursuant to a Lease
dated April, 1987 and addenda dated April 13, 1987 and
November, 1989 (collectively, the "Lease ") between Hunter Plaza
Associates, a Colorado limited partnership ( "Landlord "), as
Landlord, and R.C.T., Inc. ( "RCT ") as Tenant, RCT leased from
Hunter Plaza Associates space in the Hunter Plaza Building
located at 600 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado. The leased
premises comprises approximately 3,934 square feet, including
grade -level restaurant, bar and kitchen areas and below -grade
storage areas. The Lease is now in full force and effect.
The restaurant operation includes a specialty baking
facility. At the time of the opening of the restaurant, a
highly skilled baker, who was and remains a local resident, was
hired to perform all of the baking for the restaurant. The
baker has worked since her hiring within the confines of the
rather small restaurant kitchen.
In order to alleviate the cramped kitchen conditions and
to allow the baker to work more creatively and efficiently, RCT
has requested and received from Landlord permission to convert
to a baking facility approximately 168 square feet of the
below -grade storage space leased from Landlord. The purpose of
this Application is to obtain a GMQS exemption for such
conversion. Annexed hereto is a sketch showing the below -grade
space and the area which RCT wishes to convert to a baking
facility.
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
May 21, 1990
Page 2
9. Description of Development Application.
RCT is by this Application requesting an increase of 168
square feet of Net Leasable Commercial Space.
Section 8- 104B(1)(a) of the Code provides that:
"The expansion of an existing commercial or office
building by not more than five hundred (500') net leasable
square feet, excluding employee housing, if it is
demonstrated that the expansion shall have minimal impact
upon the City" "may be exempted by the [Planning and
Zoning] Commission."
RCT is requesting the conversion of less than 500 feet of
below -grade storage space to a baking facility. Pursuant to
Section 3 -101 of the Code, subgrade areas are not included
within Floor Area, but subgrade areas not used for storage and
certain similar uses are considered to be Net Leasable
Commercial Space (as defined by the Code). The conversion of
this storage space to a baking facility thus involves an
expansion of existing Net Leasable Commercial Space.
The Conversion Produces Minimal Impacts. The conversion
will impact the City little, if at all. There will be no
change to the elevation or facade of the building. Since the
conversion is below grade and concerns an extremely small
space, the conversion would never be apparent to anyone not
associated with the project.
Moreover, there is no plan whatever to add additional
employees: RCT is pursuing this Application in order to
provide its baker with sufficient room to perform her job in a
professional and workmanlike manner. No additional restaurant
tables will be generated, no additional parking spaces will be
required, nor will the need for employee housing be increased.
Likewise, no additional demands will be placed on the
City's public facilities. The restaurant is already making and
selling baked goods; no additional refuse will be generated,
there will be no increase in water or sewer usage, police
protection, judicial services, parks usage or road usage and
maintenance.
Employee Generation Standards. Section 8- 106F(3)(b) of
the Code provides that in the C -1 Zone District, 3.5 to 5.25
employees are presumed to be generated for each 1,000 square
feet of net leasable space produced. We do not believe that
this Section applies when it is clear that no new employees are
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
May 21, 1990
Page 3
generated: the presumption created is only a rebuttable one,
and is intended to obviate the need for factual inquiries into
numbers of employees generated. Here, there can be no dispute
that no new employees will be generated by Applicant's de
minimus space conversion undertaken for the benefit of an
existing employee.
The Planning Office has taken the position that the
presumption created is irrebuttable, that is, that reality
should be ignored when no new employees are created. Under this
analysis, we would proceed as if a fractional employee were
created. Since Section 8- 106F(5)(c) of the Code provides that
60% of employees generated will need to be housed, by the
formula .168 x 3.5/5.25 x .6 (where .168 represents 168 square
feet), the presumed number of employees generated requiring
housing is .35 to .53, despite the plain fact that no new
employees are generated.
The Baker is A Moderate Income Employee. Pursuant to
Table VIII of the 1989* Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority's
Affordable Housing Guidelines (the "Guidelines "), and based
upon the baker's actual annual income, the baker would be
classified as a moderate income employee for the purpose of
renting a studio apartment (which, according to Table VII of
the Guidelines, is actually intended to serve 1.25 employees).
*According to the Housing Authority, new
standards for 1990 have not been adopted
as of the date hereof.
Accordingly, if the Commission were to find that the
generation of employees is to be presumed despite a contrary
reality, Applicant's cash -in -lieu contribution to employee
housing, pursuant to the Moderate Income Standards set forth in
the Guidelines and the formula recited above, would be between
$8,750 and $13,250.
We are prepared to respond promptly to any questions
you may have regarding the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professio al C. ..rata..
By tJ �
N . arbank
NDK /lsc
Enclosures
�✓
P
�2�
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
13031925-8166
TELEFAX: 1303) 925-1090
May 10, 1990
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Growth Management Quota System Exemption
Application for R.C.T., Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am General Counsel to and Assistant Secretary of
R.C.T., Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company "). In
such capacities, I write to confirm that the Law Office of
Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. is authorized to act as the
Company's representative with respect to an Application
for Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System in
connection with the expansion of a baking facility at
Mezzaluna Restaurant, 600 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado.
The address and telephone number of the
representative is 315 East Hyman, Suite 305, Aspen,
Colorado 81611, 925 -8166.
Very truly yours,
:•OOKE A. RATER •N, P.C.,
A Profess.. C. poration
By: � . , d ►� .
B .ok: .1. P- - `� •�
BP:lsc
C PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. -
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925 -1766 • (303) 925 -6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES, A
COLORADO PARTNERSHIP, are the owner's in fee simple of the following
described property:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
COMMON WALL AGREEMENT BOOK 534 AT PAGE 851.
DEED OF TRUST BOOK 567 AT PAGE 132.
ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND LEASES BOOK 567 AT PAGE 174.
U.0 C FILING NO. 11691
LIEN ( CITY OF ASPEN) BOOK 571 AT PAGE 880.
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BOOK 582 AT PAGE 159.
ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BOOK 617 AT PAGE 378
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
ITKIN CO T
BY: �' L %V
a pr zee sig :ture
i- El: , AY 07, 1'90 @ 8:00 A.M.
E}L'iIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS K. L, M, *:, 0, in BLOCK 100, CITY A) TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, except the following
portion thereof:
A parcel cf land being part of LOTS X, L, and M, BLOCK 100, ASPEN, Colorado, Said parcel
is more tully described as Follow=:
BF't=INNING at the Northwest Corner of said Lot K:
thence South 75 East 62.44 Feet along the North lire of Lots K, L, and M to the
center cf a masons wall;
thence South 14 ° 5Q'49" West 32.24 feet along the center of said wall;
thence North 75 ° 09'11" West 16.30 feet alma the center of a masonry wall;
thence South 14 ° 50'4 9 " West 4.16 feet along the center of said well:
thence North 75 ° 09'11" West 45.14 feet along the center of said wall to a point on the
Westerly line of said Lot K:
thence North :".4`50'49" East 36.40 feet to the pow_t cf beginr2nc.
000 _"V OF PTZXTN
STATE OF COLORADO
o
HUNTER PLAZA ASSOCIATES
May 2 /, 1990
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Growth Management Quota System Exemption
Application for R.C.T., Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to that certain Lease, dated April, 1987,
between Hunter Plaza Associates, a Colorado limited
partnership, as Landlord, and R.C.T., Inc., a Colorado
corporation ( "RCT "), as Tenant, RCT occupies space in the
Hunter Plaza Building, 600 East Cooper, Aspen, Colorado.
RCT operates the Mezzaluna Restaurant in such space.
The undersigned hereby consents to that certain
Growth Management Quota System Exemption Application,
dated May a/ , 1990, filed by the Law Office of Gideon I.
Kaufman, P.C. on behalf of RCT.
Very truly yours,
HUNT * •e ASSOCIATES
.y. e / • •artner
ony Mazza)
HPA:lsc
'r » I I1 —
ri iliG
1 lJ I 1 1 _. - 1 I 1 0
Oh 313
' 1 R ��w .1„
l
i
1
z �� a 1
'/ iii =� MN =
II Iii Wal __ _
`g• is ON3 153M S am AO= MI 10
ct
j 1 .1
01 ct E a a _ _ .J' - JS•--ltlNl01H0-S-
^� a as Ia.1
w N A1 II � at al Ira
u1 — a , ,_ = 1 —
� r�7 ? 1 —
— :a 1 aIw *Nal w Ic.a -
— a 1 _ __A MN — 10 1- > I.
II■R MM.
MMII
,..... 7 al 1 w wiwAci — — 7 1 ►�
( I. I ,1 -
m "' al 114 w
111101
01 =El w C 1 Si
1S - - -- 031NOH ■S a -1
OEM 0 1� o MMEN — — — % 1
i i I
— NMI as N ,>. •:a _ _ NM
�I t � r Ra I IF
C I u � I� fo sa - E MI
c l ° , I It
wf sa= •�•� - ■- - � X11■ u i a L
i^. ; Ml le NM a � � aM = a ME IBM MS: gif•
IS VN31 tl0 S r .-1
1 (/) w " 9 1 - N Ns= 1 - t —I .....„,4 eF : 1 _I F� ..1 0' _ al II NMI — �_
0 al ■�
I -0 a i SA �4 =MI 'Atli
o a - a - �, El= IS
_� •• - - -. • 1��lIW N. i r--- +�'ls 1111Y�■S
' 1 _ _ In 1 a ro � / = I
O -- " WAIN - ii O -1
z n * r1
r � lao r - > r1 W t� I
- ---1 511= > m l' I `' I R- I = i p° ' -
1S `1108 YNON N• - - -- - 1 J - - - -_ 15- NOVI/NON 5 -”
a 1 - _ r1 M —
dia 1 `— IMM MN 1MM MN Ia
M.11 011 LW gl=
110 I w 11,•••&10 — WU 11 M M 1
1001 0 1
I Y- !ma 101 1 ' 1 ca — a 0
I I 1
L
15 N3d5tl IN r 1 1 L - -�� - N3dStl•s•,
1 I s 1 -- x 1 NM •
__. SAS W = _1� - = "Li I ......_ •
aF , -. Fe a II Ir F . r I�IIIF . em
O `I
01 a 4 , M M I � n M a
IOC NOOZ NOIOL SOOT 1 S I OZ _ S00E SOP "' °
15 '' • HOSII1UV$ •.N-- -- - --- -- - - -1 M 15 HOSIwuvO s - 1 LL
-- -, 1 r - 1 1 I r—. .- 11 -.1. - 1 1 _ -- _. • 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Environmental Health Department
FROM: Tom Baker, Assistant Planning Director
RE: Mezzaluna GMQS Exemption
DATE: November 16, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Mezzaluna Restaurant requesting approval of a GMQS Exemption.
Please review this application and return your comments as soon
as possible. This is a staff approval and will not go to P &Z or
Council. Thank you.
i o 7
t �
Lam/OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN BOX 10001 TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
NEIL D. KARBANK• 315 EAST LAYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 925 -8166
• ALSO ADMITTED IN MISSOURI AND NEW YORK ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEFAX 925
May 22, 1990
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Kim Johnson, Planner
Aspen / Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Application for Growth Management Quota System MAY 2 214.
Exemption of R.C.T., Inc.
Dear Kim:
I am pleased to enclose an Application on behalf of
R.C.T., Inc., a Colorado corporation ( "Applicant ") for a
Growth Management Quota System ( "GMQS ") Exemption pursuant
to Section 8- 104B(1)(a) of the Land Use Regulations of the
City of Aspen.
The Application comprises the following documents:
1. Land Use Application Form;
2. Letter, dated May 21, 1990, from the Law
Office of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C., addressing
items 8 and 9 of the Application form;
3. Letter, dated May 10, 1990, from Brooke
Peterson, Esquire, authorizing this office to
act as representative on behalf of the
Applicant;
4. Certificate of Ownership, dated May 7, 1990,
rendered by Pitkin County Title, Inc.;
5. Letter, dated May 21, 1990, from Hunter Plaza
Associates, consenting to the Application;
6. Architectural sketch of the current storage
space to be converted to a baking area;
7. 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the
subject property; and
8. Check, on the account of Mezzaluna in the amount
of $755.00 payable to the City
of Aspen as the Application Fee.
Kim Johnson, Planner
May 22, 1990
Page Two
Kindly schedule our Application for the earliest
possible City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and
do not hesitate to call if we can provide anything further
in connection with the Application.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
By
Neil D. Karbank
NDK /lsc
Enclosures
cc: Brooke Peterson, Esq.
\gen \mitchell.ltr
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
June 4, 1990
Neil Karbank
Law Offices of Gideon Kaufman
315 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mezzaluna Restaurant GMQS Exemption
Dear Neil,
This is to inform you that 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, July 3, 1990 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. 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 Kim Johnson, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
7 htev :Int /(0(TA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Environmental Health Department
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Mezzaluna Restaurant GMQS Exemption
Parcel ID# 2737- 182 -25 -005
DATE: June 6, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Mezzaluna Restaurant requesting GMQS Exemption for commercial
expansion. This is a continuation of the application they
submitted in November, 1989. They have modified their proposal
somewhat.
Please return your comments to me no later than June 18, 1990.
Thank you.
N1.12/+[11MENT 1
`.r IAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) Project Name MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT: RAKING FACTT.TTV
2) Project L o c a t i o n .. 1 of.- • - , • • . • • : . • See
Certificate of Ownership attached hereto for legal description
(indicate street _ lot & block number, legal descri Ytio[n where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning C -1 4) lot Size N/A
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone it R.C.T., Inc., a Colorado corporation,
c/o Brooke Peterson, Esq., 315 E. Hyman, Aspen, CO 81611, 925 -8166
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone raw Office of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C.,
315 East Hyman, Aspen, CO 81611, 925 -8166
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
_ Conditional Use Conceptual SPA _ • Historic Dev.
Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greelnline _ Conceptual FUD _ Minor Historic Dev.
F i na l Rip Historic Demolition
_ Sti�am itaxcJin --
Mauntain View Plane Subdivision' __ Histo'ic Designation
Condc mu ni umI zzaticn P Amendment _ _ CMS S Allotment
Lot Split/Dot Line CMS DomPtinn
Adjustment •
Fxi sti ng Uses (number and type of existing structures;
8) Description sq. ft. ; of granted to the
approximate umber of bedrooms; any previous aPP�
ProPerY) -
See letter, dated May Jj, 1990 attached hereto.
9) Description of Development Application
See letter" dated May a/, 199Q attached hereto.
10) Have you attached the following?
v Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission (kntents
v Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sntmis� ion Contents
_ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application