HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Pitkin Center.32A-864rfa CEO c�(� � 7 3� —1g
OD(P
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
- 63721
- 47331
- 52100
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
- 63722
- 47332
- 52100
GMP/PRELIMINARY
- 63723
- 47333
- 52100
GMP/FINAL
- 63724
- 47341
- 52100
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
- 63725
- 47342
- 52100
SUB/PRELIMINARY
- 63726
- 47343
- 52100
SUB/FINAL
- 63727
- 47350
- 52100
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63728
- 47360
- 52100
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
HOUSING
00115
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
County
00113
- 63711
- 47331
- 52200
GMP/GENERAL
- 63712
- 47332
- 52200
GMP/DETAILED
- 63713
- 47333
- 52200
GMP/FINAL
- 63714
- 47341
- 52200
SUB/GENERAL
- 63715
- 47342
- 52200
SUB/DETAILED
- 63716
- 47343
- 52200
SUB/FINAL
- 63717
- 47350
- 52200
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63718
- 47360
- 52200
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
- 63730
- 47380
- 52200
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
- 63730
- 47380
- 52200
HOUSING
00113
- 63731
- 09000
- 52200
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
00113
- 63732
- 09000
- 52200
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE
SALES
00113
- 63061
- 09000
- 52200
COUNTY CODE
- 63063
- 09000
- 52200
ALMANAC
- 63062
- 09000
- 00000
COMP. PLAN
- 63066
- 09000
- 00000
COPY FEES
- 63069
- 09000
-
OTHER
Name:
Address:
Check #
Additional Billing:
SUB -TOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project:
Date:
# of Hours:
Z
O
Q
tL
U
L
�r
]
J
4
UI
c
OL
-4y
.4
�
m
-+
U1
H
Ol
+1
OI
r+
U
r+
JI Z
0
C
r+
m
0 +J
m
~ICL
>
Q
pi
al
0
L
0
►10
-0
Q
atm3
+113N
EI J
m
L
L
0 U
M r+
M N
b In
LLI W
0%
CI C
tU
L L
L 0
C
L N
::)I>
-
41m
41CLm0m
roc0-W
till W
C E
C
C-
1
.+
0-4 1
G
w
w
C 0
0 N
UI b
0 In
ZI
U=
U
alEUCJ
UIEUCJ
�
JIU
4�
C
C
Ln
��
QI"
UI
NW
.�Qm
c
W
C
LL
7
�c
sC
01
r+
Cl
f-I tL
a
41 9
41
0 to
a -4
r, to
a ..
ZI O
7
•P4 N
•,"
� ..
0 W
.+ t9
UI W
WI
Q
(LU)
CL
uC"4
OEl
QF-
0
01 Q
¢i
ZI J
•■
••
f-
EI
Z
U
=I cr
U
U
F-
h-I W
W
31E
pli
J
=
CL
Q
Ml U
S
Q
0
w
I
I
U
I
>
I
a
aJ c
a 01
I
GI
C Q
a
I
U =
m -tt
U. E
ZI
Q� '-
m E
01
a 0
,Cr W
Y
m U
Ui
a
m
41 0
OI
.+ N
0 -4
U
GI
LL U)
J m U
�4 U
ol
XI
HI
ZI
C
C 0
0 .+
.+ +J
�0 b u
m u 0
0` •.a 1
.4 rq
a
�a
-4 ¢ JT J1
c E
• -4 Lo
OaJ m 0 0
M P-4 M L
— ea U.
•r4 IL
1--4 u UI -W
L >. O.
N OJ 0 E
UJ E ., 0
f9 E a x
a- U W W
..
.r
roLLLL LL
41nfn Ln
~ NM 0 m
LL -4 m
m
m
t9
(•V
N
F-
UI
U
U
N
nI
n
Q
h W
xi
LL
OJ
a.
(Li
J
N
(Il
s
UJ
al
..+ OJ E
.� U 0
- C
+J 4- C
�c o 0
r0 ..
-4 C b
m 0 •.4
•,+ .P4 4j
al CU
E 0 Ui
0 L W
U a Jr
1
1
O
Z
L N N M M M M 4t q, In �a -4 �o N N h
a
CL
NI
U
WI
Z
O (n
tL
f-I
►-i 0
>I
i-rl
H a
1XI
Ix
)."►
W at
El
F-
UI
H
El
aI
O �
=I
ILI
U71
W
� Z
�I
.~"
IZD
W
UI
wi
Z W
U) >
tYI
" a
h1
a a 2 Cri
W f—
:3I
tL F-
OI
WIx UZ
ZI
0 �-+
(LI
JIx
1XI
wIx fn"
i
J
a0W
U'1
CLI
ZI
E Co a M En (n
"I
J
OI
(n (L L7
ZI
of
Ewa WWZo
U)
a UI-
I-1
>ofna
"1
0*61
F-"I
WI-Zt- (f)En00
WI
cr-Z aO
JilZZ
NI
F-I
F- Ul"ZWmm-m
OI
OU] a
>I
cLinq "
OI
NI
0.1
(n > a W J F-
al
F- O-" UI E 0
I -I
CL ►-" Ix
OI
1-1
r•"I
>( cr.E• 0-UW
►�I
LLl
UN w " z
=0-Ix
_
I
zi
CGI
N 00-mWZ3W
1=1
OI
WW
JI
) ('
►
UI
W Oomwx>—
WI
H0>t-J
"IWU
Z
WI
of
(nl
CZCDEJE0UI-O
1-I
>I
►-+ M CX
IMI
IXED"x►4
WI
CLI
WI
WaKW0LLCLnJ
"I
HI
XUJXZOU)
aI
W aJirY
>I
CI
F-30>�-0nZCL
1XI
"I
UF-W W(D<c
JI
F-3M0ix
OI
U)I
aWl-W0X00E
UI
JI
IX.rZEr,IX
"I
aW MF-a
JI
OI
F-1
3(A(naad.aUW
al
a(nWa>F-
aI
3N0.(ni1
4.1
ZI
UI
31
=I
>1
El
OI
x WI
WI
C31
al
WI
ml
0 01
ro .0U13(D CM
>1
M.0U-0oj4-
MMU13aj
Z X,
M.0 U M G) M.0 •..
WI
an d U O GI'-
b m U m GI
xl
"I
GI
zi
CLI
QI
" Q
G
Z CC =1
U
Oa]cn
N Z2
W
O tJ
F- G Z
" ►4
�Q
J >-G =Z
JE
GUIW
>W �=
Q F- J
W" F- U Q CL
�OWJJJG
rnEn UO
;JZ»WF=-
UIWJGW
0LC9WWWMM
Z 0 - C>
QZWJJ
O<IQOW
�YIxQCC20NI—=W
JG
ZCCUI►vWh—ar=Q
OGtt,
oa=¢ilWCCWW--s¢O
F- I- CL O
CL > x J m W Z
3UnM"
U�3
J0W
W
-i W Z Q
D Z G Ln Ul"
h-QJ
U' =OZ CL
F-OJS
Zt1CCaJ O
uca.
" W J}
uj
hxWO
JWiWCW3xc
OUI
> W0
x:3 _j
OOF-cxz W
LLMEnU.
mzm3m W J
LL
tl I
CAI
UI
OL!
>LI
al
III
++ W C+J-4
4J
4J=
°
W +
0L
ro C •.+ •-4 4-
N
ro a
m m m
UI 0
4- ..+
+J ro U
ro
0I al
0
01 -y
E ro ic
3
'D ro
4J •.+ ar
a at
L r, aI
ar L a c
III
u 4• C
m
N N
a! • M 3
++84J L 0 ro
13
++ aI
91•-+4J
c
.. 0
III 3 >,
roIn•+01u
c
roL4JL
ro
m
e
L
-.
.-+ 3 +J N
ro
... • •q
c a1 4• +J
0
++
v 13
-4
oro roar
000>00
L
'0L
rn
ro
u 70 3 -y ro
L
u Q
U III
III
C L
0
ro N Oi
++
-, aa, a0
m
� aJ
m >.3
++
ro4-1
4J
a, C•4+J
aI
ro c•-6- E-,
+1
ro L
W c4J
ro
c4j-4
C•-+
0
U•.44•N ro
ro
u
> ro r4 0
3
C L•..-i
ro+J N
L •-, .. cm
3
.q
(a � C
-1 al
UI L
E
C L L c
C. 4
L ++ •-f •.4
a
ro 41
0
m e aJ
m
III omro++•A
.
13
m•+
cJ33
c
+Jrocc
-+C
41
vIS> 'm
in
c
III 3III
III ro0
ro
c3•.,0ar
+r
N
L aI
+1
ro
L
3 E a -.
0
C
++ m
>.
Ix
>
C
U
U III
P4
LI
N
Ln L +1 3
lu
C
N
L
m III
WI
0
ro
N C •.+
ro ro ++ aI L
E
ro
roro
• ro
-4 1-4
C01
0 ro
L
0 •-+ L
-�
L • L III
al
-4
L
al a OI >•
0- .
Cl
4J C
'0
4J 'Cl ro 4J
.�
N L'0
L
IL
N
u 01 c 01
m
ZI
-4
U C +J •.r
a!
E 4J III +J +J al
•-4
E ++
•-+ 0 -+ ..
al al
►-.I
co ro
E
7 ro OI 3
3
ai-,3 aNjj
O
01
01••+
> .-q-r
+iL
QI
C L
01
L L
a
+1 C Ol U
a
+J
al
+1 C
L C • 3 ro
.+ u
IXI
•-+ "0
J.J
+► L 'O
L
N 7 0 01 al
0I
-
-1
0 1
OJ 0 C
(n U)
01
N
Ul
N OI 'a al
0
L,n
L
1n
0
a
N -4 ro 01
0 E
>•
+J C +J
N O 3 L 4J O
WI
III a
41 C c
al
El
a L
N
O ro ro ro
L 0 al L
C
••
01
UI
L
aJ ro 4
CD
aa1
0 0
u 3 U
••
L O -1 ++ C a
o
a1
L
¢l
aI 0
c +1 ai
aI m
01
L +J
-a
ro "a 0
v
aI +J 4- ro ••+
"1
u
U
31
++ +J
•-+ •.+ +J C
u N
F-1
a N
-r
4. 4- M
u
+J x 3 +J
++
C
U)
WI
N x
-� C N •..
C O
NI
al
L 0 ++
c
ro •.r ■ N aI
U
ai
U71
ro •+
ro real
al -4
3
0 0 U E
O!
3 4• E C +1 al
OI
L
111
3 4-
L U) 3 L
L aI
Lr-'
>.
N L III aI
L
• OI N E
+J
aI
GI
—1
ai OI
Ol +a
. l
ro ro
L
1 41
al
W 4t (L a ••+
0
4-
ro
L1
al -
3 al 111 3
4- N
UI
13
.0 •-+ -� N
4-
.Cm ■ N X O
L
al
N
ml
L N)
al t .0 al
of ro
UI
III It-
7 0 >.
01
N -. Lo Q 0l -Wa
Ix
:3
—1f-
-+
N F- 41 N
LC 3
—I
3 O
ro
Ln ro U Ln
IX
M)
I
N
U•ro
0
:L
aI c+1
13
I
c
L
L
>� •• I
a
al
I
>•
01
01
a
I� 0 ro
a
-W O
0
E
L
III
L
E
U
+
•0 E 01
UI +j
-4 M
01 .
.-i 4J 01
L
L
0
L 01
m L
ro
C
4•
a 01
x 3
L
ro
•+
L
u u
4-
- C Q
O N
0
E 41
a1 aI
0
-A E c
0
-. 0
4-
CL 13
Ln P4
0
N i al
0
U •+
al U
•+
0
u 0 ro
+1
CV
c
C
Ill 4. 4-
a L
4J
+1
O
al >
—
L L L
—
0
C to
'D 0+
N
N
L N 0
G +J
N
•D L
L aI
4-
111 4- CP
N
.+
u
0 c
O
al
C
•0 01 Q 0
C
•.r U
0I
III +W
ro L
E
Ln
"a
•.+ N 0
01
L
0
4- -0 -r
0
OI a1
;
+1 N
4•
E 13 N
al
C 0
U1
ll1 m
al C M
0
•.4
C 4- U.
-M
al '"1
U C
N .�
O
0 Wro
U
(aE
ro
•M I -x•4
•,q C
m-W
41
+WdON
•.»o+1ro
u > 3
0
a1-4
3>NL
•M-.4ro01U
Ln -,
•.+
L
++
L U
•-+ •.,
LL
0
L
01 13 M
-4 N 0)
ro 41
u
al
my >.(aM
0 0.0
4-1
c u
N
m E+W
au
I
cm
1 r,
+1 0.-4
O
N
0 C ++ •.+
'a
+1
--
N O
7 01
L 01 u
ro 0 r)
0
z N U
v 0 ro
L
Cr aI -+ u
ro
aI
Y
aI n
a
r,
4J L at
a
s •v N
•.•
o
v •m
CL
U
0l E U L
M L
>• C
L
al N
N?
•,n
E
N 1
++
N >•
G
01 U
•+
L 4J al
al
a1 F-
41 ro
.4
al
01 -w 0
LD
L -+
it
"Cl +J
0
01 L L
C
4-
0 111 E
N
-+
•.+ IM
'a -y
>. >•
U U L
-. 0
u
-r ai C
•14
L 41 0l
0
-�
ro -, L E
ro
7
U
aI •.+
0 d
N
ro Ill a
al
ro-
0
.-, -W 0
C
0 E
•..
U
.-i F- 0
L
13 •
>•
al 3
-•+
•-. •"I
L
•.4 L 13
-.
7 ro 0
•,4
E N E
++
al
N ro U
a
III L
+J +J
m
a C
4-
a 0 N
+J
U a 01
•-4
+ M U
a
.-i O
ro
a
~
L aI
c c
N
E o
0
01 L -4
L �
fa
ro 0l U
u
N
aoNmun(ao
L+JCU
La1EafNro
EGaJ
.,
•4
c E •.r
C
UI E
U 0
0 c
N
I-
0
E •v Cl
41
0 0 L
F"
N -4 -
-,
0
0 LO U') L
0
al
fa
0 Ol
ai ro
41
-.-.
L
E •-+
C
L •14++
ro
ro U7
0.+-1
••• ■ F-
U
. +>
>
4- E
N U
UI
it
4-
0 C C
al
4- 4J
QI
L •
a
+j -r -+
al
++ a
c
+J
O! 0
A
••+ .
u 3 0
E
U L
a1
CP ro
Q
L
ro ro -+
N
U a1
0 ••
- L
L
N
3 41 N
C
•-4
a
v ro +r
.J
C a -"
al
U •.r I
01 Ln
3 Y
C ro
C
C m
0
0) - ++
0
0l "1
••+ I
+J
4-
•+ u tt OI
ro
•^
4-J ++
0 a
ro
0
L OI LT
••,
c ro u
'.4
w 3
■•
3 L
C
(1
•-+ L N m
O N
•.r
•-i ro
U
u M -+
++
+W ••+ ro
01
a
Ol
0 u N
01
L al
CL al 0
al
L •-
C CL
4J
IL
• 4 .,
a
+1
>
III u L
U
r+ •-+
E
CL E c U
L
a Z
0
• q
N Z
C N G
al
"D C
a
u c a< l')
C
-• L C
a
N 0
ro E 0
+J
al
13 0
Lo
3 01 •.4
u
-, Ol •.,
a
x :3 "a m
al
0 3 0
0
L U
0 •-+ .r
0
m
4J L
13 - .4
al
aJ
L
x
-m 'm U
a 0 L I
L
4- •..
-r
01
N U 4J ro
++
OJ C
-. +W
ro m
U1 E
N
ro al
al
7 - C
UI
U 0 N
IC
.4,
al
L 41
• 4 U a
U1 0
-4
:1ro
0
fa
a"a 41
.0 U► :3••+
m U N
4-
01 0 U>
E ro
L 4• a1 •.r
N
O -+
7 o
C -W
-C L
L
L C "o
C
wal 0
L
c >` aI I
Ol
c •.4 al
al
O L
F- 0 U) U
4
a +1
o .41
-� U1
CL 4-
CL
ro to
ro
L L U
l'-
ro L L N
X
I- 41 m
0
Z +•1
.-1
1
0
0
C c
I
7
al I]1
L b
L
L
• L
4- •'" OI
C aJ
L
0
al
01 c
0
0• Ol
LL
U LL U
r.4 = U
0 .0
C1 111
4-
.0
>. VI • r,
N N
>. a
.. . r
ea
•P4
L C E
0 al Ol
UI •.4
0 L
'
++
ro ++ ro
c -m 41
++ .r
r0 "q E
'0
-
., OJ n
al
C 0
N
aU
aU
ZI
1 3-6
ro•"P-.+j
0
C-
CL >,
u+r
•m N.y41
In E
E
NZ
(XI
Ol N
U •.4
3U
(a
•m
E 0 al
U C
aJ N •..
C
• al
ix 01 I
•-+I
C 13 C
0 3
U 7
3
al r-" u
ro III
al 3
w
N xQ
xQ
m
1=I
0 C ro-
•M UJ4-
UI
CL to
E
u
a
cJ W
LL W LL
U)
�-I
ro L
01
c al 0
N
L E a
0 0.
IL u Ln
'
Ull
c N
N L
01 L
•a1
= w N
c 0
L ro x
N
GI
•.+ rd
41 OJ
> LL
C
-
0
•r �
ro u
al
WI
41 •-4 Y
U Z
N UJ
7
C
4- OJ .4
in aJ
OJ ro
L
LL LL 4-
LL
LL
Lil
••r ro L
Ol +W
C +J
7
C ro
7 >
•
N Z L
N m m
[n
m
3 E ro.
1
.r al N
r•.
OJ +r •.r
0 al
4-1
al 41
N
NI
11
0 OJ
aJ 10
ro
aJ
t U
L a
0.
U a
.4-1B
V N
m
4T
"aL
L
N L m
•.+
W1-
4- L
al
rO L Y
U
m U) m
Ln
—4f-1
aJ al >.
a 0
Ul -w.
+1
>•
0 Ol
Ol
u
11 0 -4
al
m •O In
N
UI
C
�-41
++ >Z
u
ro N N)
C
O
E
+I
C
N 4- m
-n
10 1-4
M
(a
(A
ro CL 0
Ol
al
al
r"
• � E
•.+ (a0
0
.-r
ZI
u X
Z C
L +J .,
a
s
O! in 0
N +j
u
Or >•
L
'
Q.
si
0C
4J3U
cic
•."Ejjetu
I al
cal •
a
a
N
aJ
•ra
C L
m
•r" r-. N
a
HI
E C
4- 4J
•." U 0 ++
01
N OI Ol
0
>
Y .-r +r
al
Qr
Z
4-1
N >• ++
0 c
ro -4 C
L
M
N L
'I,
•P4
L ro ,4
Z
RI C
In
P4
I
m =
3
T '1 ++ W
al
C 0 41
4-
+1
ro c
+r
cm
OJ •."
ro
o
4-
aJ 0
c m ••+ E
>•
+r
0 0
0-4
c
a (J 7
'
1-41
L Y
al
UI
CD WL 0
U1 13
ro ro M a
L
U
L >•
ro
w
L
L
cm
a L
16-
cm
"I
c C
0
0
0
•..
M XI
+j •,,
U
-W13
M -.
0
m
ro
..
W
•r44JNro1114-CrO-1
0LW�4
auc
m ro4-
JI
41 UCL
in
L
Ol
LLI
a Y
UZ-4
0 al
N+14J-4M
Ol L•..
L4-...
¢1
0ro
++
a
u
Cl
4-ual+-J
a)>
aNu•mal
ualN
a)4-+113
ZI
J a M
••• >•
>
C
ml
., 0 0
Im
U C al
u
aJ
0 3 ++
C E
•.q
> 0 C
Ol
'
¢I
En aJ
c
0
al
HI
7 ..
C
Ol 'm +•+ M
U
L
L ro
0 E
m
0 01
"o
.4 LO
." ro
U
L
.0Ym
•,
4-
ro
+i N L+J
u 0
1
U'a*
P4
WI
ro C at
OJ
a
-1
U
• _
++ 4- E
M
N +.1 N
U
0
01 •r4
>
Hf
++ 01 >
N -4 L
++
4-
all
al 0 0
L +J
++ ro 0 r0
0
W
C •q C
-W
0 "D N
0
► 1
0 0. 0-
++ ¢
0
aJ
OJI
Z- 3
Ol
-4 L L ."
3
al
0 C aJ 7
r 0
7
3 ••+ (l
L
U)1
HOU
O
J
IX
"1
l-L-W4J
4J 4- U
F-13
U 7 CD Z!
H4J
ro
> L
O.
'
c
C U
L
_
G]
W v
�°
a*A
x -W�
a,
LL
¢¢
¢
m
Z rr
al
4- '" 1
LL LL
LL
Q
+i U
Cmm
0 0
.r
LL
C • r" al
al
4-
L
r~ 3
m 0
u
N
w) C'J
N)
••
+1
La�4•r.
LLrom
0 3
L
m
c t
m e
4- o ro
w
a �-
+J 0
14
Ln
n
LL LL
W
LL LL
LL
LL
LL
ro
N ....
a,
En (n
(n
N (n
cn
Ln
(n
ro
L
�
0 ai
M Lip
0 I.J.
In ml
K-
N m
a
1
r`
l is
., C
., -. .
v
f')
u m
on nl
I")
.0 m
a
1
.0
1 is
m l
I
B
Cl
N N
-4 LL
0 In �•
L ro
al
M •."
L
0
N 3 N
9 3
g' C'JI
N
Rf
I
1 (114
U.11
•. Ln
CL C
UI
4-
to G 0
1 -�
X!
-W U
0
c
.r.
UI
QI
u U m
aJ 4. •14
4J C
N
UI CV r~
.4 41
•�
m—m
13 a41
.+ 0
ro— 0
.4
-�
Nl
-1 S
0 •,3
4-
roc
ro
ZI
0 •• -
U 0 "a
G1
C
al 4-
O
41
lT
WI
L al •0
•r~ 13
C
0
u 0 N
aJ
Ol
C
El
O. L
>' +r ro
3 •,4
•+
ro ro
IY cJ
IY
•,4
ILL
0 01
41 ro
al N
0.41
..
N
OI
M U C
'M L C
,,q 7
ro
0 U N
0
JI
al •,
U ro
> 0
u
Ol •..
.,
0
-•
'
W I
N .-r -+
ro
aJ .c
• r.
r.. ' ^1
r~ ro
r+
=
Ln>I
0rOra
calr
L
-ro0c
ro•. r
r"
ro
-4++ "
wl
a •r~ 4J
OJ L +J
m
CL
•.. L 3
•4 +r
ro
"1
,4
a ,
•.4
ro
ml
0 u 0
aro•..�m
aua0
"1
uC
-W
"I
u
I
-w
'
L L +J
a v
N 3
¢ L
ro >•
•.+ 0
ro
L M
W -4 Y
wl
L al
m m
0
wl
L
aI
>•
0
O
0
l-
I
,-4
ro
..
E N
0 Ol
U r-f
N
E ro ro
Ml
E •r~
1
(A
E
-4
4:r
0 E ++
Ol 0 c
a 0.
,4
E 41 aJ
<LI
E N
a
QI
E
CL
.0
++
im
L 0 0
C r-. 0
a E
t
0 0 L
=I
0 al
0
=I
0
E
0
0
l'- U -
H 4- N
N a
l-
U +-1 M
Lll
U CZ
UN
Ill
U
W
(n
H
N
a a
a
C
E E
a
E
tu
0
W W
w
W
o
4
m EE`n I
a
�-
m In
o
�
L N 0 �
0`I
m
w
°
'
ix
in
mm�Ul
")�
�
a
m
rIn
r�
Ln
Ul
+I m
L M Ill •�
MI
*�
�
]
]
a 41 fl
II II
II
Ii
0
m
L
01 Ol
ILL W at
m U7
t9
al
C +J
M a
Ul
0 N
0.
m
41
CD
c
•+ m In
M
.4
• •
•
a1
m
c
0
•. L OI
.-+ N c .-+
al
M In
M
L
•.+
,,,
41 ar c
.. a m .,
>
++
m
41
] c .•
m 0
ai
x x
x
u
In
m
m
0 OIr+
41 N c 3
u
c
u
0 01
al 0
n r`
n
a
0
v
o
al m
L ++ •.• m
al
co m
m
E
m
-101
.r In •.4
m +1 OJ
Ol
+j
ZI
] OI 7
m L
L
N
m
+1114I
m al0
MF" mL
01
II 11
II
L
'
u (nI
al >.
Ol ]
+1
WI
•+
al
al
a) 01
C 0 >.
to ++ u ++
►-I
lL lL
lL
..4
C
'n Cl
U ., +j
•,. m L Ol
C
¢I
N N
rn
01
x
]
al
o =I
to a••+
u ••q .4 c
0
sl
Wl
m
0
L
E L
L] U
WI
m 3
IS
NI
01
0_ WI
QI Ill 0
01 u Ul
>.
ZI
N N
I's
OI
Ul
C
Ul
'
W I
C c
E P-+ L -
r+
WI
m m
m
OI
++
u
al
>-I
- al ++
E m 0 C
.�
(DI=I
a
U1
O)
• OI
3 41 ]
0 u %I- F-
m
-�
ra
>.
Oil JI
0 m ¢
u
]
ml
(nl
al
0
u Ill
- E
C
Q
W I
W I
0
>•
4
C El
-1 IM
++ OJ to
at
WI
.+ E N +j M
WI
-M
0
a
'
OI WI
0 x C
al OI 14
>I
E Ul
u
>I
m
a
E
L
`F' 0 '+
c a Ul
m
OI
.• 4 0 .•. Ol -4
4-
-4
OI
]
m
Ill
al ^I
L Ul
In
0
JI
al U Ol X OJ
O
m
JI
41
O!
'++ •.+I
Ill a ]
O1 UI ul .r
4j
ILI
> - > - >
"
+1
0_I
m
al
al +�
W ••+I
Z a 0
c m al m]
EI
al a Ill
0
El
z
C •.+
m "I
F" m =
I- c ... 3
a
WI
J J J
l'-
WI
R
F-
++ Ul
'
ai
C
I
al +�+
1
••+
E-
1
L
m
.� c
.•+
1CI
a
0
+0 G
o c •�
0
+1 al m
Ul : >
0
L
E
E
of m a!
-W a 41
r+
•1 ++
E
0 al
10
y m
-+ al
C In
0 u M m
a
0
m al m 01O
4- C
u L
Q`.
m+�++ OI
EU.Cc
Ill
u
-4]a.4
Cm
0
'a -4
u M
= m
¢r
� Cr' t+► al
.. u'D
U
al
ya. ]tom
m 0
>.
al cu41 C
m
c
��
LE L.N •+
Lit al +j .�
C m
E m - 4.)
C >
m .-
] 0
m L7 +1 •M •y
] C 01
L
m C
E SI >. J
m
m
13
4J In 3 •�
0 J'+"a >
.r 0
E m
•., r, m
m
Ol 'M
W.r
0 m C +J
L Ill' l al
al 4-
>1 0 0 c
a1
u U
C .M
0 w]
C C rr
>
>- In
Ul 4-1 ] -M m
.0 C
C L
U m
M 4- U ++
0• C
Ol m
C 0
0
m O1
UI y-
0 L M
++ m +J
.-+ OI
G
]• 4 4J a
.+
c E
W I
] >. 0 C
-+ al
C
m W
+r 0 > a ]
C E
JI
In al
0 al * m
m al a al
10 C
Ill E
u U w Ill O_
•+ -+
O1 0
OI
'M C
3 U4-
al ++ L
C m
O z
aJ L L
3 •.+
u
01
++
C m al U
C +J >. ++
0 -
C Ul
1 C 0. +J UI
]
r+
W I
+J
m al .+
'
CP•P41-4 In
u a
='m
0 Ul -
0.0
al
=I
u c
]m Ins
•,4 E r+
Ol
0 .4
L >•
C
•,I t
Ul
al • 4
Ul ] `-
In L m al
N In
L .0
a +� al L
•,+ a1
3 -w
U)I
''I
Ol UI 0 m
MI
III 01 ••+ c
•+
[nl
L m
.� IT t m
m a
o C
In .+ ] L
W I
13 a++ +J
01
W I
:1+5
al CL C -w a
-+
++ 4-
ZI
L 0
m C +J
'
(nI
••+
c 01
K
In In
t •,, -.1.+
.,
u 0
OI
a -1
0 •
C C �4
OI
In N C C
+J U rr
OI
a1
F- aJ a UI •
] ,-,
al
"I
+J
IL 0 m ++ 0
•.+ v •- 0
- al
In
c ., 111 o
a -M
-n m
1-1
01 U
a 0` C +'
01
Ul
C '+ >
0
3
0 al
Ul
t ]
] 0 m
WI
0 ] In UI
0 '+ al
zt
•+
] L M
m
L L
OI
4J L
U 4J at
mI
C 0.
0
W I
41 m
U1 0 M U C
al m
a m
XI
4J
U L
'
of
•M.. 04J
Ul
U+++++-
¢m
•
Inc
1-1
4-InL..�Ommm
CLI
a m +� z
C-4 m
oIn
m
e In
Y
0 m
m 0
cnl
0 c
m w a
of
Nmmul
hl
•",Lm+Jr
-C
a
C-
zI
Oa++LW
C
1XI
u
L C 0
❑I
0
L C U •Ulm
0+J1—r
of
— uEmaa
3
M al
M- C
a
m u3 UI al
aa1
'^I
Ol+J4J
EM4-++r
al
^I
4-1
E (U m
01 E C +J
+J Ul +.I
UI N C
1
01
r+
Ol m
+1 m +1 -4
UI ',n at O C
>-
+P
0 0
• ++
+J C
-1
CI
Ul L
M m
a a1 Ul C
OI E>] m 3
'+•I
t 0 0 at
a Ol al
(M
c -M
a1 M= C C-
t L
0 01
cI
C ++
N E 0 0 a1 0
"I
H u►v L
L`* a
"1
H u
L M++N¢U
I- a
E
"I
CL UI-•..Z
3-m
M
d
di
0
O
c
Ul
di
CD
L
41
al al
L
0
•..
L
C
++ di
0
tnC
Y .41 +1
di
U
•.+
L
+1
C •+
•+ 3 L
C
N
C ••+
O u m m
L
.+
+1
+j
ro
3 4• H
Ct
0
0
4j •.+ L u di
I +J
L
m
m
0
4+ •.+
Ul
•.+ 1
.+
•N Ul
C L ++ ••+ L
u
3
41
0
'+
+J
0 L ••+
M ul
Ul .14
U
+j •-i
.,q .0 41 u
di m
C
>.
C
UI
UI
0
Z 7
di di
di U
C
U m
4-Ul
O
L di
C
di +J
di
ml
•.+
L
>•
di UI L
c U c
m m di
al
c •+
0
M M E 0 0
fa
••+
C C
-4
L>
In
cI
+1
CP di-1
U 0
.0 u
7 L
al m Ul L+I
L c
4J
Z
L+J
di
0•.,
mM di
.0 0..
v ro
L
4- di
4J
4J .4
u di
C
., 0
0
Ul
Ut O
U
c di L
E Ut +1
di m es
..
41
diroa
pm
o
to
U
00
0L
•14a+10
0a
m
mmm
-..LECCdi
�.�
.f
41
41
diCwm
Uro..a1n
41
c E
0
0 3 0 m 0
roy-
a++
c
-
.,
In
Uyt4J�cw-
0
w w c
Ill
I
ro
C
a +J - 0
L C
L -4
di
di
7
u
h-
di u 0
di VI Ul
+1 ++ di
U
0
L ++ Ul Wdi
•+
di
di Y
u
u
0
m al
L 0
L •+
Ul ro a
>•
Ul •.q
C u
0 m rq m di m
>
M
a ++
m
ro
Ul
-..
4J
.4 CP
7 C
di 0
L
+J L
0
u c m C L C
di >.
•4
0 -1
a
a
di
>
C •+
•
UI L C
Ul -C C
di L
0
c 0
•.4 .,
C m M 3 m
UI 0-4
3
L a
Ul
UI
Ul
di
to m
+r
+1 1 •+
0 C •.,
L U M
++
di +W
Ul
m 0- m
C
a
m
L
•,4
di
Ul M es
a Ul
4j a
N
E N
Ln .+
C L •-+
UI c
di
C
C
di
a
L al
di
di— a
x •-+ di
D a
W -
di 3
di C1 C L- CU
ro 0
19
JW L
di
di
L
v L
L
C E W
di 13
>. c ro
0—
L
L
C -4►�+ 0 3 c
L L
•-+
Ul +1
a
0
U
UI +1
+j
CD 41
C
L ..+ U
3di
a U10Ut
Ul 0
+J
ro
0
0
C
-di
U77mN
amdi
Mm
y
di
x �
4j W U1+1
al Ill
ro
(D 4-
.a
41
m N
N
0 4 41
M.-i
>. ++
di m
Ul m- 3 ••+ Ul
ZI
+J
0
m
UI
U
di UI
L
UI di
L L -"
di •.4 C
M
L m
•.4
13 tn 0 di M
Ur I
•.+ L
C
OJ
UJ
•
m
a 0
di
di ro C
Ul +J Ul
a-J 7 m
ro L
>• L
C +.t .4 M +J C
"I
N U
•+
C +J
L
+J
0
a
L
+.t
U H
Ut
di m '.4
M
L 0
L di
m c di c C m
UPI
• 4
41 L
•..
U
•.+
E
M U
C
•,o p
m di 41
di
C
0 a
m ++
Ul 0> •14 '- UI
wl
O Z •
di
ro
7
al
L-
di m
7
H- di
di 73 C
L Y di
M
a L
L m
L al 3 •-+
al
c 3 C
•4
Ct a
Q
•-1
+.I
M
2
'+ L
0 W di
U C L
E 0
0 EM%*..4
.-+
•.+ a
.0c
di0InM•4>.
ooC
roa•.,
m+1
mdiva
dial alalro
wl
+1In•.4
m00LL
C>
m
41 to
di umm
al
41 C
E Ct
+� L L c c 4+
HI
UI u N
+J
.-4 m
a
C
m
0
C
Ct m-4
L •-+ •.4
L L
•..c•••di
cro0di00c
0-41
•....di
Oro
c
LromCdiaUmw.MW0
c
0
41 •.4
y
U41 a+10
(nl
x+1m
c
Ul
In
L•.,4J
a C
•..+
C C+
>.L4-
0
U L
C '0
••• Ut a In In N
al Ut
a 4J
•
o
+J
U
0
>.
C r•
.m 0 di
y ++
u
u0
"44j
0M'm•.+
-.1
••+di
+1•.4ul-cocdidicIdicw•.4
cI
L a
.,
al -1
U •P4
to al C C L
LI
di L+J
C
L••+
C
m4F+1
m.,
m•.. m
L ro'0
cM 0
M
L L
7
7 L C m to 0
dl
L di -4
0
+W x
m
4-
+
•.. •.+
-4
.+ L L
0 ••+ C
0 C L
m
m 3
it m
L 41 0 UI UI L
-I
F- +J Ul
E
Ul al
m
0
a
di
In M
m
CL 4J 4J
4+ M m
U M M
di
0
b
in
m
m
L
41
a
al
c
4cr
c
(U >. c
u
m
o
c
0
++
a)
0
1�1
ro
++4110 m
•.+
u
a
0mL
m
L
m•.4
di aJ
0 m C c
L
•.+
L
L
di
0
.-4
H
41
E 0
c In
+I --omC
0
L
0
4-
4J
di
maro
0
+1m
m 0 c
++
0
U
m di
m
di
L
C
di
:1
L-
M di
di diU^ ..
mm41L
c
L
L
L
di
x
u
�+ �o
1.-4
P-+ +J E C
c UI 41
•+
c 0
0
0
m
a
••+
ac
0 di
F7
C a m
m m E C C .,
S
ro •+ In
-4 +1
a
E
c
0
in
m
N di—
m �- c
L .. .. •.+ •P4 -4
S N
0
In
L
to
di
di
Ul L
u
di ro
7 di SC - 3
W
UI
y
UI
0
di
W*A
di
L
ro L
ro +J
Ul +J +J
4J L to +i M m
L
n di >•
.r U
U
-W
di
0
0 L
L
+1
L L
L 0 0 0
U +J •.r -1
+j
0 C ..
UI
m ••+
c
m
a
Z m
.r
a
0 di m C
di 0 ••+ tl 7 UI
E +J C
•+
•.. L
•.r
di
ro
+W
0
m L
'D ••+
E 3 di 0
+1 +1 m Y
C
•., h
L 0
L
U
C
C 0
+1
L 0
di di
.r
• •. N- .r
•.q
C E
+J
di +J
W
U
0
di
MC
di
a L
m di al +1
ZI
L N 0 di to w
ro 0 c
a
++ Ul
L
.41E
-., 0
ul>
0
a
c L L m
(DI
U •.r Ul C
M
C L 0
di
m •,
m
0
dial
In - -o
3
aJ 3
m a
n 41 -w >
�I
L C L U
di
0
u
E_
+W
di
L
al +W
0
0 +J
+W •M
di
(nl
m +1 Ct 0 m In
al
c
Ul
L
••+
0 L
M
Ul
C 0 0 .4
ZI
wl
U•.+E3 L
romp+
di
0m
C
di+1
3
0
c
3 •
13
0+J++W
C91
GI
di di Ul 0
U
di to +1
U
c-
o
m
UI
ty
di a
-A
o di
0 di
tn
"I
L' PI di 0 di d
0
> > 4J
ro C
-4
m
di
+1 0
3
.4 C
Ul -4
ro -. CP -W
LOI
JI
+•+ 0'0 L L
•-+
••a 0 •.+
C
0
41
U
L
-s L
r+ 0
m4 L
E• C al ^
WI
Cl
L C 3 C
di L E
CP
In -4
L
m
di
O a
>.
ro
m ro
•o -•+ al N
GI
IXI
4- a>-0+J-,
C
U aE
•144J
N
04-L
>�
L
0
>
di'it M LL
Cl
:3I
0 L N O di di
•+
a1 0 0
Ul
C di
a
+1
L
di 3
m
M +J
to
c - ++ a
"I
w
�--I
0 m m c o
L mU
di
dim
0m
M
W 0
L
C C
••M+j
-4 (n m
XI
OI
Ul
C •.i L E C'
C
m
E
L
di
L
UI'M
O
ro •.,
c
Ct n L
wl
wl
0 L 0 �- di U C
C
13 U C
di a
a
a
0
0
c
a
0 m
0 c m di C
F-I
>'1
HI
••+ +1 a L •� ro
•,q
c •m 0
.4 L
a
+-1
00
�
E
di to
C
+ J -M L 0
0-41F-I
—1
+1 E ++ Lm
M
m-W•4
••
di m
3
M
E
Ul 3
alms
41
M^+W+-1
lrl
=I
c 4- di Ul 0
r.
UI +1
m
L
0
+J
di
.+
+j
ro c UI
aJ
di .4 • 0
Ul
JI
Ul
di 0 +A L 73 4J >`
•,4
+-t ro m
L
U 0
13
0
W
+J
ro U
C
U di CP
di
41 —4 4:r o L
QI
SI
++ c 0 c (n y
3
u ••+ >
al
•.+ a
c
L
C
••+
0
m E C
L
m 7 (V ++ a
31
=I
Q
C C 0.0 m •m -
m
+ In L
-4I
>
L E
•m
m
0
0
L
U
4- di"
0 +J
r4 m"
wl
131
Ct U L L U
L 7 di
0
0 di
3
m
U
di 0
.. 13
L UI
di L
"I
C x
Ul
+r .0 U1
4J 4J
0
0
U +j
L
L Ul s di di
>I
rol
di Ut al •.+ C ul di
-
to +j aJ
di
N C'0
++
a
di
m to
+1
C •+
di di
-Y C 4-"D
WI
ml
L di L di ro ++ +W
L
•i C L
L
-1 0
C
C
x
L
a •14
•M
0 4- 7
L L
0 ., m a 0
W
-
"I
Hm+1 COMA:=
H12
dies
F-
C U
m••+
di+-1
In C
3r+
0A
H4J4JW6M
LE
N
1
d
E
.,
uro I
urooJ
C C
C
IV Mro
0
I
C
all
41 c
U
N w 0 0
CI
UI (U
• 4
�+
.� M .r
..I
.•11 N m m m Cl •0 19 •0
ml
V)
••4 M
aJ
all
m m •0 NI
Oct
UI
UI
UI 01 +1
Cl
roi .+ qt m m S U7 3 U7
•01
It
UI •.+
c
71
3 mm -1
m
al
C
aJ UI m U
rA
>I
•I
UJ
yJ N
.-4I
• • • •1
L
0
L N 0 7
Ll
II 95;a; N193,1
m19
inIll
L a
c
rol
I9 m3851
m
u
L U L
01
ml .r N
M
L
L 0
>I
N7 -
ep
.o
.-+ +1
ZI
.r
al U
I I
ro
4-
VI
=l
E O.0 C
E 0
0 �-+
E
0
L4-y 0
a
L4-
ro
aJ
L
u
-C8 L
01
c G
0 U
41
3
++ N
4JN
f`I
> ro
++I
M OL!
C X 0 ••+
UI
a1
C X
L E
4
Ix
.+ U
:3I
c
A
u E
c a1
M� L
Ll
aJ c
C
m
C 0
O C
C
Oil
m
WL m W4JI
L 0
0
IDL
-4 U
.• m
o
UI
L
Ul m 0� E
UII
E •ter
•r
1J1 m
+1 L
.+
r0
m
ro m E
cf
.r ++ 41
E
jj
ro M
K' L
ro.0 a
y
al
m
al c m 0
01
.r UI CI ro
U
a1 c
N 0
OJ rm E U
U
L
C
L ro c v
Ul
IL >• C r. M
•.+
01
L ro
N 4-
u 0 v fa
al
u
ro
U -Wra
r, W .,on L
<L
to
u IJ
-4
m In E 4•
(n
c
-WC
UI L
.,I
L 0 u c In is
c Ut
m
cl
4- c L
•.. c 0
�ql
•r4 IL ro L 4J c 0
L
..,
(1-4
01
L ►-+ >• 0
aJ 0
rot
a a m Id - a
.-
a1
1
.41
0 -4 N
0
�
a1
N 'D•..
31
mcn aa1 a¢
m
x10mx
+il
m yva
0
et
13
In 0 4J KI
01 L -4 m z .J >
3
.0 0
c
rol
4J •. m
cr
RT
0
N? u u .-r
Ll
M al 0 L Q. In ;J m
M
m U
ro 13
-1
al ro Cr 01 13
.+
U
0 1
01
•.. 4j -1 •p+ ro
"0
.-4
L
71
MOD •q .4 •.r
"4
ro LIX
-41
UI UIm¢4J= m_
•. .
m
ro
. ro
In1
.4 m ofUt
IV
• ;J
Ll
4J ro .-I m m
In
+1
..
4J M
cl
In : C aJ
4J
..
W
C
~I
�O
L
FW- 0 C L
Oil
0OLN-+UnU an
F-
F- W
C r0
►-r NN
FO-
H
a 1
O> 0 m
x1
O>
0+1
4-I
O>
Z 0 u Z7
WI
Z 0
U 0
01
Z
O
13
c
I
ro
L QI
L
I C c
rr 0
UI
U 0 0
I aJ
cI -�
al
c � P4
0 m
C
•,,
0WLM4J
Lal
•F4 3 m c
m
u 3 al u
at
41 c 0
:1
+W m I
c
Nm G19108•0ml
1.7
v 0 •.r •4
aJ
0 L L
111
0
UI
m a 40 In m
In -41
m
m aJ 4J +1
m
IT a 0 4j
C
-A
-4a,
al
1
ul W 4J ro
L c E -wul
41 ro
41
-CL
01
a m •-r m m CA
19 m1
U7
L al UI
C
M 0 0 u c
L
U
41
n
.41
N
N
+-W0L
o
C•..U00
UIaJO
4J
rol
4- 0J
•m •
0! ++ L U
a1 >
L
UI
m
>I
0 >� .x >
.1J UI
m ro 41
-W 0
+1
a1
al
I I
a L C
m z
Z L in "o
m
In
Cam.
xi
4. 0 m 0
> a
+1 aJ M al
L C
C
•,1
0 c m u
aJra
.4mmaIn
+1•.40
.,a1
m
.4 L
3 •.r 4J U 0
UI
u
c
CD c�+
W lT
0 m c a
cN
0•.,
c m m
0
M C L ro 0
01n13
0>
., c •0 0
• 4j
W0 01 -4 L
E (`J
w
L
aCLUI
c0
CUCr4a
al
L
3al
ro•.7ro
mz
0 ma
'aM-4
0Ln
c
c
U C U
.+ 0.
-4 >. C+ E al
a!
n
-4
C
0
0
UI al
a.
UI L 0 C
>
Q
0J
0
E •14
'+
*0 M y L
.r
W ro M u +•+
0J ro
a1
.0
u
-+ -J
E
41
c c m 0
w al
m E c 4J
M N
L
.. C ro
r-4
u
m ro E
++ M
m ro w 4. U
0
C
>•
tL C r.
M P4
0)
14 •m Or
'm 0
UI L m 0 01
E 00J
0
OI
.36 aJ •F4 0
L LL
En
In41c
ln�
.•av0 -1
cm
pqL
LU U ZUIM
mm c-
WU- 0
L•.+
0
+1
w
..
aJ aJ • 4 C
>-I aJ ro N 01 L
al m
U
ro
c
¢ L a al ro ►•
n-
-+
In .0 �
..
I;rUI U >• m M a
4J r+
E
al
ZI
m In a 0J
a Q
(00
c m
al
SUt r I aJ 4 0
n -
L UI
L
OI
al rot +>
>.
3
a0+m
U
WI '-I ro ro4. E UI
an
01m
0
UI
"1
'13e LCLEn•+J(D
al
0 c L
c
zi 0 c 0 •..
EJO
> L
4-4J
H
•4m •1 m
m
r.
L •- v 0
0)
WI L C ro r0 z
0
0 m
C
u
al
N Z, Q +1 ' Ill
a 'm
m
CL +W 41 0
L
a 0 r, 4J
U m
m
•+
a1
JI
.4-1 U') .r m
m UI
aJ
c m m
aJ
—1-4 aJ aJ z
a1
01 C
•11
:)1
:1 al � :
� c
0
W ro a1 +1
4•
UI 0J +1 > M 4J L
w 0
UI m
al
0
NI
O 0 lL n •0
n �-+
F-
Z—LM
m
Ul Cmro0•-0
C00++
rL
ZI
I- a u 0
CC
'-'1 1- > 2 E 1 4•
P a
.4 In
F-
a
"I
++ IT
I
1 0
c
aI C'a
-+
41
u c
I
m a
aJ E c
c
m •+
0 u
Iv
c
-I S
M
4j
Ul
L N 0
01
IL 3
In
L
ZI
all
a U
al
aJ -+ U
al
m -A .-4 N
al
L
Ul 01
!- C
OI
E
L •M
-4
aI
IL
> c m al
+J
4J
L .-0
L
ro Yl
1111
ro 0
0
-1
4+ in
a L
.,
C
C
m 0 +i +j
0
0
>. I- m aJ
U
al
Ul
a1
'+
C
Hl
L
4j
•.r
++
c ••+ In 0
Z
Z
+1 c c
UI
41'.4
�-4I
L 4J
+W
0
Ul
m
0 0
3
0
+J C L
-r in 41
in y
>I
m u
m m
—1
WI
a aJ
0n a
++
>
4+ -4 •� a
C
c
al
al •.r
trl
W
•-4 E
41
HI
al U
C L
0
U
-4
C '0
0
0
M C
L
U0-4
WI
al '-I
L L
m
OI
13 ••+
••+
10
ai
C
aI m IL al
•-,
4J al CU •+
U -4
fnl
+i 0
al 0
L
1XI
>
m 3
m
'^1
0
E m M L
++
y
L
-.
m ;•+
m L
+I 4•
al
al
L L
-+ 0
m
0
al •,4
a.
a
-+ m C
-r
1
Ul
-4 CL
-,4 C
M
aJ al
•.w -r
C
L
Ul
Ul C -i 4-
4
.r
m 4d
•.r
>� •
..I
L
L •m
•.+
WI
4J In
0 4-
Cl
0i
m ►+ -a
L
L
C UI L
3
++ -i M
JI
a L
U
111
xi
m
m
L
L
d Ul
u
U
m aI UI 0
•-+ -+ C
ml
0 al
�
C
►•+I
3 L
C
al
QJ
.4
; C
Ut
o
t 01 4-
Ul
- a>
>I
L'M
IT m
0
lLl
al
Ill 0
3
C
7
al c
al
al
L ++ u
m
•-y 0
W
a C
C C
u
al 4j
c -
0
4j
0'
C E E •+
0
JI
A
In u +j
w
++ L
a s
•-+ 0
�l
t m
+1 �
+
t
m
m a
m ! to
al
m o m ly
L
o CP
LLI
m
+J -4
3
++ 3
.,4
In
W
L
L 4J 4J
4J
tn1
4j
L +J In
ro
M L
01
Ul
m +•J
al
>-1
13
u
a In in •+
u
01
u
41 >-
m al al
aJ aJ
0 • 4
•.a
JI
aJ aJ
-r mi
m
3
aJ
41 >. >. 7
aJ
111
al
4+ jw UI
t
C a 13
> 1
c -W
-4 10
>
al
> c
a m
C'a
m
UI In ND
1
tnl
•1
mC•..41In
m m c
Hl
410MMIll
ILI
0•+Ja
mm
0
0
-1
0
Ill -a C
m
u 3
0-41C>
m
L
OI
M
7 C
L
U
M L Ill 0I
L
01
L
al U •.+ IL
L
OJ In
JI
3
0i
NI
m m
UI
Ul
c al a t
IL
ro +J E
+I
+J '0 M
►•.I
al al
UI
L
aJ
y
0
CM
m -+ •,4 4j
W
7 a
'" l
•-+ C al
ml
-4+ -C
L •-
0
1XI
m -W
0
al
4ja
C
Y
C OI
.r'a L
W
Ul m -•
al
> +j
0
w-
WI
al m
• 1
UI
•-,
-. c 10 aJ
..
al
..
-r m M ..
r
-+ -+
JI
aJ
4- M
HI
c U
In
0
m
M
ro- C M
al
31
aJ
cZI
al m
••.I
Lc
CM
a1
•..-+alM--iIll
-+ULroro
u
UP
u
3 m 17
L aJ 4j
al
•-q
C ,-,
01
3I
-4 m
41 m
u
•+
•+
•.+ a 4-J L
UI
aI
Iw
-wUI d
>I
aJ
0 3
m
41 C
m 0
.-•i
7
C 0 0 C E
al
W4J C L
C
al
InM•.,
0..,
0-
n-r
L
m
m
ro am
L
L
L ro In
v
E •., .•
m m
41 -
>
—1
0
c
ai
-W
t of al :3-Wm
—I
n1
a)airoIll
m0-,
alCa-+0
ml
in
Ill m41UI
W
U L L In
d1
Z L L C
0
L •.v al
.1
-r •m
•.4 0
L
ml
UI m
m aJ
m
C
c
aJ •-•4 •.. 0 >.
al
ml
al
F- u y ++
u
`} 3 m
CJI
tL r+
L 4-
a
—1
a C
ro-W
3
P
E k* ++ UI
IX
—1
IX
.. Cl
C
ai
u L
•J tM aJ
0
Ln
u41°3o.44N
•W
a,
a aI
•
m C L
C
.Y
`+-
C 0
L M
0
al 0 � >�
ro
C
aJ
�
4-
C
4- al
4-
In ' F- -,
4- -. 4-
++ >-
a •.+ m
e
m
I
-+
L
0
•., -W
01 C
0
a-+ a•
•H 0
.-4
a ++ c
+J
0
•.,
m
U
0
c al
aJ 0
aJ 4
ro ai In
0
L al
N
a
C
IL
ai
U1
0 M -C L
L L C
L m
7 -4 al 0
al
+J
a - 4
0
-.4 11
-C 3
aJ
L al +i C •N
-W 0
0 7
C1' 7 3 m
L
CD
al
C
•-+
U 0
+•J 0
L
W C •.r •-+
.Y •+
UI In
w N �.+ . i
0
3
N C
C
m-W
0 L
c
7
ai Cti7 E c m
E C
0 •-+
caj0e
O
c•.+
++am-ra
In
++L--+
c0mroa>
•0 •-i L
0 O
L
C
d
m c
m
0 0 -+ 0I ro
L d U
x
M m
U1
C
•+
C
0
••+
1 N
c o
al
41 al c
4- 0
0l m
.� c m 41
al
3
u C
-W
E
•., -C
al CT
C N
.Y al
4J ro
-. W3 m
u
ai ro
w
wo
f +j
L C
-�
- Ln V 0 aJ
U 3 aJ
C
3 m •-o O
L
U
0-
0
u
Ci
�
4-1C
M
L
0)
.0.-4 H
-+ U
m E UI
a
m
L U►
.0
0
v
m 0
m C
7
•.r 0' c U1 a
-4 aJ
In UI C
aJ
iL aI
m
a
.0
-o
al ai
-w
C aJ L
M aJ
al '"
3 C m -+
Ul
7
y
L In
`+- a
U
� +
C �+ WJ
aJ C
U 0
o m CU
..
4-
of '.4 In
4j
+, In
w
Wm
0 -4 m
a ++ In
x L
M L 4J QJ
C
0
in m e
al
UI
m
UI •-+
MI M
4J
U D - 0
a 0
aJ a
C 41 c C
F-
>> 0
C
a
C
aJ -W
aJ
•-+
-+ m al ++
ai 0 Z
Cm
•-r 7 +j
al
•-q
-+
>
m
m-
~I
a UI
Z
3 0 3 L
+W +1 0
0 0
C
3 -- 0
41
-.
al C
UI
a 0+
U
0 -a 0 ++
U1 =
W •-+
•-.
L E 't
-y
m
++
aJ
aJ
a al
Cl
al C
L
M '" C C
u 11
m-C
M
0 0 0
L
m
L = -+
O
c
U
E
ILI
+J •.r
m
C 01 -r 0 aJ
UI •-a
•-1 4.J
-r
C L (fl
al
> 4,
Iv 7
0
+j
m
m m
EI
In m
•-4 t ro •14 U
•M 4-1 -•
>
•.•
•-gL•.,InL
IP)
clru
EM
a
..
Ill
3+W +Wm
mmoE3
u•-+ L
o
X .
w C-a
wl
>,
-UI
ro-IJ
N-M
C
• L-1
C CM
L 0a
m E +j 01
41
V t
., m
—1
-+
In
C
JI
74-1
•- m 0 M
04.1 0
a L
4- u >.
u
0I
m U
1-1
0
al
C
0 0l
al
4j n
IL C a a m-
m E
4-
ai
41 0 m
m
L a-
-.4
"I
7
4+
01
UI -
OI
u
UI
0 0
+J a
al
C
L m M -4
%4-
++ 0
aJ •-, M
ZI
0
0
a
aJ -
al
(M
aJ M
aJ
•.r •-+ DJ L Ut
L E 0
U N
++
4j aJ a
0
u 0 m
WI
-f
C
0
u a
u
"1
.11
41
41 L a IT
0 a-W
m 3
7= L 0
C
M aJ
C m 0
EI
>
u U
C
>I
0 L
m
,P4 y C
a Ut
a W
In
0= a 3
to
aJ 0
al J
al
al
C
aJ
m x
aJ
L 0
•-+
C M L •-a
L
0 •-+
C
In 4J
E
-y -4
L M
L
CIN
-•+
aJ
L
a
U
C M 3 al
L 0J 01
>
aJ
L In
.0 m
al 0l L
^1
a
•-+
M
Cl
aJ
^1
N
0
•4 m 0 c -+
al d 4-
c
++
-� +J •-4 al
a1
0 >
4- In 0
mI
0
m
0 aJ
4-
al
aJ
ul
In -, CD •.r
3 aJ
aJ M
4-
-4 •-+ c c
c
0 1
aJ 0 0
ml
N
0l
0
C L
al
ail
C14-
UI
al C 0l •-+ 7
0 0 X
a C
0
a 3 H 41
-w
M Cc
IX a=
—1
a-0
7
UI It
OC
"1
f- 0
m
'fl ".0 t.0
1- 4J"
O ro
In
1
o c l IE t m C GI al al o o L Ul m
+J D 0 u al •.. a1 J,J ro m +j Ul m al c L >.
0 4- m +J In m m a M m 13 .. L -4 m L 0l D
.•4 .r = C m al L M UI •.+ C C 0 +J m O N
0 .r (U Y m III m 0 E .+ m .. Lq 4- •.. 13
UI al t C L C D UI UI c .+ A .4 Ol
L 4J •+ al u m C c III III E +J 0 C" •.+ L
.-4 01 U aI ••+ m a L 0 aJ C •+ D +J Ol iJ •n
m>4- m00. u0+J u=(U c>>
L 0 0 a +J a al +J a )h% 0 0 Q
0 U N al c al m e :J UI al L +J •+ 0 al
4J 4• C 0 al 4J 0 .1 •.+ •.+ C L Q- m m +J L
U 0 0 .4 C U Ul M a L OI +J D L c
al ••+ D 111 m 0 H Oi ... 'A UI -1 0 . MI c Qi +J
44 0 +J N I a a III C 01 U .-. 3 OJ 4J a M > 0 c m
•.+ c m 41 m 0 UI L a1 a m w +J m E .. m •.. •.. L
.0 4 C C ••+ 111 . (I ucmaIII o 041tn41
u> •r4al E OI C D al -YUI x m C E +J m o
L L '0 E = " al L -4 ZI al ••i -4 0 C III C - a L
M al L al D a Ul nl ro c (Di 0 E U 0z zl v 1 O al
I10-4 mm0mMc3al •.I cal0 u41 01 aIII L>
41 01 0 111 UI aJ L 3 al 01 NI m m m Ul ► 1 D C a 0
c 13 u 4• 7 M L M L. WI •1 ) +.W HI •P4
ID u 0 al m LT m •.+ Cl .Y of Ul >. L D m QI Ul III
. -4 UI Ulal a m c In u .� L u+J L >I 14• LG
.4•m+J+ 'DI CLm0•.•L 1110 JI m•..••mo+ CCI L0mm
a! •.• ZI 0 +J U C v m >, D Cl 0 L L m e wl 1-4
u +J u "I ••I In m -# Ul D CCI c 0 3 C •.+ (AI +J m al 1
x U L III ZI UI L M Ut •c 7 >� MI -4 a 41 ZI L 111 afmoa ZI •++1CM M.0 . Hl mE.xin4•c of 0L3m
^1 4- UI QI > •.+ m aJ D 7 Ul UI -4 al u IT 0 •.4 UI 4• m
C 0 JI 0 3 .4 .4 al L :5 WI •.. aJ -i C L 4• al In
M L Ul 0 CLI L O. 01 OIL +J D HI 0 C L -m C >I 01 OJ .. L
a +J C a Ul Ul L +J +J P-41 D 0 D a 0 al (DI L a o
L C -4 WI of -Y >. +J m =I u -. •.. CO L 4J E 4J W
4j al - 3 ►-I m C C L al 4- rr ul a, m •,q in •.. W1 u m u a
.+L00 o.-41L•.,mm4-L4--4- Q:l L4-COaL ZI 0Cxro0
3 1-- a .� (nl D D > o U 0 3 0 ¢i I•- 0 m D 3 WI E 01 u. U
III 0
m u
41 0 m
I a1 Ul al m LTD a, a
c OI •+ L D m III C •.r c Ul
Ul 0 13 m x +J 0 III Ul L•• 1 L F-
Iu al aJ c a! 4- -4 ;J ro u +J c
Cnl +J a1 L mi •4 o m rr it m m c III
❑l 0 L t- - m aI L . +J C L UI M •M L +J ,-. 0 L . a
IT z ••+ > L'M •M al 0 m u al c 3 OI u CD a U 0 0 0
01 0 0 m M 0cc .. +Jro c mcIII +J
X1 c C. L L Cr 0 al L 0 +J Ill •N L +J C •-4
0 al 4• a E 0 111 N M L 3 Z C u 0 0 al 0 U1 111 m
�I "I L4. La L •4m Dal LEUlCa1EC
+i 0 CD 7 um +J C•.4'1 N a0•.4 c c 0
z1 a +Jcc+J +JU 1�u 0+J0a) u 1m0-
01 •.•4 0 7 - UI C 0 Ul c al •.+ m L al Ut al ++ •- L +J
r-+1 L C L (I m c al al ro 1-1 +J L a >• •14 .0m a •A u
Ha Daa) 0 L c l u>. Lu 0 c
QI UI ea UI 01 +J OM UI -W ro +J L ••+ c UI ..4 +J 4• +J 3 > 0
F-1 OB E O1 +J E -i C aI a u a L III - a 0 ro m m 4-
1XI In 0 •., al u •+ 0 c Ul aJ U CD L E +J C C 4
DI c WI m Ul 41 -n CU Lai Ul 1- al •.+ -4 o ++ > LT UI
CLI +J 0 (DI in al d LT 0 L ZI III 0J E m •+ c al
(AI U • 4 QI al 4• >. L al 0 C L +J ►+I C al w D •.+ +r al - •.r +J
ZI al 4-J ZI m 0 Ul iJ III m c •14 a GII T • L 7 +J m +J al UI m
QI 'I m "1 0 L 0 •,4 s L MI +J 0 M +J G71 to C U •.r U m L
CCI 0 u QI U C ••+ 4J 0 U SL L UI aJ of u .ti al H al 0 0 m a1 0
H 1 L 0 CLI 0- U 4• L m 0 > =I al a UI 4- ZI aI 4j •y a .4 a
11 J of -4 ...4aI m III�+ m a 0 0 '"1 E 0 0 �-41 3 0 13 UI a L
Ul ro+J3aL L7l roa wvam 1 00 01 Ul0
1-41 +J El a c >. E m ZI a M> +J WI L L X CLI +J U C >, U
J1 u M •••o al L •.4 L "1 -1 +J al 01 C >-1 11 c in >, al •eq c 01.-� C
mi al LU of u +J '0 +J . YI U III L L ai o1 0 Ul 4*1 Gil L L al a
=11 u 'I HI ••+ 01 +,J c Xi o 0J aI 0. E U1 JI 0 aJ �I m+Jo4-oro
CLI c 0 G]I C L OJ 0 " 0 CI C L > al 01 CLI +J Ul Ol 01 al ZI E +J u .1J
al L 0 +J C E •4 (Li 0 +J 0 111 > u El •4 >, c +J of E 0 - al •.. U
L CL E -4 111 +J E UI U L 0 m WI L -4 0 •.r •.i ml 7 C +J m -q c a
-I 111 -1 OJ In .4 +J 0 -I +J L .4 ai m r1 0 UI UI •.+ al 0) D -W
UI 4• L mi 01 41 UI rr all Ol 4- 0 a a 4- aJ a 0 > 0 > m 0 0
ul a1 c • 31 L -4 C .+ >� 0 Oil L+ 3 C E 01 1 OI OJ E 0 c •1 C m 0 m 0 01 L
�I X ro "1 l'- In 0 1 In UI "1 1- 0 l'- ••+ -4 L 1'?I Ct M aJ L 0 ItI ►, c m a 0 m a
10
11
1
c
'
0 tm
Y
E UI
UI •A -1
E O L
'
y
a y
E
4 13
0
,-. Ql
to
N '.4 •4
0 C C
L +)
4J
'-� C U
'4 01
3 H '+
c
'
.. •.,...
ro
a E w
E >� QI
O a
N "00
M
0
a
N 0 41
QEl
0
c c
Cmt
N
CPa
E a "7
Ql 7 w CP
>.
L C E
w N m
c
'
O
N
0 Q!
¢
0 0
a! L
.00
�aPaLL
rorn
Om
a, N L
Q)
at E c
QI -w
-+
WM-44j
3
c -4
N m
to
L
41
'
f ++
UPI
to 41
L 0-W
0
+1 m 0
0 7 W
++ •4
•.r
0 '} C a
E
0 '^ L
0
+�
C 0 m
L
t U
4- •.+ +J
•.+
0 C
N L m ro
O
+1
L71
C
cm ro >.
0 m
m
m
m
41 L
U1
ZI
c C .4
C M
to
WI
4J Qt •14 4J
"I
•.. +J '-+
0
L71
•.+ C UI
M
NI
m m
>. Ql
4-
Cl
y L
QI
OI
•4 L O
C L
0
ZI
c C Ql
c
OI
> Ql +r
m +1 U
'
b-4I
On E O C
Ql
21
0 L U
C L
m
(XI:1
0 41v
L++ ro
0 M
L
Q:I
0LMmL
WI
am
d3
m
01
C `+- QI L
0
W I
L 4.
E QI
3
+1 C
.0
>-1
Ql 0
0 m.0
m
El
L •.r N
I
OI
L"
U
SI
C al ro—
L
JI
m al m
UI r-+
L
OI
Q) +i 4J �
QJ
a.1
41 QJ
QJ -4 '4
0
HI
> m w QI
>
El
W '4 •.+
-C L
0
LOI
W 3 L 3
0
W I
3 N '.4
H4-1 3
>.
K.
I
U_
cc
z
�
Y
N
<
0
a
U_
uj
a
z
O
-
cc
cn
O
=
cc
L
I■I
L■_L�I
�n
PF1
LIUuuuu�=�u
-L-i-�� Op p0. o0 0
r o I r
1 I I
W z 1 �
1 ` I u
Fi
�l FT (� � I
1E/
:wZ
a
95
1 �fUU L
I:
oIF] I
I
QLiL --- 4 If I
J t IVNIO180
U =
w
a
I II
} 1 I
� I W 1 Imo•---_. _
1 e3iNnH 11
CL
= o ( Lal
i II'
U Y (
2 ! cc
1 a IL
w C•_
i Fir
i;14,�, I�pjl (� •
• 1 ,i: •
I II 1.' •1 I
lit, il�, Ili dal lfl� I ( IIIW 1 •
I J .I�Y' 11� •
1Ul
..4......_........................................-...............-.N�:��Nc�:-1.` •
I
I ( •
a ( •
ZiI I L I I •
1
---------1�dS1L� •
Q I •
�I W •
J2 •
J W S G � •
.1 o g
_1
1 •.••••••••••••.••••••d••••••.
1 HH'HHHF]
•
HH
U
)W►d N113S1
l
I
n
I
ti
a
(a
J
a
m
O
O
U.
M
R
3
L,
i
9)
w_
O
H
y
Z
O
H-
Q
w
J
w
Z
0
J_
m
11
1
520
EAST HYMAN ST.
WATER AND
WASTE USAGE SCHEDULE
WATER
WAS'.CE
FIXTURE
FIXTURE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
3 WATERCLOSETS
9
12
3 TUB/SHOWERS
6
6
3 KITCHENS
6
6
1 SINK 1 DISHWASHER
3 LAVATORIES
3
6
STUDIO UNITS
4 KITCHENETTES
8
8
4 WATERCLOSETS
12
16
4 LAVATORIES
4
4
4 TUB/SHOWERS
8
8
RETAIL SPACE
4 LAVATORIES
4
4
4 WATERCLOSETS
12
24
4 HOSE BIBBS
8
--
RESTAURANT
3 WATERCLOSETS
9
18
2 LAVATORIES
2
2
1 URINAL
5
2
3 KITCHEN SINKS
6
6
4 FLOOR SINKS
--
8
1 HEALTH DEPT. LAVATORY
2
1
TOTAL WASTE FIXTURE UNITS 131 F.U.
BUILDING REQUIRES A 4" SEWER SERVICE
TOTAL WATER FIXTURE UNITS 104 F.U.
104 FIXTURE UNITS = 50 GPM
' WE HAVE VERIFIED THAT A 12" WATER MAIN EXISTS IN THE STREET WITH
AMPLE CAPACITY TO MEET PROJECTED BUILDING LOADS AND FIRE PROTECTION
REQUIREMENTS.
' CONTACT:
ASPEN WATER DEPT.
' 925-2020-269 ANN
' WE HAVE FURTHER VERIFIED THE WASTE HANDLING CAPABILITY OF THE 8"
DIAM. SEWER IN THE ALLEY, FLOWING WEST. KEN OF THE SANITATION
DEPT., 925 3601 HAS ASSURED US OF THE ADEQUACY OF THIS MAIN.
' WE HAVE VERIFIED BOTH SEWER AND WATER ARE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THIS
PROJECT WITHOUT EXPANSION OF THE CITY'S UTILITIES.
Ll
I
520 EAST HYMAN ST.
STORM DRAINAGE
WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTAIN AND DISPOSE OF ALL STORM DRAINAGE WATER
THRU THE USE OF A DRYWELL SYSTEM DRAINING INTO THE SUB -SURFACE
STRUCTURE ON SITE. SEE ATTACHED DETAIL OF PROPOSED DRYWELL SYSTEM.
GRADE
BRASS MARKER
SET IN 12"x4x' 4"
CONCH GROUT.
REMOVABLE CONC. U p
COVER WITH LIFTING a-1
RING
e O
6" PVC INLET
MIN. IS" OF I-I/4"
o°
aa.
ROCK FILL
AROUND
PERFORATED
SECTIONS a
rl a s a s a
N
UNDER BASE
O
e
Cl° ° °
o,0
Q o
WI U
c W
o_•
e o
no
N
Z
°O
fO
U W
a
• °
5`-0" INSIDE 0
H Q
Qlp
/
ww
CONC. BASE
\
3`-0"INSIDE(
6
x
aa. a
POURED
HOLE
IN PLACE
v..� .....
-o
e'•° �o OD
o
,
�. • e .' I
6 - 4 0
-
DRYWELL DETAIL
N . T. S.
n
II
z
O
Q
J
U
J
Q
U
Q
O
J
0
z
a
w
a
M
cc
w
z
w
IPROPOSED BUILDING U VALUES
520 EAST HYMAN ST.
TYPE I WALL - UPPER AND PENTHOUSE
LEVELS;
S, E,
& W WALLS
R-VALUE
'
OUTSIDE AIR FILM
0.17
3 5/8" BRICK
0.80
1" AIR
1.00
'
FELT PAPER
0.06
5/8" GYPBOARD
0.56
6" BATT INSULATION
22.00
'
5/8" GYPBOARD
0.56
INSIDE AIR FILM
0.68
TOTAL
25.83
UI
1/25.83 = 0.0387
'
TYPE II WALL - PLAZA LEVEL S, E,
& W WALLS
SIMILAR TO TYPE I, EXCEPT
REPLACE
BRICK
WITH 6" STONE
'
STONE 0.08 PER INCH X 6
INCHES = 0.48
R-VALUE
'
OUTSIDE AIR FILM-
0.17
6" STONE
0.48
1" AIR
FELT PAPER
1.00
0.06
5/8" GYPBOARD
0.56
6" BATT INSULATION
22.00
5/8" GYPBOARD
0.56
'
INSIDE AIR FILM
0.68
TOTAL
25.51
UII
= 1/25.51 = 0.0392
'
TYPE -III WALL - ALL NORTH WALLS
SIMILAR TO TYPE I, EXCEPT
REPLACE
BRICK
WITH PLASTER AND 2"
'
RIGID POLYSTYRENE
R-VALUE
UU'fJlut: Alit riLM
U.1
PLASTER
0.40
2" RIGID POLYSTYRENE
10.00
1" AIR
FELT PAPER
1.00
0.06
5/8" GYPBOARD
0.56
6" BATT INSULATION
22.00
5/8" GYPBOARD
0.56
INSIDE AIR FILM
0.68
TOTAL
35.43
UIII
= 1/35.43 - 0.0282
k
IROOF
R-VALUE
INSIDE SURFACE 0.61
12" BATT 38.00
2" RIGID INSULATION 10.00
' SINGLE PLY MEMBRANE 0.06
OUTSIDE SURFACE 0.17
TOTAL 4 8.9T
' HEAT MIRROR GLAZING - SOUTH FACING ONLY
UG = 0.23
I
�I
UR = 1/48.84 = 0.0205
11
ENERGY USAGE PROJECTION
520 EAST HYMAN ST.
WE HAVE ANALYZED AND GENERATED A COMPUTER MODEL OF A CODE COMPLIANCE
STRUCTURE ALONG WITH A MODEL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION FOR THIS
PROJECT. THE RESULTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PHASE I CODE BUILDING
HEAT LOSS 121,445 BTUH
HEAT GAIN 158,103 BTUH
PHASE I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
HEAT LOSS 89,445 BTUH
HEAT GAIN 154,608 BTUH
•PHASE I & II CODE BUILDING
HEAT LOSS 242,261 BTUH
HEAT GAIN 302,319 BTUH
PHASE I & II PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
HEAT LOSS 181,292 BTUH
HEAT GAIN 295,509 BTUH
OUR PROPOSED BUILDING IS INSULATED AND SAVES APPROXIMATELY THE
FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE OVER CODE MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS:
PHASE I
HEAT LOSS
PHASE I & II
HEAT LOSS
26% SAVINGS
25% SAVINGS
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ABOVE NUMBERS, A SAVINGS IN THE OVERALL HEAT
LASS FROM THE STRUCTURE OF 25% IS SIGNIFICANT.
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SINGLE Hnl.JR LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT
FOR AUq . F'M: PHASE 1 It 2 — PROPOSED
JOB NAME: 520 HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86
SITE NAME: ASPEN COL_ORADO 606l nS42 . (.)
OUTDOOR DR/WB: 84.0/1 59.0 F INDOOR DB: 72.0 F RH: 49
Space Cooling Loads it Cfm
SpAc:e Sensible Suopl-y Air
MLA t ! terns /space? :c:- fIn ,,space1
BASEMENT —PHASE 'L,C—ARCH 1 1.C5 912
PLAZA -PHASE L & ^—ARCH x t 5.39 4.1^8
L.IPPER L—PHASE 1 e: H"RCHx 1 7. y4 5 264
PENTHISE—PHASE 1 ?! ARCH- I . t?9 5, I60
HEA,f 't NG LOAD
73-AL ULAT i ON OUTPUT
PHASE t &
2 - PROPOSED
408 f\IAI`tE.: `220
HYMAN
DATE f-''f�l=F'AF�ED:
( 7/29/86
SITE NAME: ASPEN
COLORADO
r.C)61"ait34C.0
W I NTEP DESIGN
DRY FULL: -1. 5» i r
Ir INDOOR 08:
72. c_r F
Space D`si qn
HHat i ng Lc)ads
11
Name
Ialln,:e?
FsA3Ei,lEIVT-F'HA�;E
I. Z:-AF:GH ::, t
l:', :�'7�1
318
F't._AZA-PHASE: t
& --AI;:(--H :I
8-:'!:i
!f= r-'EF' I_. •-PHA'•BE.
t 'c ."-� AF,'Cl+-t 1.
"C'. n'a':'.
7" 4
PE!'.ITHSE-PHASE
1 N: ? '`,F.(:,'H:.'. .I.
•1k •If• # # •ff # # •i` i!• # �F• !4• •IF •IE
?F •'h• iE �4• ii• # # # •i► •1! # # # •11• # •IF+f• i4• # # •!4• # # 3F •?E• # �: M• ?F •!F # •}6 •!f #
•34 !! ?4• # i4 # •lE 1:4• iF •i4 •+F
SlNGiE HOUR LqAD CALCULATTON OUTPUT
N�
FOR Aup.
2 PM; PHASE 1 & 2 - PROPOSED
JOB NAME: 520 HYMAN
DATE PREPARED:
07/29/86
N�
511E NAME: ASPEN
OUTDOOR DB/WB: 84'0/
COLORADO 60615842.0
59.0 F INDOOR DB: 72'0 F RH: 49 %
Zone Loads &
Svstem In -formation Summary
LOAD COMPONENT
SENSIBLE(Btu/hr) LATENT(Btu/hr>
m�
------------------------------------------------------------
SOLAR GA (N
54.842
0
GLASS TRANSMISSION
6.9-77
0
N�
WALL TRANSMISSION
2,447
0
ROOF TRANSMISSION
1,936
0.
TRANS. LOSS TO UNCOND.
SPACE 0
0
LIGHTING ( 34,753
W TOTAL) 118,61�
0
N�
OTHER ELEC. ( 0
W TOTAL) 0
0
-
PEOPLE ( 278 PEOPLE
TOTAL) 68.115
56,994
MISCELLANEOUS LOADS
0
0
N�
COOLING TNFILTRATION
4,844
-5~935
m�
COOLING 5AFETY 8TU` s
O
0
257,771 ,059
m� NET VENTILATION AIR LOAD 20,622 -40,80!
SUPPLY FAN LOAD (BHP= 2.7) 6.858 o
ROOF LOAD TO PLENUM o 0
N� LIGHTING LOAD TO PLENUM 0 0
N�
TOTAL COOLING'LOADS
TOTAL COOLING LOAD =
285,251
295,509
1O,257
Btu/hr;
or 24.63 ton; or
564.5
sq ft/ton
ZONE TOTAL FLOOR AREA =
13�9O1
sq ft '
TRANSMISSION AND SOLAR
GAIN BY EXPOSURE
LOAD COMPONENT AREA TRANSMISSION
SOLAR GAIN
N�
N�
(sq ft)
__________________________________-_________________________
(Btu/hr)
(Stu/hr)
GLA5S LOADS: NE O
0
0
E 452
1,371
19,965
SE 0
6
3
S 516
1,434
29,522
Su 0
0
0
NW 0
0
0
N�
N 632
H 8
4~171
0
5.355
0
N�
WALL LOADS: NE 0
0
-
E 2`340
548
-
SE 0
0
-
S ( ,830
1,7B4
-
SW
W 2,940
229
-
N�
NW
--
N Z,040
-114
-
************************************************************
N�
COIL SELECTION PARAMETERS
N�
COIL ENTERING AIR TEMP. (DB/WB)
=
73.6/ 62,9 deq F
COIL LEAVING AIR TEMP. (DB/WB)
=
57'0/ 56'6 deg F
COIL SENSIBLE LOAD
=
285,251 Btu/hr
N�
m�
COIL TOTAL LOAD
=
295,509 Btu/hr
COOLING SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE
=
57'0 deg F
N�
TOTAL COOLING CFM
COOLING CFM/SQFT
=
=
15,623 Cfm
1. 1Z Cfm/sqft
m�
RESULTING ROOM REL. HUMIDITY
=
-----------
61 %
HEATING LOAD CALCULATION OUTF'U'r
PHASE 1 ?< 6 — PROPOSED
,JOB NAME: 5-20 HYMAN DATE PREPARED: (.)7/29/86
SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 6(.i6t594 ,0
WINTER DESIGN DRY BULB" —15.0 F INDOOR DLL: 72.0 F
�f' •lf' �F * iE i!•IE iF iE •1(•!F• iE•if � if •i4• il• •I(iF it iF•if •)(• 14 Y±F iF �F �F � �•K•!!•It• �t •iF iF � �t * ie iF it �t i!••11••IE �• iF•!F i� �F i!• aF� •lFik if ik �F
HEATING LOAD SUMMARY
Kota: HeAtinq load is computed at wir;-ter- de!-,ign C:ondlti6r;.
LOAD COMPONENT LOAD (Liti_i/lir 7
WALL... TRANSMISSION
." . , 094
ROOF TRANSMISSION
9. 758
GLASS TF'ANSM I SS I ON
50, 59 t
TRANSM I SS T. ON LOSS 1'C� UNCONLi . ;:�PACEE,
C NF I L-TRAT I ON LOSS
_ 5. 12':
SLAB FLOOR FLOOR
�,, ;'64
HEATING SAFETY NTI..! ' :=)
c'1
2I..11-.4— f f"TA1...
! 4 i , 5 18
NET V[=NTCLATI im l..riss
.77, 774
TOT0ii.. HEATIiNG LOAD
131.292
HEATING St IPPI....Y CF M
. 5 29
C•f rn
HEATING :Si P -'!.,'r' A'r. R TENPERA r!-1Rl"
J. 1 c-, , 0
d eq F
HEATING VENTILATION =I I R C:;FM
3.5
C•f in
HEATING SEASON RO011 DRY LjULB TEMP.,
i':?
cdr:?u 1=
SINGLE HOUR LOAD
CALCULATION OUTPUT
FOR AUn . S
PM � PHASE l & � -CODE
.JOE( NAME: 520 FAST HYMAN
DATE PREPARED. 07/29/86
SITE NAME: ASPEN
OUTDOOR DB/WB: 85.0/ 59. Ea F
C_ OLORAD13 606151342.0
INDOOR T)B: 777.C) F PH: 49
.�.•�•aEaEaE�!•*•���•aE�•+�aE*aEaE*+EaEaE�••+��*�••�aEaE�••�•tE�•**•�*��•�:+�••�*�•aE•tE•�•�•�•**•±�aEaE***�••!�•�
Space Cooling
toads & C+m
'
Space ; ensibl.e Supply Air
'p_al"P blame Ml..t.l. r.
(''t_inc; /spat'-9) 1c-4;m/4pAczf?)
'
---'---.----------- ------ -- _— ---.--
BASEMENT —PHASE 1 & „ 1
_— '—_ --_ -.—--------•-'----
1.25 91.E
PLAZA LEVEL —PHASE 1 & 2 ., 1
6,, 07, 4.411
l.►PF'EP LEVEL —PHASE 1 "c 2 .. t
%.'9 5. ': 1
PENTFISF: LU1.. -PHASE 1 gt '2 ., J.
7,.:=9 5,
•!Eat••* •� •� aE aEaE aEaE •* aE � aEaE •�• aE *• �• � •�• aE as •�• aE •�• •� �• aE aE •�
�•+�• •�. •+E+E •tF •� aE aE � aEaE •� aE aE � *+f aE � �• * � aE •� �•�••�• aE
11
HEATING LOAD
PHASE 1 &
CAL(^t_lLA r I ON OUTPU r
'? - CODE
JOB NAME: tis20 EAST HYMAN
BATE PREPARED:
07/29/e6
SITE NAME: ASPEN
COLORADO
60615e42.0
WINTER DESIGN DRY BULB: -t5j.0
F INDOOR DB:
72.0 F
Space DeS:i gn
Heating Lours
Space Sensible
Air
.yt=:� i�l:.fne r-lutt;
Pt_t.t,''hr/ so,t c e1
(C_t'if) 'ssp -tcC5)
'
---------------------- ----
l,,(-',SEMEN,r-F'HASE t ?. :? J.
---------- ---- -----
t.' �'•: 4
-------
t
PLAZA LEVEL -PHASE l ;'. 1
F'ti
���. c'<�
1 ,'f')5
tJP!''FP LEVEL-PHASE1. °. 2 .. ;.
4•.'. -7,j
I,,C!.'-%
rFE_ .... p .._
hiTHSE ! 'JL-F'Fira �E I. < t
r ;•
8 !, 1t't-
... c�
-
il•+F Ka4•IF•t(•!E•+!tE.�aFi!•*.{t.��f•14•i��4*.� M!iF•!f•+k{Fi'•�!•#i4••Kif•�:.•if•*•iFiE••iFil•.�..�iE.�+.iF•�f•.���.�iF+F.�,Y�+�•�-�•��f•
SINGLE HOUR LOAD
CAL..CULATION OUTPUT
FOR Auq . 3
F'M: PHASE 1 4
2- CODE
JOB NAME: 520 EAST HYMAN
DATE PREPARED:
07/29/86
SITE NAI`1E : ASPEN
COLORADO
60615842. u
OUTDOOR DBi W&: 35. 0/ 59.0 F
INDOOR DB: 72.0
F PH: 49
ZoneLoadsL4System:[nfr�rmationSf-.
►mm�r��
'
1_OAD COMPONENT SENSIL-(LE
-
(Stu/hr)
-
I..A'TENT (.Fitu/hr )
_----------
---------- -- -
SCIL_AIR GAIN
11,51 , 2 975
c7
GLASS TRANSMISSION
11. 440
0
1
WALL TPANSM I SIS i 019
4.581
Q
ROOF TRANSMISSION
5.890
o
TPANS,. LOSS 711 '.!NCOND, SPACE
L 19HT I NG ( 74. 75,-' W TOTAL_)
118,610
OTHER ELEC., 0 W TOTAL_)
0
G
PEOPLE ( 278 PEOPLE TOTAL)
68,115
ci6, 994
I'll SI ELLANEOLIS LOADS
0
0
1
COOLING I NF I L..TR.AT I ON
0,.248
-6, 342
COO(_ [ I%IG GA 'l:_T`r ?f :'!.! ' ?
1
f'}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NET VEN'T I LAl" :[ nN AIR LOAD _
2. 982)
-47, 550
L-UP 'L_Y FAhJ !._I:iAC) (FiF�F'= 2.2)
7•, C)5O
p
1
ROOF I. -DAD TO, 1='L...ENL.JM
0
i i
L. I GHT I NG LOAD To PLENUM
"►
0
TOTAL COCIL_ I NG LOADS
29 5, 2:17
7. 1 C!.^•_
1
TOTAL. COOLING LOAD -
302.319
Btu/hr.
or, '75..19 tun: cr-
551.8
scl ft/tern
ZONE TOT AI.... FLOOR "PEA
17,901
Sq f t
1
•#F.j•ik.:f.+f•af•i4•iFif'il'.y.�F�f••it•iF•1E�9f.,ff"iE'IF•#'•lief•:i•.,V,.'1E•lF�.�E••�.'lF.*�'*'if'•IF•IF'�'*..*.�•�
jf'#.�y.?s.•iP�sa,('if••►i•iF•iFif"!E'1!'•iF
AND SOL._("4F:
A I N BY L:: x
PCSURE.
LOAD COMPONk INT AREA ' •TRANSM
l SS I ON
SOLAR, GF I IJ
'
.(sq ft)
--------------------------------------------
(BtLl/hr)
(BtL.I/hr)
GL.ASS LOADS: NE 0
f ►
0
1
a <►
::�
f:►
516
3,689
".3 , f:►46
LAJ f-?
0
+_>
1
r.4W f:�
°• ►
0
I I t
0
t;►
-
1
of 0
0
S 1,330
2.379
-
SW u
C►
-
W 940
1,617
1
NW 0
0
-
N 2 , 040
0
-
'
COIL._ SELECTION
PARAMETERS
COIL. ENTEIIING AIR TEMP. (DB/WEf)
-
77.7/ 62.9 deq F
COIL L_EAVINC...i AIR TEMP. (DB/WS)
_
57.0/ 56.6 deg F
COIL SENSIBLE LOAD
295,217 Btu/hr
'
COIL TOTAL LOAD
_
302,319 Btu/hr
COOLING SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE
-
57.0 deg F
TOTAL COOLING CFM
16,071 Cfm
1
COOLING CFM/SOFT
_
1.16 Cfm/sgft
RESULTING ROOM REL. HUMIDITY
......... ., .... ,.... ......... „ .......... ....
„ .... ,......, , ......
61
,. ,. . � .. ,.. ,..... .
HEATING LOAD CALCULATION
OUTPUT
'
PHASE I & 2 - CODE
,JOP NAME: 520 EAST HYMAN DATE
PREPARED: 07/'29/86
SI'TE NAME: ASPEN COL ORADO
60615842. o
'
WINTER DESIGN DRY BULB: --15. 0 F INDOOR
DR: 72. () F
HEATING LOAD SUMMAR`!
'
Nate: Heating lead is cnmpuked at winter
desic4n condition.
L..OAD COMPONENT
LOAD (B r u. h r)
-----------------------------------------
WALL TRANSMISSION
39,203.
203.
ROOF TRANSM T SS I nN
Z2. 23 I
'
GLASS TRANSMISSION
.16..56o
Tf-;ANSM I SS I ON LOSS TO UNCOND . SPACES
INFILTRATION LOSS
75,122
SLAB FLOOR.
'w-. 364
HEATING SAFETY Br-r '�
SE.tB-T(7TN1-.
1197..I2.9
'
QN
LA T' ---_.i-------------..----------------�-!
.
----NET -,l---
TOTAL HEr^^STING LOAD
-------. _.r
2-42, 261
HEAT T NG SUPPLY C'=M
4.716 C.f m
H1= AT T NG -St IPPL`+' AIR, TEMPERATURE
1.10. 0 deq F
HEATTNG VENTTL...ATTOh-.l I_aIR GFM
HEATING ROOM DF:Y BULB 'TEMP.
472 Cfm
72 deg F
_SEASON
1
H
F-
Z
W
a
O
J
W
W
a
U.
O
Z
O
z
a
O
J
W
J
I
n
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8166
August 1, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. James Martin
Pitkin Center Joint Venture
215 South Monarch
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Square Footage Available for
the Pitkin Center Joint Venture
Dear Jim,
At your request, and based upon my review of that
document entitled Statement of Exception From the Full
Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Division of Lots Within
the Original Aspen Townsite Into Separate Parcels recorded in
Book 440 at Page 363 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado,
and my review of the Aspen Municipal Code, it is my opinion that
the owner of Lots 2 and 3, Pitkin Center Subdivision, has
available for use four thousand seven hundred fifty five and
six -tenths (4,755.60) square feet in commercial development
credits to be utilized in the construction of commercial space
upon this property. I have assumed that this Exception has not
be repealed or abrogated in any fashion, and that the credits
therein have not been utilized in any other fashion.
It is furthermore my opinion that these credits must be
utilized within five (5) years of the date of demolition of the
old structures which sat upon that property, as is stated in
Article XI, Section 24-11.2, Subsection (a) of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code.
Furthermore, the former owners of the property in
question took such steps as were necessary by obtaining the
above referenced Exception in order to preserve the available
commercial development credits in accordance with requirements
of Article XI, Section 24-11.2, Subsection (.a) of Chapter 24 of
the Aspen Municipal Code.
F
L
1
1
Mr. James Martin
August 1, 1986
Page Two
It is furthermore my understanding, based upon
communications and inquiries to Allan Richman, Director of
Planning for the City of Aspen and the County of Pitkin, that
the owners of the property would be allowed to construct an
,amount of residential square footage equal to fifty (50%)
percent of the above referenced commercial square footage
available and that, as the building formerly located on the
property contained two (2) units, this square footage could be
contained in two (2) residential units.
According to my calculations, research and conversations,
which to date have not been disputed, a total of seven thousand
one hundred thirty three and four -tenths (7,133.4) square feet
may be built in combination of the commercial and residential
square footages discussed above without any additional Growth
Management approvals being required.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Yours very truly,
BROOKE PETS SON.
A Pr essional�C0rpor tion
By`
ok/? A. 'Pete
ASPENAPITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
'
August 1, 1986
William Poss
William Poss and Associotes
Architecture
'
605 E. Maid
Aspen, CO 81611
'
Dear Bill,
T have reviewed
Build.ing Department. files pertaining to Lots
0, P, Q, lt, S, Block
94, Original Aspen Townsite, for record of
'
development credit from
previously existing buildings that. have
since been demolished.
The file contains a caseload summary
sheet (case # 65--81)
granting Planning and Zoning and City
'
Council approval of
an exemption from GMP. The approval was
conditional upon:
'
1) Planning Office
approval of tho reconstruction develop-
ment plans.
1
2) No e,,zpansion of the commercial floor area beyond the
7,289 square feet verified as existing on Lots O,P and
Q, and no more than 2 residential units.
3.1 Provision for a utility/trash enclosure.
Tn addit.ion, 1 have reviewed documentat-ion of further Council
action on the same property, which occurred on December 27, 1982
and again established development credits.
1 find that the avai.l.ahle documentation adequatc-ly verifies
the ,Amount of commercial l'lc,c:r nro;i '7289 sq. ft.) exempt from
GMP, as provided in Sec,. 24-11.2(a), of the. Aspen Municipal Code.
Tf I m Iy be of �:(k i t i on;I l i.ss i., tarlcc in ibis m,11.t:er, please lei
111 e 1; I; o 1i .
1
offices:
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 8i611
i
t`hi >f 1111i Iding Orficir1i
3O3/925-5957S
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ny Miw-il
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager bqF
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office,
RE: 1986 Commerical GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews
DATE: October 21, 1986
Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend
that Council grant commercial growth management allotments to
Little Nell,
Wesson Building, Pitkin
Center (520 E. Hyman) ,
Hunter Plaza,
and the Storehouse Building.
The Planning Office
also recommends that you
carry over
the unallocated square
footage in the
office zone
but not that
in the CC/C-1 or NC/SCI
zones.
Requests: The
following
applications
have been made in this
year's commercial
growth management competition:
GMP
Reconstruction
Allocations
Space/On-site
Project Zone District
Project
Requested
Housing
Total Quota Competition
1.
Little Nell
6,992 sf
12,339 sf
19,331 sf CL and Other
2.
Wesson Bldg.
2,487 sf
2,906 sf
5,393 sf Office
3.
700 E. Hyman
9,000 sf
-
9,000 sf Office
4.
Pitkin Center
3,067 sf
8,933 sf
12,000 sf CC/C-1
5.
Hunter Plaza
8,125 sf
4,740 sf
12,835 sf CC/C-1
6.
Storehouse Bldg.
3,077 sf
1,420 sf
4,497 sf CC/C-1
Quota Available: Quota for
the Commerial
GMP competition is calculated
as follows:
1
•
D
Zone District Annual
Category Quota
CL and Other 3,000 sf
Office
CC/C-1
NC/SCI
Exemptions/ Total
Additions Available Quota
4 ,000 sf 0
10,000 sf +4 ,813
7,000 sf 0
3 ,000 sf
4 ,000 sf
14,813 sf
7 ,000 sf
Quota
Requested
6,992 sf
11,906 sf
14,269 sf
0
*See Alan Richman' s Memorandum of Sectember 22, 1986 for details
of the CC/C-1 quota calculation (attached) .
Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee
gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, Pitkin
Center, and the Storehouse Building. The above projects needed
HPC conceptual approval to be eligible to submit GMP applications
according to Section 24-11,3 (d) .
The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the six commercial
GMP applications at their regular meer-i ngs of September 2, 16,
and 30, 1986. Scoring was done individually by each Commission
member, and the scoring summary sheets for each project are
attached hereto.
Also considered and approved by P&Z were the following special
reviews:
1. Wesson Bldg.:
a. Parking Reduction: P&Z unanimously granted a reduction
in on site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on
the condition that the two residential spaces shall be
demarked for the use of those tenants.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1
subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge
of the property in conjunction with the adacent
landowner.
2. Pitkin Center:
a. Parking Requirements: P&Z approved 5 in favor and 1
opposed two parking spaces for the two 1-bedroom free
market residential units.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously approved an FAR of 2:1.
r.
3. Hunter Plaza:
a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the
requested 25 ft. by 10 ft. trash/utilities area.
4. Storehouse Building:
a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the
requested 8 ft. by 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject
to the placement of a trash compactor in the basement
of the building.
b. Restaurant Use of Open Space: P&Z unanimously approved
the requested restaurant use of required open space.
Allocation Issues:
All of the projects except 700 E. Hyman met the minimum thresholds
and are eligible for allocations. The one successful Office Zone
Competitor (Wesson) and all three CC/C-1 competitors (Pitkin
Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse) can be given allotments
from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Little
Nell project was granted an allotment by Council on September 22,
and is included in this discussion only to formalize that action
by the attached resolution.
The Planning Office recommends that these five projects be given
the requested allocations, as would be accomplished by Council
Adoption of Resolution2)A::- (attached) .
Carry -Over of Unused Quota:
Over the past several years, the
allotments remaining from the
Council can either carry-over
follows:
CC/C-1 544 sf
Office 1,513 sf
NC/SCI 7,000 sf
Council has generally eliminated
prior year. The quotas which
or eliminate this year are as
The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to
carry over the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone district
categories. In the CC/C-1 zones, we are seeing development in
both 1985 and 1986, at a rate within the framework of the growth
management policy. There is no apparent need to increase the
quota for 1987. The NC/SCI zone district has seen no development
activity since the imposition of the quota. While some activity
may be necessary to keep up with growth in the residential
sector, a carry-over would create a 1987 quota in these zones of
14,000 sf, which we believe could encourage one or two projects
of a scale inconsistent with our development and growth policies.
3
The Office Zone is seeing the first new development this year
since the quota was established in this zone district. We
believe that carry-over of the unused 1,513 sf is reasonable
because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office
space in the community. Office space may be needed in response
to recent residential, lodging, and ski area expansion.
Of equal importance are the circumstances surrounding the failure
of the 700 E. Hyman Building to meet the competitive threshold.
A major issue which arose with respect to this building was the
applicant's use of covered parking above grade and his request
for a Planning Office interpretation of whether such space should
count in the project's FAR. Due to an unusual workload this
summer, we were unable to adquately analyze this issue prior to
the August deadline. When this issue was analyzed in the review
process, an agreement could not be reached between staff and the
applicant and the P&Z was required to make the interpretation.
Although P&Z agreed with the applicant that such space is exempt
from FAR under the Code, they felt that the applicant's design
was flawed because of this approach and scored the project
accordingly. The applicant has appealed the scoring (see attached
letters from Dave Myler) but has agreed at the Planning staff's
urging to drop the appeal if Council carries over the unused
square footage to next year. We strongly recommend that you
carry the 1,513 sf over to address the unfortunate problem which
occurred with respect to this project.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends adoption of
Resolution , Series of 1986, to grant allocation to Little
Nell, Wesson, Pitkin Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse
Building, to grant a future year allocation to Little Nell,
eliminate the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone districts
and carry-over the unused office quota.
Ancillary Reviews:
1. Pitkin Center:
a. Employee Housing Parking: Council sets off-street
parking requirements for employee housing units,
according to Section 24-4.1 (c) . The applicant would
provide two on -site parking spaces for the use of the
two free market residential units, and no parking
spaces for the four employee units. The Planning
Commission accepted the two spaces and recommended to
Council to establish no parking requirement for the
employee units in a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
The Planning Office position is that some on -site
employee parking is needed. The one space per bedroom
standard used in other zone district would result in
four spaces for the four employee studios. We believe
4
some reduction from this standard is reasonable because
(1) some low and moderate income tenants living at
Pitkin Center may not be able to afford a vehicle and
(2) location within the downtown makes walking very
convenient, and a car is not necessary. Staff supports
setting the parking requirement at two spaces for the 4
employee units.
It should be noted that few options for off -site
parking exist in this location. Parking on adjacent
streets is limited to two hours or less during the day,
and is occupied day and night in winter and summer.
There is no municipal parking garage that might serve
this need; and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed
(although it is a possiblility in the future) .
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends estab-
lishing a requirement of two parking spaces for the
four employee studio units.
b. Pitkin Center Employee Housing GMP Exemption
The Applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to
Section 24-11.2 (f) of the Municipal Code for four (4)
on -site employee units. Each unit would contain 450
square feet. On September 11, 1986, the Housing
Authority recommended approval of the proposed program.
P&Z unanimously recommended approval on September 30,
1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the requested GMP
exemption for employee housing subject to the following
condition:
1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed -
restricted to the low and moderate income employee
housing guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for Pitkin Center including procedures
and regulations stated in Ann Bowman' s memorandum
dated September 9, 1986 and summarized below:
a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units
to qualified employees of his selection.
b. Units shall be restricted to six month
minimum leases with no more than two shorter
tenancies, as stated in Section 24-3 .7 (0) (1)
of the Municipal Code, as amended.
5
c. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing
Office.
d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and
signed by the Chairman of the Housing Autority
prior to recordation with the County Clerk
and Recorder's Office."
2. Storehouse Building: The applicant has proposed to pay
$70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for
the equivalent of 39% of the employees generated. This
calculation was made based on misinformation on employee
generation. Subsequently, revised calculations were made
for payment of $70,000 to house 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees, to the satisfaction of
the Housing Office and Housing Authority. The Planning
Office also supports this employee housing program.
Section 24-11.10(i) (3) of the Code provides that applicants
may obtain credit for employee housing via a cash -in -lieu
dedication, subject to the approval of this option by the
City Council. In making their recommendation to you on this
issue the Planning Commission expressed concern that the
cash -in -lieu be sufficient to build employee housing and the
Housing Authority develop a program to build employee
housing units in a timely manner. A joint P&Z and Housing
Authority meeting is scheduled for November 25, 1986 to
begin to address this issue and to initiate the Housing
Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
P&Z voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed to recommend Council to
accept the proposed cash -in -lieu for employee housing.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment
of $70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees as adjusted to the
current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a
building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of a building permit."
3. Hunter Plaza: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu
payment to the Housing Authority for housing the equivalent
of 9.2 low income employees. The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of this program on September 11, 1986. P&Z
recommended approval on September 30, 1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment
of $184,000 to provide housing for 9.2 employees at the low
income level , as adjusted to the current payment schedule
at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall
be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a
building permit. "
N.
4 . Hunter Pl az a Existing Floor Area Credit Issue: The applicant
has requested a technical clarification on the calculation
of existing FAR to include the covered area over the gas
pumps, in addition to the area within the building, for
which we have already given the applicant credit. A letter
from Vann Associates is attached presenting rationale for
this interpretation. The Planning Office agrees that
technically this area should be included in FAR. However,
it is our understanding that the only reason the applicant
wants to obtain this additional credit for 865 square feet,
is merely to reduce the size of the cash -in -lieu dedication
which must be made. Since employee generation is based on
net leasable square footage, Whether we include or exclude
the gas pumps is irrelevant to the applicant's net employee
housing generation.
It would be inappropriate to allow this area to be included
in the Reconstruction FAR, therby reducing the amount of GMP
allocation, and consequently reducing the employee housing
commitment. We recommend that you find the canopy does not
count toward a floor area credit.
5. Wesson Building: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -
lieu payment to the Housing Authority of $16,625 to house
1.25 moderate income employees. The Housing Authority
recommended approval of this program and P&Z accepted it on
September 16, 1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu
payment of $16 ,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate
income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedule
at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall
be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a
building permit."
City Manager's Recommendation:
l (� C �J �C r/ -To L✓4-L,4`%
6 PIL U" "Off' /t7./Alart, ( 1101'� �L-(',5 5��,✓i; 7) nLY CA5P //-
Lftl Jf- '-sU�iNG f/-Y,w.,;) �6�,5 rd rrrAl-k SOBS-P i // 1f1'r 7 exJ
�c.'���Yee lfi��s����
14 J
[�;C'l✓ ?r �aELAC 6L✓if/1'Y�'e l�4HS/�[" ���'/�"•S_/,
Ifob+S w5 F�� lr IL/C5 tv 6h/G&�-/ /Yl/C (%;/G1 TY (� . /!11YI 4/✓(r 1�
----
r,,t d "/ e 1 -(4 0 ) u 51--t /+-o I / OR / r Y c A-,,, & t,4 1l 5,9 P ' t-e S ,
7
Maegs Jamaw
w
N
N
L
w
43
N
a
E
7
X
it
mir,
C�7U o J
d
a
d
L
Q
N
m
ta.
0
43
N
t
N
a
L
H
a
N
a
a
L
a�
3
4
N
N-
t.
7n
y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Pg.-
RE: 1986 Commerical GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews
DATE: October 21, 1986
Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend
that Council grant commercial growth management allotments to
Little Nell, Wesson Building, Pitkin Center (520 E. Hyman) ,
Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse Building. The Planning Office
also recommends that you carry over the unallocated square
footage in the office zone but not that in the CC/C-1 or NC/SCI
zones.
Requests: The following applications have been made in this
year's commercial growth management competition:
GMP Reconstruction
Allocations Space/On-site Project Zone District
Project Requested Housing Total Quota Competition
1 . Little Nell 6,992 sf 12,339 sf 19,331 sf CL and Other
2. Wesson Bldg. 2,487 sf 2,906 sf 5,393 sf Office
3. 700 E. Hyman 9,000 sf - 9,000 sf Office
4. Pitkin Center 3,067 sf 8,933 sf 12,000 sf CC/C-1
5. Hunter Plaza 8,125 sf 4,740 sf 12,835 sf CC/C-1
6. Storehouse Bldg. 3,077 sf 1,420 sf 4,497 sf CC/C-1
Quota Available: Quota for the Commerial GMP competition is calculated
as follows: ! '
� u 6 ifr'I"''� "SAS '�kti ��Cc« i� t�Siwr,�i,I LN>' ic�, y �o S�'rb'ti•G�t i�. t� H , I .
(: *JP b r ie t l> 11u wL He+.7
u I_;+4L Nell Coy j,J yA,<
tie (L i oilu U� ,► c,i,�o,
a ilot�c,i�s
�?� �`¢,si�+ b71rCC.�Jy �,�., „ti► ��i,t Lvl7►.
7PotAo-i-,
awi `�o,t� ,:jact, ht�c ;�'c;l r�,cw, h,►�.t�wi.�-I,��,y4etli.M,,l
nl;L►OiL,�Ilt. j��Is�l.l K�
f�lc�� Iep,fjoSTo Yrarn"H;L't��JP,�� '''
Zone District Annual Exemptions/ Total Quota
Category Quota Additions Available Quota Requested
CL and Other 3,000 sf 0 3,000 sf 6,992 sf
Office 4,000 sf 0 4,000 sf 11,906 sf
CC/C-1 10,000 sf +4,813 14,813 sf* 14,269 sf
NC/SCI 7,000 sf 0 7,000 sf 0
*See Alan Richman' s Memorandum of Sectember 22, 1986 for details
of the CC/C-1 quota calculation (attached) .
Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee
gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, Pitkin
Center, and the Storehouse Building. The above projects needed
HPC conceptual approval to be eligible to submit GMP applications
according to Section 24-11,3 (d) .
The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the six commercial
GMP applications at their regular meetings of September 2, 16,
and 30, 1986. Scoring was done individually by each Commission
member, and the scoring summary sheets for each project are
attached hereto.
Also considered and approved by P&Z were the following special
reviews:
1. Wesson Bldg..
a. Parking Reduction: P&Z unanimously granted a reduction
in on site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on
the condition that the two residential spaces shall be
demar ked for the use of those tenants.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1
subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge
of the property in conjunction with the adacent
landowner.
2. Pitkin Center:
a. Parking Requirements: P&Z approved 5 in favor and 1
opposed two parking spaces for the two 1-bedroom free
market residential units.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously approved an FAR of 2:1.
2
3. Hunter Plaza:
a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the
requested 25 ft. by 10 ft. trash/utilities area.
4. Storehouse Building:
a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the
requested 8 ft. by 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject
to the placement of a trash compactor in the basement
of the building.
b. Restaurant Use of Open Space: P&Z unanimously approved
the requested restaurant use of required open space.
Allocation Issues:_''
All of the projects except 700 E. Hyman met the minimum thresholds
and are eligible for allocations. The one successful Office Zone
lt; .oemu.J�.
Competitor (Wesson) and all three CC/C-1 competitors (Pitkin
Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse) can be given allotments
gvr��e�<i�,blrf•
from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Little
q il2t�,1�7►�
Nell project was granted an allotment by Council on September 22,
m1DiF�w?3
and is included in this discussion only to formalize that action
by the attached resolution.
lnt�
The Planning Office recommends that these five projects be given
the requested allocations, as would be accomplished by Council
,2,34�Sp,�lu1�1
Adoption of Resolution (attached) .
Carry -Over of Unused Quota:
JL,1PI��„h.
Over the past several years, the Council has generally eliminated
fi•:ediD�:��f•�`t�(
allotments remaining from the prior year. The quotas which
imfDf�Pli TQFt� :
Council can either carry-over or eliminate this year are as
my;I
follows:
�ivl�•, L��IiF�cPIRh�
CC/_C-1 544 sf
Office 1,513 sf
NC/SCI 7,000 sf
i �+��� rot c'IrD• I, ea
t
��
p,'A4t i
The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to
o'j A,`*n�1
carry over the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone district
��1�
categories. In the CC/C-1 zones, we are seeing development in
the
Dc►.�"�cD
both 1985 and 1986, at a rate within the framework of growth
�
management policy. There_ is no apparent need to increase the
_
quota for 1987. The NC/SCI zonedistrict has seen no development
(I"YJ OVER
----
activit since the imposition of the quota. while some activity
Y may be necessary to keep_ up with growth in the residential
sector, a carry-over would create a 1987 quota in these zones of
14,000 sf, which we believe could encourage one or two projects
of a scale inconsistent with our development and growth policies.
t3
OKI
. T J
. aJ m Uw ,1, �rrc ;�u � � � cis c �, : , a h l llu * ; R nr�d ,►, ,a 7; V� u �'r c •, �[�l C'�
2 -it 7JCC C. N/m•h p; �j.7 by4L Hv , ° `�J n '`z<�" r,,,.Jj,� c. di by bZ ib���Ut �
�9 ►�, P1Z in9i,lv�, �cp ,�,,,r, iL pf Jrc� Mrrs) rerki.,} 7 ' I,N,,k Pd2 d[iir/�r •i wA "fy-e' :h FAQ
o-Y fell t�„ux+�. fi�Ab^� �i2u�N,�-, er �, s {,�ilCri,v .^ a k..iJ I k to rdPs���1�,�i_a 6 r'
The Office Zone is seeing the first new -development this yeart" fJAft
since the quota was established in this zone district. We.,'04,4"-fk
believe that carry-over of the unused 1,513 sf is reasonable
because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office r�✓r ,
space in the community. Office space may be needed in response
to recent residential, lodging, and ski area expansion.
Of equal importance are the circumstances surrounding the failure
of the 700 E. Hyman Building to meet the competitive threshold.
A major issue which arose with respect to this building was the
applicant's use of covered parking above grade and his request
for a Planning Office interpretation of whether such space should
count in the project's FAR. Due to an unusual workload this
summer, we were unable to adquately analyze this issue prior to
the August deadline. When this issue was analyzed in the review
process, an agreement could not be reached between staff and the
applicant and the P&Z was required to make the interpretation.
Although P&Z agreed with the applicant that such space is exempt
from FAR under the Code, they felt that the applicant's design
was flawed because of this approach and scored the project
accordingly. The applicant has appealed the scoring (see attached
letters from Dave Myler) but has agreed at the Planning staff's
urging to drop the appeal if Council carries over the unused
square footage to next year. We strongly recommend that you
carry the 1,513 sf over to address the unfortunate problem which
occurred with respect to this project. 'i !h.
�N,,rr,tk thflr •' _ (�1I1[A S'�r>rhi�� �i'tii,.. fY,
Recommendation: iTce Planning Office recommends adoption of
Resolution , Series of 1986, to grant allocation to Little
Nell, Wesson, Pitkin Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse
Building, to grant a future year allocation to Little Nell,
eliminate the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone districts
and carry-over the unused office quota.
Ancillary Reviews:
1. Pitkin Center:
a.
-Employee Housing Parking: Council sets off-street
fohousing
parking requirements employee
` ��►�ti4 6 ; 4�yw�, F',1li,.,
( ) The
ccord ngapplicant would
according Section 24-4 r 1
provide two on -site parking spaces for the use of the
Mspwj
two f ree market residential units, and no parking
-iotaiO
spaces for the four employee units. The Planning
eA
Commission accepted the two spaces and recommended to
�s Pe ,,.,Ir�'�
Council to establish no parking requirement for the
in a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
employee units
favil.
sei tG fVj.red) �.G-��1
The Planning Office position is that some on -site
2 $
em pl oy ee parking is needed. The one space per bedroom
standard used in other zone district would result in
believe
0 (?ku- 0
four spaces for the four employee studios. We
�-1�, 1 4
rn-s, -� eAfote A fJfJ(�4j 1) N'�:
n�
some reduction from this standard is reasonable because
(1) some low and moderate income tenants living at
Pitkin Center may not be able to afford a vehicle and
(2) location within the downtown makes walking very
convenient, and a car is not necessary. Staff supports
setting the parking requirement at two spaces for the 4
employee units.
It should be noted that few options for off -site
parking exist in this location. Parking on adjacent
streets is limited to two hours or less during the day,
and is occupied day and night in winter and summer.
There is no municipal parking garage that might serve
this need; and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed
(although it is a possiblility in the future) .
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends estab-
lishing a requirement of two parking spaces for the
four employee studio units.
b.
Pitkin Center Employee Housing GMP Exemption
The Applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to
rl lfwW mvifAl{ "iGm
`f
Section 24-11.2(f) of the Municipal Code for four (4)
on -site employee units. Each unit would contain 450
square feet. On September 11, 1986, the Housing
Authority recommended approval of the proposed program.
�.P�2 uner��h3���f
P&Z unanimously recommended approval on September 30,
1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the requested GMP
exemption for employee housing subject to the following
condition:
1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed -
restricted to the low and moderate income employee
housing guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be
filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
_
Office prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for Pitkin Center including procedures
and regulations stated in Ann Bowman's memorandum
dated September 9, 1986 and summarized below:
a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units
to qualified employees of his selection.
b. Units shall be restricted to six month
minimum leases with no more than two shorter
tenancies, as stated in Section 24-3.7(0) (1)
of the Municipal Code, as amended.
F1
C. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing
Office.
d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and
signed by the Chairman of the Housing Autority
prior to recordation with the County Clerk
and Recorder's office."
2. Storehouse Building: The applicant has proposed to pay
CJ4-IA'1ICy (DAy,j�^,,. $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for
the equivalent of 39% of the employees generated. This
7� 99G µ)",1A6 f,,o calculation was made based on misinformation on employee
generation.
ations were made
for paymentof S$70 ,000 toyhouse 1 .043 al lowincome employees
��c�,t, fn'1�ptpj,��t►��l and 0.687 moderate income employees, to the satisfaction of
the Housing Office and Housing Authority. The Planning
Office also supports this employee housing program.
Section 24-11.10(i) (3) of the Code provides that applicants
may obtain credit for employee housing via a cash -in -lieu
dedication, subject to the approval of this option by the
P1Zrtcoskn�'>1t�,���'�
City Council. In making their recommendation to you on this
issue the Planning Commission expressed concern that the
cash -in -lieu be sufficient to build employee housing and the
H
Housing Authority develop a program to build employee
A joint P&Z and Housing
,t4
housing units in a timely manner.
Authority meeting is scheduled for November 25, 1986 to
Px
begin to address this issue and to initiate the Housing
Ins;W
Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
P&Z voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed to recommend Council to
accept the proposed cash -in -lieu for employee housing.
3.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment
of $70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees as adjusted to the
current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a
building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing
Authority prior to issuance of a building permit."
4% k. 4�1v,
Hunter Plaza: - Fie applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu
payment to the Housing Authority for housing the equivalent
of 9.2 low income employees. The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of this program on September 11, 1986. P&Z
recommended approval on September 30, 1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment
of $184 ,000 to provide housing for 9.2 employees at the low
income level , as adjusted to the current payment schedule
at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall
be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a
building permit."
Col
tt 3 .a zr)�Ippef IDOD Thet
lcaRciblf SPc,
VJ�tl f
4. Hunter Pl az a Existing Floor Area Credit Issue: The applicant
has requested a technical clarification on the calculation yy��,Qj
of existing FAR to include the covered area over the gas
pumps, in addition to the area within the building, for
which we have already given the applicant credit. A letter
from Vann Associates is attached presenting rationale for
this interpretation. The Planning Office agrees that
technically this area should be included in FAR. However,
it is our understanding that the only reason the applicant
wants to obtain this additional credit for 865 square feet, �Yh►��i2 `k
is merely to reduce the size of the cash -in -lieu dedication
which must be made. Since employee generation is based on 0 ;-r�
net leasable square footage, Whether we include or exclude "��-}�
the gas pumps is irrelevant to the applicant's net employee r'i fT( �Gj4
housing generation. JG�'. C�rry
It would be inappropriate to allow this area to be included
in the Reconstruction FAR, therby reducing the amount of GMP
allocation, and consequently reducing the employee housing
commitment. We recommend that you find the canopy does not
count toward a floor area credit. 1-N,-
,k04,010 nt "N.-to,
5. Wesson Building: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -
lieu payment to the Housing Authority of $16,625 to house
1.25 moderate income employees. The Housing Authority
recommended approval of this program and P&Z accepted it on
September 16, 1986. +;none►,+�Ja��}'tI
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu >l.nfn�;a�,aK
payment of $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate
income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedule
at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall v
be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a
building permit."10
nsk,�v�
City Manager s Recommendation: `
7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
RESOLUTION NO. _
(Series of 1986)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENTS TO
LITTLE NELL, THE WESSON BUILDING, PITRIN CENTER, HUNTER PLAZA
AND THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING THROUGH THE 1986 COMMERCIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION, CARRYING OVER OF UNUSED OFFICE
°
}id QUOTA FOR THE 1987 GMP OFFICE COMPETITION AND GRANTING FUTURE
`(iris rr '� YEAR ALLOCATION OF "CL AND OTHER" ZONE DISTRICT QUOTA
�My bol(en t�Ow�t.ttD/a-i�
W -V Iu11u.If Tt, '
-4/c-, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 .5 (a) of the
/2SrLI Jf
Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established
as a deadline for submission of application for commercial
development allotments within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, a total of six
applications were submitted for evaluation, listed as follows:
Project
1. Little Nell
2. Wesson
3. 700 E. Hyman
4. Pitkin Center
5. Hunter Pl az a
6. Storehouse Bldg.
;and
GMP Allocation Requested
6,992
sq.
ft.
2,487
sq.
ft.
9,000
sq.
ft.
3,067
sq.ft.
8,125
sq.
ft.
3,077
sq.
ft.
Zone District
Quota Comp.
CL and other
Office
Office
CC and C-1
CC and C-1
CC and C-1
WHEREAS,
duly
noticed public hearings
were held by the
Planning and
Zoning
Commission (hereinafter
"Commission") on
September 2, 1986 to consider the CL and other competition,
September 16, 1986 to consider the Office competition and
September 30, 1986 to consider the CC and C-1 GMP Competition, at
which time the Commission did evaluate and score the projects;
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
and
WHEREAS, five (5) of the six projects met the minimum
threshold of 25.8 and one project did not meet the threshold by
having received the following points (not including bonus
points) :
Project
Little Nell
Wesson
Pitkin Center
Hunter Pl az a
Storehouse Building
700 E. Hyman
; and
Total Points Given by P&Z (avg.)
30.9
31.7
31.7
30.4
29
24.6
WHEREAS, the quota available for each zone district category
in the 1986 Commercial GMP competition is 3,000 sq. ft. within
the CL and other zone districts, 4,000 sq. ft. within the Office
zone districts, and 14,813 sq. ft. within the CC and C-1 zone
districts; and
WHEREAS, The Commission considered the representations made
by the applicants in scoring these projects, including but not
limited -to the following:
1. Little Nell - Representations and conditions of
approval are contained in the Little Nell SPA Agree-
ment.
2. Wesson Dental Building
A. The building will not exceed 23 1/2 feet in height
and will follow the design characteristics of
broken -up massing, siting 15 feet from the front
property line behind a row of cottonwoods and use
of stained wood siding. Final approval of the
2
11
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
design by the Historic Preservation Committee
shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building
pe rmi t .
B. The landscape plan includes retaining all existing
trees on -site and in adjacent rights -of -way,
planting ten new trees, planting native ground
cover, landscaping of the western edge of the
property in conjunction with the adjacent land-
owners, installation of undulating sidewalks 5
feet in width, and redesigning the irrigation
ditches and ditch interconnection.
C. A six (6) inch water line will be extended north
from Hopkins Street along 5th Street and a fire
hydrant wi11 be installed on the northeast corner
of Main and 5th at the applicant's expense.
D. All surface run-off of the site will be collected
in an on -site dry well and not discharged into the
surrounding street drainage system. Curb and
gutter on 5th Street will be installed by the
applicant.
E. A 7 1/2 foot by 6 1/2 foot enclosed trash area
will be constructed in the rear of 611 W. Main for
common use by the Wesson and Levinson properties.
F. Energy conservation measures include use of
insulation 25% over Code requirements and instal-
lation of a solar hot water device.
G. Seven (7) head-on parking spaces will be provided
off the alley, two of which will be demarked for
residential tenant use.
H. The applicant will deed -restrict to the moderate
income housing guidelines one -bedroom unit in the
building and make a cash -in -lieu payment prior to
the issuance of a building permit of $16,625 to
provide housing for 1.25 employees at the moderate
income level.
3. Pitkin Center
A. Rusticated
sandstone and old
or tumbled brick
will
be used on the front and
side facades of
the
building.
Final approval
of the design by
HPC
3
0
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
B. Useable public open space will include a plaza
area with planting beds, high canopy trees, and
benches, and a 5 foot wide mid -block pedestrian
link on the east side of the property.
C. Insulation and solar energy features will be used
as represented in the application.
D. All storm drainage water will be retained on -
site.
E. Two covered parking spaces will be provided on -
site for residential tenants.
F. The 250 sq. ft. trash and utility area will be
paved and screened by a brick wall.
y
G. A dumbwaiter or separate elevator' will be instal-
led if a restaurant is located on an upper story
of the building.
H. The applicant will deed -restrict four (4) studio
units in the building to the low and moderate
income employee housing guidelines.
4. Hunter Plaza
A. Architectural elements of the building will
include a recessed second story, height not to
exceed 28 feet; second floor terrace with land-
- scaping and use of brick and terra cotta.
-_B. The courtyard will contain planting boxes,
ornamented fountain, benches, bike racks, and a
street light. "Snowmelt" will be installed under
exposed aggregate and brick parcels in the
courtyard. A minimum of nine (9) street trees in
tree grates will line Cooper Avenue and Hunter
Street.
C. Curb cuts will be removed from Cooper Avenue and
Hunter Street; curb and gutter will be replaced
where required; and a handicap ramp will be
provided at the intersection.
4
0 •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
D. Insulation, solar energy and a high efficiency gas
boiler will be installed as represented in the
application.
E. All storm drainage water originating from the
building will be retained on -site; and the run-off
on the adjacent City right-of-way will mainly be
intercepted by the tree wells and landscaping.
F.
The applicant will make a cash -in -lieu payment,
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit to
provide housing for 9.2 low income employees.
5. The
Storehouse Building
A.
Design elements of the building will include a
height not to exceed 33 feet, breaking up of the
massing, vertical proportions of windows, doors
and dormers and use of brick. The exposed wall of
the Thrift Shop abutting the plaza will be given a
brick facade or another treatment that is accept-
able to the HPC.(,, i b Tt V Iiltiv"f> Y4IT"
B.
Included in the plaza open space will be restaur-
ant seating, planters, bike racks, and street
trees as represented in the application. Snow
melt will be installed under the patterned brick
and concrete plaza and sidewalks.
C.
Energy conservation measures including solar
massing, skylights, insulation and an energy
efficient heating and cooling system will be used.
D.
A fire hydrant will be installed on the northeast
corner of Galena and Hopkins at the applicant's
expense.
E.
All surface run-off will be retained on the site.
F.
The applicant will provide a 96 sq. ft. trash and
utilities area, install a trash compactor in the
basement and install a conveyor belt from inside
the service door to the basement storage room.
G.
The applicant will make a cash -in -lieu payment,
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit of
$70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low-income
employees and .687 moderate income employees.
61
0
M
; and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the recommended
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scoring for the Little Nell
project at their regular meeting of September 22, 1986 and for
the remaining projects on October 27, 1986 and did pass a motion
granting the allocation of the requested allotments for the five
projects meeting the minimum threshold; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council determined that the unused
1985 quota in the CC and C-1 zone districts and the NC and SCI
zone districts should not be carried over because the annual
quotas are adequate for the relative growth needs in those zone
districts, the unused quota in the Office zone district should be
carried over to the 1987 quota because growth in this area may be
reasonably expected in response to development in other sectors;
and future year allocations should be made for the Little Nell
project given its importance to the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado --that:
a) 3,000 sq. ft. from the available 1986 CL and other zone
category quota, 3,000 sq. ft. of the 1987 quota and 992
sq. ft. from the 1988 quota is hereby allocated to
Little Nell;
b) 2,487 sq. ft. from the available quota of 4,000 sq. ft.
in the Office zone category is hereby allocated to the
Wesson Dental Building; and
c) From the available 14,813 sq. ft. of the 1986 com-
mercial quota in the CC/C-1 zone category (1) 3,067 sq.
0
\J
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
ft. is allocated to Pitkin Center, (2) 8,125 sq. ft. is
allocated to Hunter Plaza; and (3) 3,077 sq. ft. is
allocated to the Storehouse Building.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that the above allocations shall expire pursuant to
Section 24-11 .7 (a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans,
specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed commercial buildings are not submitted on
or before May 1, 1989.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that the 7,000 sq. ft. which remains unallocated in the
NC/SCI zones category the 544 sq. ft. which remains unallocated
in the and CC/C-1 zones category shall not be carried forward;
but that the 1,513 sq. ft. which remains unallocated in the
Office zone shall be carried forward for possible distribution in
1987, all as provided for in Section 24-11.5(f) .
Dated: , 1986.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
7
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certity 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
SB.44
day of
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
93
, 1986.
0
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Growth Quota Files
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Quota Available - 1986 CC/C-1 Competition
DATE: September 22, 1986
Following is a summary of the status of the quota for the CC/C-1
competition in 1986:
1. The annual quota in the CC/C-1 zone district is 10,000
sq. ft.
2. There is no square footage to carry over from prior
years due to Council's action in Resolution 85-29.
3. There have been the following additions/deletions to
the inventory between 9/l/85 and 8/31/86 which need to
be accounted for in the inventory since they were
exempt from the competition requirements:
Additions Deletions
Hotel Jerome + 5162 sq. ft. Hotel Jerome - 6836 sq.ft.
The Grill + 145 sq. ft. Brand Bldg. - 3284 sq. ft.
Total + 5307 sq. ft.-10,120 sq.ft.
4. The quota available is therefore as follows:
10,000 sq. ft. (original quota)
- 5,307 sq. ft. (additions to be deducted from quota)
+10,120 sq. ft. (demolitions to be added to quota)
14,813 sq. ft. (available CC-C-1 quota for 1986)
w
N
M
Cl)
o
Q.
N
M
N
r-
Lo
07
M
,n
U)
0
H
H
N
H
1-�
a
�.�
cn
N N
N N
CO
n
O
O
V 1•a
N
N N
N M
�
N N .--�
OJ
Ol
N
H
M
8
V
a
-
c
�
_
y
c
E
m
a
O
U
O m
4-)
4 ro
'1
U
U
O C
m
rn
w
w °
kn
`^
C13m
m
>y
U
a)
C�
w
0
41
-.i
14 41
C1
b
H
C
co
F
a
>, o cn ro
—i
¢
O
�U1
�tUpL
F
pF
H
+'
4J •1
co ra
p
per, N tiro, b
Um
(DHC
7AFu
c�
A
a1 a1
. 4 (a
U)
>, m
cn A rn
cn
w
m
N
D�
�.4
O
o
W
•4A
b.0
-4 U
1� O�.UI E
w
C
zF
pq
U 41 G)
0 m 1a
..-I>
11 30 ►+
O
°
O
FCtnwa�>F
3mwcnw
x
-H
ro�
-1
0
m
z
Uc�
N "
O
.••I (
N M
a
¢
W
�w7
O
N
a
a
a
ai
o
CITY OF ASPEN CDMER(QAL CMP APPLICATIONS
TALLY SKEET
PROJECT NAME: Wesson Dental Building. Date: 9ZIkZ86
1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
P&Z VO►iIM MEMBERS David Jasmine Welton Ran JjM-
A. Quality of Design
1. Architectural
Design 2.5 3 2 -3--
-2
2.
Site Design _ .5 3 3 2
-3
3.
Energy 2.5 2 3 2—
3
4.
Amenities 2.5 3 2 2
2
5.
Visual Impact 3 3 3 3
2
6.
Trash and Utility
Access 2.5 1 2— 2_
2
SUBTOTAL: 15.5 15 15 14
14 14.7
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1. Water Supply/Fire
Protection 2 2— — 2— 2
2. Sewage Di spo sal I_ I— I— 1— 1
3. Public Transpor ta-
t. on/Roads I 1-1 1— 1
4. Storm Drainage 2 2 2— 1— 2
5. Parking 2 _1 1 1 1
SUBTOTAL: 8 7_7 6— 1— 7
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 10 1.5 10 10 10— 10
D. TOTAL
_ 32 32 30 31— 31.7
D. Bonus Points _ 6 4_ 5— 4— 2— 4.2
TOTAL POINTS
CAS A, B, C
and D a9--5 -- -36- -37-- — -33— -3 S _ 9
•
w •;r �• JI •,w t I• . .. •,
v161:104w� M
PRW ECr NAME: 700E HVMn Date: 9j16/86
A. Quality of Design
1.
Architectural
Design
2.
Site Design
3.
Energy
4.
hnenities
5.
Visual Impact
6.
Trash and Utility
Access
1 2 3 4 5
Uevia jasmine Welton Ramona Jim
1.5 1 0.5 2 1
2.5 3 2— 2— 3
1.5 2 0.5 2 2
1 2 0.5 1 0
2 2 1 2 3
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1.
Water Supply/Fire
Protection
2.
Sewage Disposal
3.
Public Transporta-
tion/Roads
4.
Storm Drainage
5.
Parking
SUBTOTAL:
C. Provision of Emplcyee
Housing 10 10 10 10 10 10
TOTAL: 2627_ 19 25 26
D. Bonus Points 0 0-0- —0 —0
TOTAL POINTS
CATS MISS A, B, C
and D_
AVERAGE TOTAL
T07RL
9.1
CjW • • ASpEN Oopq4ERCrAL r. i• APPLICATIONS
v,_ �a�+•
PROTECT NAME: The Store Date: 9L /86
• 1 1 :+ : �I ••.
A. Quality of Design
1.
Architectural
Design
2.
Site Design
3.
Energy
4.
Amenities
5.
Visual Impact
6.
Trash and Utility
Access
TOTAL
•'QMWelton Mmid Al -L 'L- -1
2.5 2 2
2.5 2.5 2.5 3 1.5 z.5
2.5 2- 2- 2 2 2
_2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2- 2_ 2 - 2
2 2 2 2- 2 2
135 12.5 12.5 13 12 _ 13 12.75
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1.
Water Supply/Fire
Protection
2.
Sewage Disposal
3.
Public Transporta-
ti on/Roacb
4.
Storm Drainage
5.
Parking
TN •
1 1 1-- 1_- 1-- 1
1.5 1.5 1-- 2_ 1-_ 2
1 1- 11 1- 1
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75
TOTAL: 29.75 28.75 28.25 29.75 27.25 29.75 29
D. Bonus Faints 4_0 0-- 0- 0- U 0
TOM POINTS _
CATEGORIES A, - B, C
and D 29_75 2&Z5 2ate 24.E _ 9-
D, and E
w • • . o- �• �+•,w4 r. 1. w.
v -•aa
PRQ7 ECr NAME: Pitkin CL-aftr -- - Date: 9/0/86
A. Quality of Desicgi
1. Architectural
Design
2. Site Design
3. Energy
4. Amenities
5. Visual Impact
6. Trash and Utility
Access
1 2 3 4 5 6
RQ egg Wei.. ,tD Dwia Al_ - JiID--
2.5 2.5 2.5 3- 2-- 2.5-
2 2.5 2.5 _3 2
2 2 -2 - 2 3 _2
2 2 2 2 - 2 2
13.5 13.5 14Z- 14.5 15 13
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1.
Water Supply/Fire
Protection
2.
Sewage Disposal
3.
Public Transporta-
ti on/Roads
4.
Storm Drainage
5.
Parking
SLBZCTAL :
2 2 2 -2 2 2
-1�_ 1.5 0.5 1_ 0 _ 1
6 6.5 _5.5 6 5- 6-
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4. 10.4 10.4
TOTAL: 29.9 30..4 3ff:4 30.9 300.4 24, 4
D. Bonus Points -Q_ - 0 5- 4- 0- 0
TOTAL POINTS
CATD(ORT-ES A, B, C
and D 29.9 30.4 35,4 34,2 30.4 29.4
SB.22
• v�
14
5.8
10.4
M_.2
1.5 -
31.7
0 •
CTTY OF ASPEN SAL GMP APPLIUMCKS
TALLY SHEMT
PRWECT NAME: Bunter Plaza . Date: 9/3Qf86
P&Z VOTING PEMERS
A. Quality of Design
1.
Architectural
Design
2.
Site Design
3.
Energy
4.
Amenities
5.
visual Impact
6.
Trash and Utility
Access
1 2 3 4 5 6
RDwr %A--1 DaYi_ Jim
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1.
Water Supply/Fire
Protection
2.
Sewage Disposal
3.
Public Transporta
ti on/Roads
4.
Storm Drainage
5.
Parking
SUMU AL :
'TOMI
5.8
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 1_ 10 — 10 10 10 10 10
UTAL 29.5 31.529 31 30 31.5 30.4
D. Bonus Points 0_ 0_ Q_ Q— -Q-0 0
TOTAL POINTS
akTBGMIE_S A, B, C
and D 29.5 31.5 29 31 30 31.5 30.4
1
r73
- > ��_ 1J
OGT
V MYLER, STULLER cRc SCHWART"I_ � I
.ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREE'r. SUITE 202
SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN, COLORAOO 81611
ALAN E. SCIMART7. (303) 920-IOIN
October 20, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, C08 1611
ATTN: Alan Richman_
Planning ana Development Director
RE: Hodge Capital Company GMP Application:
for the 700 East Hyman Project
Dear Alan:
As we have discussed, [lodge Capital Company feels confident
that it has valid and persuasive grounds for appealing the
Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring of the above -referenced
project. In addition, we feel that there is a legitimate basis
for consideration of a revised project at this time as set forth
in my letter of September 29, 1986.
Nevertheless, in the interest of avoiding a confrontation
over issues which can and should be resolved amicably, Hodge
Capital Company is williIlg to withdraw both the appeal and the
request for consideration. Such withdrawal is conditioned upon
authorization by the Aspen City Council which will allow the
unallocated square footage quota from the 1986 GMP competition in
the office zone to be carried over and added to the allocation
available for the 1987 competition.
it is Hodge's intent to redesign the project in response to
the comments and criticism received in the review of the above
application and to submit a new GMP application: on August 1,
1987. We believe that the new application will be well received
by staff and the Commission and, accordingly, we are willing to
wait until next year for consideration of the revised project,
provided that the unallocated square footage for this year's
competition is available.
We urge you to present this matter to the City Council as
soon as possible. In the meantime, our appeal and request for
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitki.n Planning Office
October 20, 1966
Page 2
consideration of a revised application will remain in effect.
Should our appeal riot be withdrawn, we do plan to submit
additional documentation in support thereof.
Very truly yours,
MYLER, ST ;R & SCHWARTZ
By:
David J. 1 r
Attorney for Hodge Capital Company
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq.
Hodge Capital Co.
Vann Associates
�J
0
October 2, 1986
Mr. Dave Myler
Myler, Stuller & Schwartz
106 S. Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, OD 81611
Dear Dave:
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 29,
1986 with respect to the 700 E. Hyman GMP application. I have
discussed this matter with the City Attorney, Paul Taddune , and
have the following comments for you.
I am not able to support your request to redesign and resubmit a
project for this site. According to Section 24-11.3(e) of the Code:
"(e) Not more than one application for any development site
t shall be entertained in any one year, provided, however,
that more than one application_, each for a residential,
commercial, office -or lodge use (if permitted uses within
the zone district) may be made if the Planning Office shall
determine that each is a distinctly different land use
appl icati on. "
This section of the Code means that while you may submit a new
residential application for the site, we can only accept a single
commercial or office application for the site in any year. Thi s
would be -consistent with the entire spirit of the growth management
quota system, which sets an annual date for submission of appli-
cations, putting all landowners in the City on notice as to when
development applications can be accepted and reviewed and whether
allotments will be granted this year or available for use in
future years.
In reviewing your letter, I am struck by your comment that the
Commission's scoring penalized you for taking advantage of a
legitimate exemption. I believe that you are in error in this
observation. There is no criterion in the growth management
process which scores the floor area ratio calculation. The
relevant criteria score such items as size and height of the
building, building scale and similar features. It was in this
respect that the Commission found design flaws with your building
Mr. Dave Myler
Oct. 2, 1986
Page 2
because the provision of above grade parking increased, in their
view, the size, height and scale of the building, and not because
you used a legitimate exemption.
As you indicated, I did suggest that the interpretation of the
floor area ratio issue would be handled in the process. While I
regret not being able to resolve this issue prior to the August 1
deadline, I believe that we endeavored during our project review
to come to a fair resolution of the issue. Unfortunately, it was
not until September 11 that we received a comment from the Zoning
Enforcement Officer suggesting that we look at how the issue was
addressed in the case of the expansion of the Applejack Lodge.
At this point it became clear that the prior office position had
been to count above grade covered parking in floor area calcu-
lations. I believe it is my duty to take into consideration all
relevant facts which come to light in the review process, no
matter when they may be made public, and so our review included
the finding that the project had a problem in terms of FAR.
When you found that we were not supporting your interpretation, I
provided you the opportunity to table the application at that
time and redesign it to bring it into conformance with our
understanding of the Code. You chose to argue the matter with
the P&Z, and were successful in overturning our interpretation.
If, however, you felt that the matter was not being properly
resolved at that time, you still had the opportunity to table the
application following the Code interpretation and prior to the
scoring process to discuss how the project could be amended. You
chose instead to go forward with the scoring although you now
seem to feel that at the time the Commission's negative opinion of
the project had been clearly voiced during the interpretation
process.
It is my conclusion that to allow you to withdraw the earlier
design and submit a new one would be contrary to the rules and
spirit of the growth management quota system. Providing you this
opportunity will penalize other landowners in the office zone who
have a right to expect that August 1 is the annual application
date, that applications are reviewed by the P&Z in September and
allotments are granted by Council in October subject to the
right of appeal of scoring, and that once applications are
scored and eligibility for allotments is established, that they
may rely on the size of the allotment available for next year to
start their own project planning. The process you suggest would
set a precedent for reconsideration of any future application
which does not meet the threshold, making the entire process
uncertain and unfair for all participants.
The City Attorney and I believe you have the right to appeal my
findings to the City Council. We believe that you can raise
•
Mr. Dave Myler
Oct. 2, 1986
Page 3
these issues in an appeal of the scoring, pursuant to Section 24-
11.5(e), since your letter of September 29 provided notice of
appeal of the 700 E. Hyman application.
If you intend to pursue the appeal, I would expect you to submit
a letter to me explaining the basis of your challenge so that
staff can evaluate your arguments and present our analysis to
Council. Until I have received said letter, I am unable to
confirm an agenda date for you.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further inquiries
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR:nec
cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
DAVID J. MYLER
SANDRA M. STULLIT
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWART7_
A rTORNEYS AT LAW
September 29, 1986
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
100 S. MILL STREE"r• SUITE 202
ASPEN. COLORADO 91611
(303) 920-1018
HAND DELI
i i 1- rI
r• / 1
1�
l
ATTN: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Hodge Capital Company GMP Application for
the 700 E. Hvman Project
Dear Alan:
At your suggestion, this letter is being written on behalf
of Hodge Capital Company to request consideration by the Planning
and Zoning Commission of a revised application for GMP review and
scoring. In the alternative, this letter will serve as a notice
of appeal from the September 16, 1986 scoring of the
above -referenced application by the Commission, pursuant to
Section 24-11.5(e) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
As you are aware, the project proposed in Hodge's initial
application included approximately 5,640 square feet of on -grade
covered parking. At the time of submission, Hodge interpreted
Section 24-11.3.7(e)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code to provide an
unqualified exemption for all forms of covered parking from the
calculation of allowable floor area. This interpretation was,
however, subject to some doubt as a result of an indication by
Bill Dreuding that the Aspen Building Department was interpreting
the same provisions to require the inclusion of covered parking
in the floor area calculations. Hodge was obviously concerned
since, if the building department's interpretation was correct,
the project would exceed the allowable floor area.
Because Code interpretations are within the purview of the
Planning Office, Sunny Vann verbally requested an opinion on the
issue in early July and subsequently in a letter dated July 21,
1986. He was thereafter advised that the Planning Office would
not be able to provide such an opinion prior to the submission
deadline, but that "the matter would be handled in the process."
It was Iiodge's understanding, at that time, that such "handling"
would include the ability to amend the project to cure problems
caused by the inclusion of covered parking.
•
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
September 29, 1986
Page 2
Hodge submitted its application on August 1. On September
12, Hodge learned for the first time that the Planning Office
would take the position that the proposed covered parking had to
be included in the calculation of allowable floor area. We also
learned at that time that the Planning Office would ask the
Planning and Zoning Commission for its opinion on the issue,
which if contrary to Hodge, would cause the project to exceed the
allowable floor area. Consistent with our previous
understanding, staff indicated that, should the Commission so
decide, Hodge would be able to amend its project. Since it was
too late to discuss revisions to the project or to attempt to
debate and hopefully resolve the conflict at the staff level,
Hodge proceeded with the project as initially designed.
Hodge appeared at the public hearing of September 16, 1986
and sought to convince the Commission of its interpretation of
the floor area rules. At that hearing, planning staff presented
its argument in favor of including covered parking and Hodge
presented its argument in favor of excluding covered parking.
Although begrudgingly, the Commission seemed inclined to agree
with Hodge. It was apparent, however, that every one of the
Commission members thought that parking should be included in the
FAR calculation and that the rules should be amended to so
provide. It was also quite apparent that the project was
considered by the Commission to be too massive and that it would.
not score well because of the manner in which parking was
incorporated into the design.
The public hearing was closed and Hodge then had the
opportunity to respond to staff's suggested scoring on a
point -by -point basis. Following the discussion, the Commission
awarded a score of 24.6, which is 1.2 points below the threshold.
The observation that the Commission would, in effect, penalize
Hodge for taking advantage of a legitimate exemption, was thus
confirmed. An analysis of each Commissioner's scoring also
supports that conclusion.
The project received a combined .9 for architectural design.
Any score of less than 1 denotes a totally deficient design,
while a score of 1 denotes a serious "design flaw." The staff
report characterized the incorporation of covered parking into
the building as a design flaw because it increased the size and
bulk of the bulding. It seems clear that the Commission agreed.
The discussion of design flaws in the staff report did not
identify any problems relating to structural integrity, the
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
September 29, 1986
Page 3
functioning of the building, safety, access, or any other matter
which would normally be considered in relation to design flaws.
Rather, the design was considered flawed solely because the
manner in which parking was incorporated would cause the building
to be larger than if the parking was totally underground or
uncovered. In addition, the abnormally low scores, when compared
to the Wesson application, for architectural design, visual
impact, parking, and site design are, in Hodge's opinion, all
related to the Commission's mind set that the exemption for
on -grade covered parking is not appropriate.
Of fundamental importance to the GMP allocation system is
the existence of clear rules and regulations by which an
applicant can determine, in advance of a submission and with
reasonable certainty, how critical issues will be resolved.
Where, as here, an applicant seeks clarification of a critical
issue in advance of submission, and is advised to proceed without
such clarification on the assurance that an adverse decision on
that issue will not be used to disqualify his application, the
door to further consideration should not be closed when, in fact,
such an adverse decision is rendered.
If Hodge had been able to resolve the floor area issue prior
to submission, or if Hodge had had a clear understanding of the
Commission's feelings about covered parking, irrespective of the
floor area rules, a different project would have been submitted.
As it was, however, it would have been impossible for anyone to
know with reasonable certainty how these issues would ultimately
be resolved. Added to the confusion is our understanding that
"the matter would be handled in the process" and the indication
that revisions to cure problems related to the parking design
would be allowed.
Under the circumstances, there is no significant distinction
between having the application rejected because the parking,
caused the project to exceed allowable floor area, and failing to
meet the scoring threshold because of the manner in which that
same parking was incorporated into the design. In other words,
_whether rejected as a result of an interpretation or scoring
makes little difference since the basis for rejection, in either
case, was the same. It should also be noted that the extent of
redesign which will be involved in a revised application is also
the same whether as a result of interpretation or scoring. The
net effect of the proceedings to date is that Hodge lost the
floor area debate. Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness,
Hodge should be entitled to submit a revised application for
review and scoring as previously contemplated.
0 •
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin Countv Planning Department
September 29, 1986
Page 4
Despite the fact that Hodge believes that it has grounds for
appeal and is prepared to submit argument in addition to that
presented herein, we would prefer to redesign and resubmit the
project in response to the Corranission's obvious preference for
smaller building mass. If Hodge is granted the opportunity to
have its revised project reviewed and scored, we will concede
that the Wesson project has won the scoring competition and we,
will withdraw our appeal. Regardless of our ultimate score,
further review and processing of the Wesson application will be
able to proceed as though our revised application were not being
considered. If our request for consideration of a revised
application is denied, Hodge will proceed with the appeal of the
Commission scoring and hereby reserves the right, at your
suggestion, to submit additional argument in support thereof.
The fact that we are requesting a review for which there is
no specific precedent should not deter our attempt to seek a fair
and equitable solution to the dilemma facing Hodge. We are
prepared to meet with staff at any time to discuss the issues in
the hope that staff will support our -request.
Very truly yours,
MYLER, STLI R & SCHW TZ
BY
David J. M
DJM:klm
cc: Hodge Capital Company
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
0 •
VANN ASSOCIATES
October 16, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Co 81611
Re: Hunter Plaza Commercial GMP Application/Existing
Floor Area Credit
Dear Mr. Burstein:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify Hunter
Plaza Associates' position with respect to the existing
commercial floor area credit attributable to the so-
called Palazzi property. As discussed in the Hunter
Plaza Commercial GMP application (see page 5, Develop-
ment Data), the applicant believes that the existing
building's covered areas should be included in the
property's floor area credit. Inasmuch as the Code does
not specifically address this issue, these areas were
excluded in the original application. Resolution of the
issue, however, was specifically requested by the
applicant, and the possibility of subsequent technical
clarification of the application discussed.
As you may know, both Alan and Bill Drueding have
indicated that they believe such areas should be
excluded from the property's floor area credit. This
position, however, is contradictory to both the Planning
Office's and Building Department's historical treatment
of -commercial credits and, to my knowledge, unsupported
by either specific Code language or prior application.
As a result, Hunter Plaza Associates respectfully
request that the Planning Office reevaluate its position
so as to allow inclusion of the areas in question.
Should the Planning Office concur, the applicant will
U
immediately "technically clarify" his application
resulting in a reduction in the requested commercial GMP
allocation. Should the Planning Office adhere to its
initial interpretation, then the applicant requests that
the issues be resolved by the City Council in
conjunction with its allocation of quota to this year's
GMP competitors.
The applicant's rationale for the inclusion of the
building's covered areas in the property's existing
floor area credit can be summarized as follows:
1) Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code (the applicable
GMP exemption/credit provision) refers to the
"...reconstruction of any existing building,
provided there is no expansion of commercial
floor area..."
2) The Planning Office has historically used
floor area as a basis for determining a
commercial building's GMP credit.
3) Both the Planning Office and Building Depart-
ment have indicated that they interpret
Section 24-3.7(e) of the Code to include such
covered areas in the building's floor area
calculation.
4) A majority of the existing building's business
is conducted within the area in question.
5) To the best of the applicant's knowledge,
there is no precedent for the exclusion of
such areas from the computation of a
building's GMP credit.
In summary the applicant believes it to be fund-
amentally unfair to require that, on the one hand, such
areas be included in the building's floor area calcu-
lation while, on the other hand, they be excluded from
the calculation of GMP credit. In effect, the Planning
Office appears to be saying that if a new building were
to be built today, the covered areas would be included
in the calculation of floor area and, therefore, subject
to the receipt of a GMP allocation. However, if the
building was subsequently demolished and a new structure
proposed, the covered areas could not be counted in
calculating the existing credit even though they were
the recipient of a prior GMP allocation. Quite frankly,
the logic of this interpretation escapes both myself and
the applicant.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter and am
available at your convenience should you wish to discuss
it further.
Very truly yours,
VAN7 AS-6-O,&I.ATgS
gunny ann, AICP
cc: Ah'thony J. Mazza
Regular Meeting Planning Commission Se'Dtember 3Fl.;'198 r� ? i986
Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to ordlr'at 5:05 p.m.
with members Al Blomquist, Jim Colombo, Roger Hunt, asmine Tygre
and David White present.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
1. Jasmine Tygre noted that employee housing in growth
management applications is scored by percentage of employees
housed, rather than on -site and off -site proposals. Ms Tygre
said she is concerned about the adequacy of the cash -in -lieu
payment for employee housing, considering the cost of available
employee housing. One applicant is paying $70,000 to house 3.68
employees. The cheapest one -bedroom Centennial unit is $79,500
which is $40,000 per employee and the cash -in -lieu amounts may
not be adequate. Ms. Tygre said in growth management
applications, the applicants are relying on the city to build the
employee housing and occupancy of the building cannot be made
contingent upon housing provided by the city. Sunny Vann pointed
out the reason cash -in -lieu was adopted was not necessarily to
build new units. There are other programs available, like
mortgage subsidy. The housing authority reviews proposals to see
if they are appropriate for the current circumstances. The
housing authority adjusts the payment per employee on an annual
basis.
2. Anderson said he received a letter from Gideon Kaufman
concerning rezoning a parcel up by the Aspen Alps zoned C,
conservation. Kaufman said he would like the Commission to
sponsor this rezoning request. Anderson said the Commission will
consider this at the end of the meeting.
HUNTER PLAZA CC/C-1 COMMERCIAL GMP SCORING AND PUBLIC HEARING
Steve Burstein, planning office, told the P & Z this proposed
retail project is located on the northeast corner of Hunter and
Cooper to replace the Palazzi service station. This will contain
12,875 square feet of commercial space, of which 4,740 square
feet is reconstructed space. The applicants are proposing a
cash -in -lieu payment to house 9.2 employees. Burstein told the
Commission staff has calculated the 1986 commercial quota, which
exceeds the total requested square footage of these three
applications. There is 14,813 in the quota and 14,269 square
feet are being requested.
Burstein said staff scored this project in architectural design
2.5 points, which exceeds the acceptable design. The bay window
store fronts are attractive to the street scape. The recessed
second floor and low height at 28 feet, instead of the allowable
40 feet, are positive aspects and will reduce the perception of
the bulk of the project. This building compliments the Aspen
1
•
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Square and Aspen Chateau buildings. The materials are also
compatible. In site design the project scored 2 points. They
are providing the required 25 percent open space with a courtyard
and with 10 feet setbacks from Cooper avenue. These are usable
spaces and will provide pedestrian movement. Burstein said staff
feels the service area is usable; however, nothing special has
been done to design it to operate more efficiently.
In the energy category, the Roaring Fork Energy Center reviewed
and gave a fairly high evaluation for insulation, solar energy
and high efficiency gas boiler. Some aspects of energy could not
be could not be evaluated. This scored a 2.5
The amenities are good but standard and staff recommended 2
points for the snowmelt courtyard, benches and bike racks.
Burstein recommended 3 points in the visual impact category as
the building is stepped back from Hunter street and provides a
good view of Aspen mountain. Burstein noted most of the other
areas are standard. The storm drainage category received 1 point
because they are decreasing but not entirely eliminating the
historic water runoff. The parking category also received 1
point. 8 on -street parking spaces will be gained by eliminating
the existing curb cuts. However, this plan does not provide on -
site parking that may be in excess of the demands of this project
and is not improving the service in this area. The employee
housing category is a formula, which works out to 10 points.
Hunt said he feels this building is not adequately designed to
accommodate a restaurant with the service access. Hunt said if a
restaurant comes in for conditional use hearing, he would be
hesitant to approve that type of use.
Larry Yaw, representing the applicant, said they feel they have a
good project and do feel some categories merit upgraded scoring
by the Commission. Yaw told the Commission he feels relative to
the stated criteria in the growth management plan, this project
has exceeded the average in architectural design and requested
the commission score this 3 points. The criteria in this section
is compatibility of the project with the existing neighborhood in
size, height, location of building, and materials. Yaw said the
building has been carefully and specifically designed to maximize
the site. Yaw said the allowable FAR with bonus is 1.5:1. this
building is 1:1 in order to reduce the bulk and mass. Yaw
pointed out the FAR has been distributed so that at all street
perimeters this is a one-story building with the mass
concentrated on the back of the site and a setback 20 feet off
Cooper street. Yaw demonstrated how they designed around Ozzie's
shoes and the potential future development of that site.
Yaw noted the open space has been designed to define the
streetscape and to encourage pedestrian movements. Yaw pointed
E
0 •
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
out an additional usable, pedestrian open space of 2200 square
feet on the second level. Yaw illustrated on the model what the
design has done to reduce the perceived mass along Cooper street.
The design has used bay windows and columns to break up the
facade. Yaw told the Commission the allowable height level is 40
feet; this building's height is between 17 and 28 feet high.
Yaw pointed out the service access and how the materials and
trash will circulate. Yaw told the Commission 80 percent of the
building is south and southwest facing. Yaw said the roof will
be landscaped, as an amenity to the neighbors. Yaw requested the
Commission consider scoring the architecture design 3 points.
Hunt asked about a restaurant use in this building. Sunny Vann,
representing the applicant, answered this building is anticipated
for uses permitted in the C-1 zone. Vann said there are no plans
for a restaurant. In the event a restaurant were to go in this
building, a conditional use application would have to be filed
and heard by the P & Z. Hunt said he feels the building is not
designed to have adequate service to a restaurant. Hunt said his
GMP scoring of this project will be as if a restaurant use were
moot. Hunt said if a restaurant does come up for a conditional
use hearing, he will require the service be upgraded.
Yaw told the Commission in site design, the planning office
scored this a 2.0 and the applicants believe it merits a score of
3.0. Yaw said the criteria of landscape and open space,
undergrounding of utilities and efficiency of circulation and
increase of safety and privacy are reasons for this score. Yaw
said they feel the election to use one story is an important site
design factor, and the second story has been placed to create
usable open space. There will be direct alley access to alley
parts of the building. Yaw pointed out all the ground floor
surfaces are snowmelted, which is an important safety feature and
an above average feature. Yaw said the enriched paving feature
is also above average. The project has a great deal of
landscaping, including benches, a water feature which creates an
acoustic envelope in the courtyard.
Yaw said the energy category was scored 2.5 pointed by the staff
and the applicant feels it merits 3 points. Yaw pointed out the
daylighting feature which is a detail above the bay window to let
in natural light and reduce the need for electric lighting. Yaw
told P & Z they are using a 96 percent efficient boiler. Yaw
noted in amenities category, the staff scored the project 2
points, and the applicant believes the project to be in excess of
an average project. There is an excess of usability and
distribution of open space, the umbrella concept of the
landscaping, the water feature, the decorative hard surfaces, the
7 location of benches and the bike racks.
3
•
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Vann told the Commission the trash and utility access area is
approved under a separate special review for reduction of that
area. Vann presented a blowup of the trash and utilities area,
which is 25 feet. The code requirement is 20 feet per 6,000
square feet of building and 5 additional feet for each additional
6,000 square feet. The building totals 12,835 square feet and
technically needs an additional 5 feet of trash and utility area
for the additional 800 square feet, which represents less than 15
percent of that requirement. Vann pointed out there is ample
room for 3 two -cubic yard dumpsters. Vann told P & Z their
calculations indicate the need for 2-1/2 dumpsters. Vann said
the applicants operate a similar building of 27,000 square feet
and never use more than 3 dumpsters. The applicant believes that
2 dumpsters will be adequate; however, they do have room for 3
plus the required meter storage as well as an unobstructed 5 foot
access off the rear of the alley. Vann said they do not feel
there are conflicts in the design of the service area, and the
score is probably inappropriate. Vann noted the staff suggested
the need for a compactor in this area. Vann said the CCLC would
like to see the community in general use trash compactors to
reduce the mess in the alleys. This was not intended to be a
condition of approval of this application, and they would like
not to be scored down on this condition.
Vann said in the availability of public facilities and services,
there are 3 areas they would request a higher score. Vann said
the criteria for scoring is a 0 if the project requires provision
of new services; 1 if the project may be handled by existing
services, and 2 points if the project itself improves the quality
of service. Water and sewer there are no improvements, and a
score of 1 is appropriate. In the areas of public
transportation, storm drainage and parking, the applicant
believes the projects improves the quality of service in the site
area. The current operation of a gas station is non -conforming
use in the zone and creates traffic congestion and pedestrian
conflicts. Vann stated this project removes the curb cuts and
enhances the circulation, and therefore improves the quality of
service and 2 points would be appropriate.
Vann told the Commission the requirement in storm drainage is
that a project cannot discharge more than its existing historic
runoff. Vann stated all the runoff originating from the building
and open space area will be retained on site. The only runoff
that leaves is that between the property line and the street.
Vann said they feel a portion of that runoff will be intercepted
by the tree wells and landscaping; however, the quantity of that
will be less than the current runoff. The quality of that runoff
will be enhanced due to the elimination of the gas station use.
Vann said the upgrading of the runoff system should deserve 2
points.
4
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Vann reminded the Commission there is no requirement for parking
in the CC zone district, and it seems inappropriate to penalize
an applicant for not providing parking. This project eliminates
curb cuts and traffic congestion and adds 8 on -street parking
places, which benefits the entire downtown community. Vann said
this situation should warrant 2 points. Vann told the P & Z he
feels this project does warrants bonus points because it has
eliminated a non -conforming use, has increased on -street parking,
enhanced the storm drainage system, increased pedestrian
circulation, building set back on Cooper street, proposed less
than the allowable FAR, has reduced the bulk of the second floor,
provided extensive landscaping and open space, resulting in an
excellent project. Alan Richman, planning director, told the
Commission 2 points in the parking category would be improvements
to the neighborhood.
Anderson opened the public hearing.
Bob Zupancis,
Ozzie's Shoes,
told P &
Z the applicants have
worked hard to
have the least
amount of
impact on this adjacent
building. Jim
Palazzi, Texaco
owner, said Texaco is selling all
their gas stations in rural areas.
Palazzi acquired the
property; it is
too expensive
to operate
as a gas station, so it
was sold.
Anderson closed the public hearing.
Burstein pointed out the trash design did get 2 points. Hunt
pointed out essentially all service access on the ground floor is
through the passage way, which is not a good design. Hunt said
he does not want to see a restaurant on a second floor being
serviced from the street. Hunt said he feels unless a restaurant
has direct alley access, it should not be given conditional use.
NATURE STOREHOUSE CC/C-1 COMMERCIAL GMP SCORING AND PUBLIC
HEARING
Steve Burstein, planning office, told the Commission this is
located on Galena street in the building presently occupied by
Little Cliff's bakery. The project will be mixed uses with a
bakery, restaurant, and office space for a total of 4,497 square
feet FAR of 1.5:1. The height will be 33 feet. Burstein told the
P & Z, staff recommends 2.5 score in the architectural design.
The Victorian elements echo and compliment the neighborhood and
the streetscape. The applicant is committing to brick the east
facade on the Thrift shop. In site design, staff is recommending
2.5 points, looking at the quality of the diagonal open space for
restaurant use and the proposed open space use outside the
bakery. The service entrance off the alley is well designed.
5
0 0
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
The energy referral is that this is a standard energy design and
received 2 points. Burstein said the amenities are fairly
standard. The visual impact is reasonable and no major public
views are being impacted. Both those areas received 2 points.
The applicants are reqeusting to reduce the trash and utility
area. Staff agreed what the applicants propose seems adequate,
and suggested 2 points. Burstein told P & Z in the area of
water, the applicant proposed to install a fire hydrant on the
corner; the fire marshal has reviewed this, feels it is a good
commitment and would service the area. Burstein recommended this
be scored 2 points rather than 1. The sewer and road categories
are fairly standard. The storm drainage commitment is that
virtually all runoff will be retained on site. The applicants
have stated 100 percent will be retained; if so, the scoring
should be 2 points.
Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, presented a model which
has received final approval from HPC. Harvey told the Commission
this building will be the permanent home for Nature Storehouse, a
14 year old local business providing a needed service. Harvey
presented petitions with 425 signatures in support of this
business. Harvey told the Commission the applicants designed the
building trying to incorporate Little Cliff's bakery as tenants
however, this did not work out. Harvey said it is important to
have a long term, local natural food store at the entrance to
Galena street.
Harvey said this is a critical site, and the design was governed
by 3 elements, the use, the site and the street. There is an
atmosphere of a general store, a lot of interaction, and a
proposed outdoor dining site. Harvey pointed out the building is
33 feet high, in a zone that allows 40 feet. There are 3
separate masses to break up the building because of the size of
the site. There is a 45 degree angle entrance on the south
corner. Harvey pointed out the elements on the proposed building
that echo other buildings up Galena street.
Harvey told the Commission the applicants have committed to
installing a fire hydrant at the intersection of Galena and
Hopkins and should receive 2 points in the water and fire
category because they are upgrading the system. Harvey said the
proposed project will retain 100 percent of the storm runoff on
the property and should receive 2 points in this category.
Harvey showed in the model where the Thrift Shop will protrude on
the south part of the site. The applicant is committed to fixing
this part of the site but is not sure that bricking it is the
answer and is still working on the solution. Harvey presented a
letter about the R factors of this building, showing they are all
above the Uniform Building Code requirements. Harvey told the
1.1
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Commission there are no overhangs to effect the solar gain of the
building. Harvey said he feels this is a sensitive design to
house a valuable local business.
Anderson opened the public hearing.
Bill Little, Little Cliff's Bakery, told the Commission, the
applicant has been very supportive, gave the bakery time to move,
and he is in support of this application. Terry Badger,
applicant, told the Commission the design of the building goes
along with natural foods, which is a service to this town and the
town people patronize the business more and more.
Anderson closed the public hearing.
Colombo said he is concerned about the north side of the building
as viewed from the corner. Hunt said the applicant might
consider reversing the trash area and the stairway. Bruce
Sutherland, representing the applicant, reiterated that the site
plan and architectural design should warrant 3 points each.
Burstein told the Commission employee housing is a formula and
received 9.75 points. Harvey said the applicants would like a
special review for use of open space as dining area.
PITKIN CENTER CC/C-1 COMMERCIAL GMP SCORING AND PUBLIC HEARING
Steve Burstein, planning office, said this is located at 520 East
Hyman and is a three-story commercial building with commercial,
office and residential uses. Two free market accessory units and
4 on -site employee studios are proposed for this project.
Burstein said the FAR of the proposed structure is 2:1 using the
bonus available for on -site employee housing, with a total square
footage of 12,800. The planning office recommends a score of 2.5
in architectural design. The structure is stepped back on Hyman
street to create a reduced bulk. The materials to be used are
good design features and should compliment the neighborhood.
Burstein recommended 2 points in the site design category. The
25 percent open space is met by the south facing court yard.
Burstein told the Commission the staff is concerned about the
quality of the space and the quality of the landscaping. There
is a problem with service access in the alley currently, and the
applicant has not proposed any special provision for getting
trucks into the area. Burstein pointed out staff recommends 3
points in the energy category on referral from the Roaring Fork
Energy Center. The trash and utilities area meets the standards
of the code and received 2 points. Visual impacts category
received 2 points; the structure is not out of character nor are
any public views obstructed. Water and sewer provisions are
standard and 1 point is recommended. Burstein told the
7
0
0
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Commission staff recommends 2 points
in storm drainage
because
they have proposed to
retain all
storm drainage
on -site.
Burstein said there is a
problem with
the parking proposal; both
engineering and planning
feel the parking is inadequate
and will
put additional burden on
surrounding
streets. In the
employee
housing category, staff
recommends
10.4 points for
4 studio
employee units housing 45
percent of the
employees.
Bill Poss, representing the applicant, told the Commission a lot
of planning has gone into the orientation of the building. It
has been stepped back to create a usable open space. The
building has been oriented to be sympathetic to the Pitkin County
bank building as well as the Elk's and Mason and Morse building.
Poss pointed out another reason for the building's orientation is
to take advantage of a 10 foot planting strip existing next to
the bank, which will add visually to the open space. Poss showed
the proposed landscape canopy of aspen trees which will create an
urban seating area as well as create a barrier to pedestrian and
vehicular traffic. Bike racks will be provided on the property
for residents and public.
Poss noted in the amenities category the design of the courtyard
and the association with a planting strip creates an usable
amenity by the public. Poss said the mid -block link ties in with
the adjacent building to the north and is an amenity. Poss told
P & Z the applicant is providing the required trash and utility
area of 250 square feet, which is paved and will be screened by a
brick wall. Poss said if compactors are used, the trash size
could be reduced and used as a service yard for other uses. Poss
told the Commission the housing in this building is accessory to
the other uses. The main premise is that housing in the downtown
core areas is for employees who do not wish to have cars, and are
close to their work and public transportation. Poss pointed out
there are 17 employee units approved under the GMP process which
have not provided any parking. This building is providing two
spaces, which does improve the area and does benefits the
project. Poss reminded the P & Z the Code does not require
parking in the CC zone. Poss said he feels this project does
benefits the city and does warrant bonus points with the creation
of the courtyard and block link, the stepping of the design, and
use of materials. Hunt said the drawings indicate a restaurant
use on the second floor with the only access a stairway. Poss
indicated they would install a dumb waiter or a separate elevator
if a restaurant were to go into the building. Hunt said he would
like the applicant to insure, if there is to be a restaurant, it
will be serviced adequately. Jim Martin told the Commission they
would not want the restaurant using the public elevator and will
install adequate service of either an elevator and a dump waiter.
Poss pointed out there is a development right already existing on
the property from a demolition of over 4 years ago. Poss pointed
F:3
•
i
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
out the phase II, the GMP allocation is to the east and the 4
employee units.
Anderson opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Anderson closed the public hearing.
White said there are 3 projects competing, 2 have cash -in -lieu
for employee housing and one with on -site employee housing.
White said it is difficult to balance these two options and to
give the same points for different options. Richman said the
employee housing scoring category is clear and objective. When
Council adopted cash -in -lieu, they gave it equal credit. Richman
suggested the Commission raise this concern with Council. Richman
said in this instance each applicant should receive an
appropriate score; they are making a commitment to house a
certain percentage of their employees.
Commission members scored the three applications. Burstein
announced all three meet the threshold. Hunt moved to accept the
scoring and forward to Council; seconded by Colombo. All in
favor, motion carried.
PITK_I_N CENTER FAR BONUS; EMPLOYEE HOUSING GMP EXEMPTION• PARKING
REDUCTION
Steve Burstein, planning office, told the Commission the proposal
is to deed restrict 4 units on -site to low and moderate income.
Burstein said there may be a need for moderate units to satisfy
those with a greater income, thus the recommendation for a
greater income span.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of an employee housing GMP
exemption to deed restrict 4 on -site units to low or moderate
income; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried.
Burstein pointed out the Code gives the P & Z the ability to set
the parking requirement for free market units in the CC zone, and
to send a recommendation on the employee parking. The applicant
is committing to two parking space on -site for the free market
units. Burstein said one parking space per bedroom is an
acceptable parking arrangement. However, there is no on -site
parking for the employee studios. Burstein said if the tenants
do not have a vehicle, and the proximity to downtown makes these
units very convenient. The planning office does feels that most
employees have vehicles, and recommends there be 3 employee
parking spaces and 2 for free market, for a total of 5 parking
spaces.
Poss noted in the CC zone, there is no parking requirement and
there has been none required in the past. The intent of this
0
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
zone is for employees who do not wish to have a car. Poss said
they feel the two spaces provided on -site are above the zone
requirements. Poss said the two residential units they are
building were there previously and did not have any parking
spaces. Anderson asked if the rear of the building could be
reconfigured to accommodate one additional car. Poss said the
building is under construction, and it would be difficult to
provide for one more parking space.
Hunt moved to set special review at two parking spaces for the
free market units and recommend exemption for parking for the
employee units; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor with the
exception of Colombo and White. Motion carried.
Burstein said the last review is FAR bonus and staff recommends,
except for the parking issue, there is not a problem with the 2:1
FAR proposed. Burstein had recommended this request be denied
based on the deficiency of the parking; however, based on the
previous motion, P & Z may approve this.
Ms. Tygre moved to approve special review of the FAR bonus of
.5:1; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried.
NATURE IS STOREHOUSE - Cash - in -lieu for employee housing;
reduction of trash and utility requirements
Steve Burstein, planning office, told the Commission the
applicants propose to pay $70,000 for employee housing to provide
housing for 3.7 low and moderate employees. The housing office
and planning staff recommend approval; however, staff recommends
the Commission ought to send a message to get a program together
on using the cash -in -lieu in the next six months. Ms. Tygre
said, at present, P & Z has no review of the housing authority's
plans. Alan Richman, planning director, pointed out the
applicant is only required to pay their share, which has been set
by formula. Ms. Tygre asked what happens when an applicants'
payment does not cover the expense to build the housing for the
number of employees he has committed to. Richman said staff
feels they have the correct formula to implement the program.
Ms. Tygre said she feels this program should be monitored because
there may be hidden costs to the city. Richman said if P & Z is
uncomfortable with the program or with the cash payment, P & Z
may recommend to Council not to accept the cash -in -lieu. Ms.
Tygre said her concern is that the employee housing get built and
would like a timetable for providing this housing. Richman said
it is reasonable for the Commission to expect the housing
authority to come up with a plan on how it intends to use the
money.
10
•
Regular Meeting Planning Commission September 30, 1986
Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, told the Commission
cash -in -lieu is required when a building permit is issued.
Harvey noted this is a new program and no one knows how much cash
will be generated by this. Harvey agreed the Commission does
need a long range program. The housing authority is excited
about generating different types of employee housing programs,
like mortgage help or deferment. Harvey said he feels the
employee housing inventory at present is more than the demands at
present, and the housing authority would like to look into other
possibilities. White agreed he would like to see proposals from
the housing office this year.
Blomquist moved to accept the proposal to provide cash -in -lieu to
house 3.73 low and moderate income employees; seconded by Hunt.
All in favor, with the exception of Ms. Tygre. Motion carried.
Hunt moved to approve special review for reduction in trash and
utilities area requirements; seconded by Colombo. All in favor,
motion carried.
Hunt moved to approve special review for restaurant use in open
space; seconded by blomquist. All in favor, motion carried.
HUNTER PLAZA - Consideration of cash -in -lieu employee housing;
reduction of trash utility requirements.
Hunt moved to accept the proposal to provide cash -in -lieu to
house 9.2 low income employees; seconded by Blomquist. All in
favor, with the exception of Ms. Tygre. Motion carried.
Hunt moved to approve special review for reduction in trash and
utilities area requirement deleting the reference to trash
compactors; seconded by Colombo. All in favor, motion carried.
Hunt moved that the Commission be updated on the program of cash -
in -lieu for employee housing, and that this be scheduled as an
agenda item; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried.
Richman said the staff, housing authority and P & Z will start
developing a housing plan element and it is included in the 1987
work program.
Hunt said he would like to get the code modified to include
service access to restaurants. Richman said if P & Z submits
this in written form, he will forward it to the code consultants
who are working on simplifying the code. Richman told the
Commission staff has been directed not to initiate any code
amendments until this work is done.
11
0
11
Regular Meeting Planning_ Commission September 30, 1986
Hunt moved to indicate to the planning office to include
restaurant access in the code updating process, to be direct
access from the alley and if on the second floor to have elevator
access; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried.
REZONING REQUEST - Moses C, Conservation to R-15
Anderson told the Commission the Conservation zone has a 200 foot
setback, and this lot is almost entirely in the front or rear
setback. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told the
Commission he is requesting their sponsorship because of the
rezoning time table. If they wait until spring, they will miss
the next building season. Kaufman said they would like an
opportunity to get into agenda process. Alan Richman, planning
director, pointed out there was a time for rezoning request in
August and staff generally encourages applicants to stay within
the code guidelines. Kaufman said there were substantial issues
raised, to which he wanted time to respond.
Hunt moved to sponsor a rezoning request for the Gaard Moses
property on Aspen mountain, indicating no elimination of
necessary fees; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Tygre moved to adjourn at 7:35 p.m.; seconded by Blomquist.
All in favor, motion carried.
Kathryn $ Koch, City Clerk
12
0 •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 1986 Commercial GMP Competition in the CC and C-1 Zone
District
DATE: September 25, 1986
INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review are the Planning Office
recommended points allocations for the three applications
submitted on August 1st for the Commercial GMP competition in the
Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts.
QUOTA AVAILABLE AND REQUESTED: By Resolution 29, Series of 1985,
City Council did not carry over the unallocated quota for
commercial development in the Commercial Core and C-1 Commercial
Zones and set the 1986 quota at 10,000 square feet. Given the
additions and deletions to the commercial inventory from 9/l/85
to 8/31/86 as explained in Alan Richman's September 22, 1986 memo
(attached) the available 1986 quota is 14,813 s. f. Quota
allotment requested for this competition is as follows:
1. 520 E. Hyman
3,067
sq.
ft.
(Pitkin Center)
2. Hunter Plaza
8,125
sq.
ft.
3. Nature's Storehouse
3,077
sq.
ft.
Total Quota Request
14,269
sq.
ft.
DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND ANCILLARY REVIEWS:
520 E. Hyman: The proposed building is located in the vacant
lots between the Pitkin County Bank and Trust and the Wachs
Building (Cheapshots) . 7,133 sq. ft. of the new building would
be reconstructed space, including two free market residential
units. The building would contain in total 7,822 sq. ft. of
commercial space, including retail shops, a restaurant, residential spaced
professional offices, and 4,178 sq.
ft. of including two free market and four deed -restricted employee
housing units.
Prior approvals given this project include (1) a GMP exemption
for demolition and reconstruction of commercial space and two
residential units, approved by Council on 11/23/81; and (2) a
subdivision exception to split merged townsite lots into four (4)
separate parcels, Lot O, Lot P, Lot Q and Lots R and S of Block
94, approved by Council on 12/27/82 .
Ancillary reviews in this application include:
a. Employee Housing GMP Exemption to deed restrict four (4) on -
site units to low income.
b. Special Review for Bonus FAR of .5:1 bringing the total FAR
to the maximum allowable of 2:1.
C. Special Review to set the residential parking requirements
for the two (2) free market and four (4) employee units.
HUNTER PLAZA: The proposed building is located on the northeast
corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue in the C-1 zone
district and would replace Palazzi's Texaco Service Station.
4,740 sq. ft. of the new building would be reconstructed space.
In total, the two (2) story building would contain 12,875 sq. ft.
of commercial space (external floor area) , entirely devoted to
retail commercial purposes. A cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000
(as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 9.2 low
income employees would be provided to the Housing Authority.
Ancillary reviews in this application include:
a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash -
in -lieu to house 9.2 low income employees.
b. Special Review for reduction in trash and utilities area
requirements.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING: The proposed building would replace
Little Cliff's on the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins.
1,420 sq. ft. of existing commercial space would be recon-
structed. In total, 4,497 sq. ft. (external floor area) would be
built to house Nature's Storehouse Restaurant and Store, a retail
bakery and 2nd floor offices. A cash -in -lieu payment of $70,000
(as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 3.73
employees would be provided to the Housing Authority.
Ancillary review in this application include:
a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash -
in -lieu to house 3.73 low and moderate income employees.
b. Special review for reduction in trash and utilities area
requirements.
PROCESS: The Planning Office will summarize these projects at
your meeting of September 30, 1986, review procedures with you,
and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of
the applications. The applicants will give brief presentations
K
of their proposals. Public hearings will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of each hearing,
the Commission members will each be asked to score the appli-
cant's proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by
the number of members voting, will constitute the total points
awarded to each project. A project must score a minimum of 60
percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, and
3 amounting to 25.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the
points available in each category 1, 2, and 3 to be eligible for
a GMP allotment. The minimum points are as follows:
Category 1 = 5.4 points;
Category 2 = 3 points; and
Category 3 = 8.75 points.
Should an application score below these thresholds it will no
longer be considered for a development allotment and will be
considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an
application over this minimum threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points
to each application as a recommendation for you to consider. The
staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and
objectively score the proposals. The following table is a
summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the
points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached
score sheets, including rationales for the rating.
Quality of
Design
Availability
of Public
Facilities
of Services
Employee
Housing Bonus Total
Need Points Points
520 E. Hyman 13.5 5 10.4 0 28.9
Hunter Plaza 14 5 10 0 29
Storehouse 13 5 9.75 0 27.75
ANCILLARY REVIEWS: If you concur with our rating, all three
applications meet the minimum threshold for GMP allotment. Since
there is sufficient quota to address the needs of all three
projects, meeting the threshold will make each project eligible
for an allotment.
The Planning Office has the following comments regarding special
reviews associated with each project.
3
•
520 E. HYMAN (PITRIN CENTER) Application:
A. Employee Housing GMP Exemption
The applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to Section
24-11 .2 (f) of the Municipal Code for four (4) on -site
employee units. Each unit would contain 450 square feet.
On September 11, 1986, the Housing Authority recommended
approval of the proposed program.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority and Planning Office
recommend approval of the 520 E. Hyman employee housing subject
to the following conditions:
1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed -restricted
to the low and moderate income employee housing
guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 520 E.
Hyman Building, including procedures and regulations
stated in Ann Bowman' s memorandum dated September 9,
1986 and summarized below:
a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units to
qualified employees of his selection.
b. Units shall be restricted to six month minimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenancies, as
stated in Section 24-3.7(0) (1) of the Municipal
Code, as amended.
C. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing
Office.
d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to
recordation with the County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
B. Special Review for Reduction in Parking
The Planning Commission has final review authority over
free-market residential parking requirements in the CC
zone and the ability to recommend employee housing
requirements to Council. Sections 24-4.6 and 24-4.1 (c)
of the Code give the applicable provisions for the two
actions.
The applicant would provide two covered parking spaces
for the use of the two free market residential units.
This meets the standard of 1 space per bedroom required
in other zone districts, and is acceptable in staff's
4
view.
No on -site parking would be provided for the use of the
four employee studios. The 1 space per bedroom
standard would result in four more spaces required on -
site. Some reduction from the standard is reasonable
given the following factors: 1) Low and moderate income
tenants would live there and some may not be able to
afford a vehicle, and 2) Location within the downtown
makes walking to work, grocery stores, and entertain-
ment very convenient, and therefore, a car is not
necessary. Consequently, the Planning Office believes
it is reasonable that over the long term, at least 1 of
the 4 employees will not have car, and we would support
setting the parking requirement at three (3) employee
parking spaces for the project.
It should be noted that few options for off -site
parking exists in this location. Parking on adjacent
streets is limited to two hours or less during the day,
and is occupied day and night in winter and summer.
There is no municipal parking garage that might serve
this need, and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed
(although it is a possibility in the future) .
RECOMMEMDATIOM: The Planning Office recommends
approval of the parking special review for the two
spaces for the two 1-bedroom free market units. Staff
recommends P&Z to recommend Council to establish a
requirement of 3 parking spaces for the four employee
studio units.
C. Bonus FAR Special Review: The applicant requests approval
of a special review for bonus FAR to add 1200 square feet of
commercial space (.2 : 1 FAR) and 1800 square feet (.3 :1 FAR)
of employee housing space. This amounts to . 5 : 1 FAR
increase, which is the maximum allowable in the CC Zone
district according to Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code.
Section 24-3 .5 (a) of the Municipal Code states the
criteria for P&Z's review:
"(1) Compatibility of the development with surrounding
land uses and zoning, including size, height and
bulk, proposed site design characteristics,
including landscaping and open space and visual
impacts such as viewplanes.
(2) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the
availability and adequacy of water supply, sewage
treatment, storm drainage, roads and parking
5
facilities to serve the proposed development."
Staff believes that the 520 E. Hyman Building is mainly
compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning. As
noted in the Planning Office recommended scoring of
this project, the building size and height are not out
of character with other buildings on the block. The
open space and landscaping schemes are acceptable and
no important public views are affected. Service areas
of water, sewer, storm drainage, and roads are adequ-
ate. Parking, however, is not adequate in staff's view
for the six units on -site, as discussed in comments on
parking special review. If the objective is to
successfully maximize usage of the site, then parking
needs should be handled on the site for the employee
housing component enabling this bonus FAR. Little
rationale has been given in the application to demon-
strate that no employee housing parking is needed.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of
the bonus FAR special review based on the deficiency of
residential parking. If the applicant is willing to work on
providing additional parking, the application should be
tabled to review the new site configuration.
HUNTER SQUARE APPLICATION:
A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The
applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu payment to the
Housing Authority for housing the equivalent of 9.2 low
income employees. The Housing Authority recommended
approval of this program on September 11, 1986.
Ordinance 2, Series of 1986 gives Council the option to
accept or deny the employee housing dedication fee proposed.
The Planning Office believes that it is incumbent upon the
Housing Authority to develop a program to create housing
with the funds given it from this and other developments.
Low income dormitories and senior citizen housing have been
the top priorities identified. We recommend that you make a
recommendation that some such program be developed within 6
months and brought before the P&Z prior to review of any of
the 1987 GMP applications.
RECOMMENDATION: The
Planning
Office recommends
P&Z to
recommend that Council
approve of the cash -in -lieu
payment
of $184,000 to provide
housing for 9.2 employees at
the low
income level, as adjusted to the
payment schedule
at the
time of issuance of
a building
permit. Payment shall be
made to the Housing
Authority
prior to issuance of a
building permit.
R
0 •
B. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and Utilities
Area: Section 24-3.7(h) (4) sets the size of the trash/u-
tility service area in the CC and C-1 zones and allows for
the P&Z to vary the required area by special review pursuant
to Section 24-3 .7 (b) (attached) .
On page 31-32 of the application, rationale for this
reduction is stated, including:
(1) The building is only 835 square feet larger than the
building size that requires a 25 ft. x. 10 ft. area.
(2) Based on actual trash generation calculation for
similar buildings, the 25 ft. x. 10 ft. area appears to
be sufficient.
(3) The trash area will be paved, covered, enclosed on
three sides and be large enough for three two -yard
dumpsters (4' x 71).
(4) Trash compaction will be neither required nor provided.
The Engineering Department stated they do not have any
problem with the requested reduction, however, they recom-
mend installation of a trash compactor. The Planning Office
also notes that the alley service entrance (approximately 5
feet wide) also goes through the 25' x 10' area for trash
and utility. While it appears that two dumpsters may fit in
with utility boxes, three may constraint service flow from
the alley into the building. With a compactor, as recom-
mended by Engineering, such a problem should not occur.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the requested 25 ft. x 10 ft. trash/utility area subject to
installation of a trash compactor, as meets the approval of
BFI, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING Application:
A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The
applicant has proposed to pay $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the
Housing Authority to provide for the equivalent of 39% of
the employees generated. This calculation was made based on
misinformation on employee generation. Subsequently,
revised calculations were made for payment of $70 ,000 to
house 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income
employees, to the satisfaction of the Housing Office and
Housing Authority.
As discussed in regard to the Hunter Square cash -in -lieu
proposal, we support the acceptance of this option but
recommend that the Housing Authority must develop a housing
7
0 •
program to utilize this payment which should be reviewed by
P&Z before the next round of GMP applications in 1987.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to
recommend Council approval of the cash -in -lieu payment of
$70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees
and 0.687 moderate income employees. Payment shall be made
to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building
permit.
B. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and Utilities
Area: The applicant proposes an area of 8 ft. x 12 ft. for
trash and utilities off the alley, while 20 ft. x. 10 ft. is
the standard required for buildings up to 6,000 sq. ft. in
size. Rationale provided include:
(1) The provision of a trash compactor and motor driven
conveyor for efficient delivery of goods.
SB.64
(2) Calculations of the historic trash generation of
Nature's Storehouse, Little Cliff's Bakery and that
projected for other tenants, as effected by the 4:1
compaction.
(3) The 6 or 7 days per week pick up service from BFI
anticipated.
The Engineering Department recommends approval of the area
reduction given the trash compactor. Engineering also
recommends that the compactor be placed inside the building
and not next to the dumpster.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of
the requested 8 ft. x 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject to
the placement of a compactor, as meets the approval of BFI,
in the basement of the building. Installation shall be
accomplished prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occu-
pancy.
0
• •
CrfY OF ASPEN OOMMERCIAL GNP APPLIMICKS
TULY SBBEP
PROJECT NAPE: Pitkin Center - - Date: V3OZ86
1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL
P&Z VOTING MEFIM IDS Roger Wetn David sly Al -- - Jim -
A. Quality of Design
1. Architectural
Design 2.5 2.5 2.5 3-_ �2 _ .5
2. Site Design 2 -2- 2.5 2.5 3_ 2
3. Fne rcgy .3_ _ 2.5
4. Amenities -2 2 2_ 3 -2�_
5. Visual Impact 2 _ 22.5 2_ 2 _2
6. Trash and Utility
Access -2 2 2 2_ 2_ 2
SaB70►PAL: 13.5_ 13.5 3¢Z_ 14.5 1_ 1_ 14
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1. Water Supply/Fire
Protection 1 1_ 1_ 1_ 1_ 1_
2. Sewage Di spo sfal I 1_ 1_ 11_ 1_
3. Public Transporta-
tion/Roads II_ 11_ 1_
4. Storm Drainage 2 -2-__ 2 2_ 2_ 2
5. Parking - _ 1.5 _ .5 1 0 _ 1
SCBZOTAL: 6 6.5 5.5 Sz-5 6 5.8
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4
TOTAL: 29.9 30.4 30.4 30:2 30.4- 29A 30.2
D. Bonus Points -0 _ 0_ 5_ 4_ 0_ 0 1.5
TDTAL POINTS
CAS A, B, C
and D 29.9 30.4 35.4 34,E 30.4 29.4 31.7
SB.22
•
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROTECT: PITRIN CENTER_- -52Q E. HYMAN DATE: 9/22/86
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.5
•INIAWOHI _ _ • _ I • �� • • �- I •
• I 1 • 1 • • . I • MEMO .
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
• I - • I - • - / . • I • • - • .
1
•. • • ••• . �• • u �_u.0 • --• .. - To- sip _•i
be carried west on to this site, No spe!Qigl proy-isions are
lei
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Energy Center gave a high evaluation
to the insulation and solar energy aspects of this application
given the specific commitments made in this area. It was noted
that solar hot water was not included in the design.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2
ihob exposure; and staff is concerned thaC the space may contain
too much paving and have little visual interest.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: This is a large building on a block containing several
other three story structures and not out of character, No
important public views are impacted
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: A 250 s f trash and utility area would be provided
parallel off the alley, meeting Code requirements. Landscape
screening is noted in the application but not shown on site plan
nor considered necessary by staff.
SUBTOTAL: 13.5
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
• 0
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 - - Indicates a project which may be handled by existing 1 ev el
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Water Department stated that the project can be
served from the 12 inch main in Hyman Street without any special
conditions The Fire Marshall stated that fire hydrants in the
area are adequate and response time from the Fire Department
ou.Ld be good given the proximity of the project
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Sanitation District stated that this project can be
served from the eight (8) inch line in the alley.
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
3
C�
•
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
COMMEN T: The proiect is within two blocks of Rubey Park and 1,
block from the Hvman Avenue Mall, therefore, havina good transl
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2
structure, Engineerinc[ Department comment�d that the draina
design and drywell locations are not stated in the applicati
and should be reviewed by the Department. -1
e. PARRING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 0
building and two covered spaces are iprovided off the alley for
the •) residential u1 The Code does not -q- off-
street
special review for residential uses, The Engineering Department
and Planning Office believe the residential parking is inadequ�
Furthermore, the alley is presently very c•/•- -• without
the proiect and may not be accessible for parking at many time.9
of ! day.
SUBTOTAL: 5
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
4
•
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 12% housed
RATING: 10.4
COMMENT:• • units wouldbe provided • I I • I •
five (5) employees, Eleven employees would -We gei-e - r a-tQ—i"
association 1 the additional•ll0- ! • of I • •
therefore, 45 ipercent of the employees would be hou
Housing AuI • • - I • _ . p�roval of 1e emplQyeI • I •
program subject to a deed restriction for low to modera co
em p-1 •
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points -
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
5
0
n
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
13.5 (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
5 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
10.4 (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
28.9 (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4 --
TOTAL POINTS: 28.9
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Aspgn/Pitkin Planning Office
SB.50
rA
i
•
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
13 (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
5 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
9.75 (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
27.75 (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
TOTAL POINTS: 27 .7 5
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: AsRgB(Pitkin Planning Office
SB.101
6
PROJECT:
CITY OF ASPEN
CONMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
i lt/- ( J -) 60 .
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent desiqn.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT • — —
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING
COMMENT :
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: —?/
COMMENT :
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT:
2
SUBTOTAL: �
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities. /
RATING: 1 __
COMMENT-
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
CO Mh'!E N T :
3
RATING:
u
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RAT I_ NG :
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RAT ING
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
COMMENT:
5
BONUS POINTS:
0
0
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category l:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
_6_0 (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: A4�rl
CJ
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
r-
PROJECT: t DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2---
COMMENT
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
. I •
11
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar_ energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: Z�
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL:
2
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: i
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: I
COMMENT:
3
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: �.--
COMMENT
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
CO MME N T
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: D�
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
5
•
619
TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
vi (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
• 0
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: l�� ��� W y �� �� DATE: CA �5
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
1 RATING: n_
COMDIENT: �UGS aY1 ()ny>leitt-A aA'2 a/Y�(-P-- I A-Vn I
P�1 ^m y
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
r I I RATING: ZS -
COMMENT: `1Y\�—*\Ypu �l`^ ���i TLI � is,
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2--
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2-
COMMENT
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
2
SUB TO TAL : 14
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
3
RATING: I
0 •
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: _2-
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT: S<119— Y-id,
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
E
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING: ( Q. 4
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record. ^^--
BONUS POINTS: T
COMMEN T :1\� V\Q.� Y\!� (G CJ ► ) Lt ill V'e. GCll -� 00A-r _,
5
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: �0.� (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3 3 (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4 �.
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: /l
0
N4
•
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: rZ 7�1 x i - �-r� DATEVt3eD
l
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: `Z
CO MAZE N T :
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: ?l
COMMENT:
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
H
P
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
�7 i
RATING: `
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
4
SUB TO TAL : / J
•
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
f ormul a:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
�.� WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering
sewers to dispose of the wastes
without system extensions and
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
Q
RATING:
the capacity of sanitary
of the proposed development
without treatment plant or
RATING:
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARRING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: J
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
i
0 •
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: C
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT
5
5.
TOTAL POINTS / (F_ c
Points in Category 1: `�� (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: �D' (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3 (minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
Welto% P s dn5o,
0
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT : J CIA l�Tt' 1 ---DATE: J�
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: �
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
_l
C
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: �►
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: y
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
2
SUB TO TAL :!
2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ( maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for t-ie simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading. i
RATING:
COMMENT:
3
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 21
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
COMMENT:
RATING:
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING:
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT
5
0
•
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS:
(minimum
of 5.4 points needed
to remain
eligible)
(minimum
of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum
of 8.75 points needed
to remain
eligible)
(minimum
of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
r Mom
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
N.
CITY OF ASPEN
PIMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGE1ENT SCORE SHEET
�/�� �" "-c
PROJECT: )K, `. `, — DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
PAT I NG : e r
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: GA
COMMENT: _
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
2--
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT :
2
SUBTOTAL: LL
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
f ormul a:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING
COMMENT: _
3
•
•
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING
COMMENT
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 05
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: '-400-
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed f
RATING: / D
COMMENT. Y
Z—hva
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONS POINTS:
COMMEN /
5
5.
TOTAL POINTS C
Points in Category 1: / , (minimum of 5.4 points needed
Ito remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: L (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, & 3 AL4_(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4
TOTAL POINTS: C
Name of Planning and Zoning member:
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office
DATE: September 8, 1986
51OC7 fly ror /
P)tKiy; Cekl- K
RE: Pitkin Center GMP Application Ofe()IP"Ieh�
PPlicationtfe()iP"Ieh� (a)
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Engineering Department has the following comments on the
above application.
DRAINAGE
The application proposes to contain all storm drainage on -site.
The design of the drywell is included in the application, but
their location is not. We need to review the plans for the
drywell system.
TRASH/UTILITY
Section 24-3.7h requires that the trash/utility area for a 12,000
square feet building be 25' parallel to the alley by 10' deep.
The application meets this condition with a 250 square foot
trash/utility area.
PARKING
The application provides two parking spaces for a 12,000 square
foot building. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code does not
require off-street parking for commercial or restaurant uses. A
review is required for residential uses. There are four studio
apartments that are to house five employees. We would like this
project to provide four parking spaces.
The bike racks that are proposed should be placed in a location
that is accessible to the public.
TRAFFIC
The traffic generated by this project will not significantly
impact the adjacent streets.
EE/co/PitkinCenterGMPApp
r•
(0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office ,
r
FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office C
DATE: September 8, 1986
RE: Pitkin Center GMP Application
52bC. by 1'M�r �
ce►,te✓
04(6h,ehi (a)
The Engineering Department has the following comments on the
above application.
DRAINAG E
The application proposes to contain all storm drainage on -site.
The design of the drywell is included in the application, but
their location is not. We need to review the plans for the
drywell system.
TRASH/UTILITY
Section 24-3.7h requires that the trash/utility area for a 12,000
square feet building be 25' parallel to the alley by 10' deep.
The application meets this condition with a 250 square foot
trash/utility area.
PARKING
The application provides two parking spaces for a 12,000 square
foot building. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code does not
require off-street parking for commercial or restaurant uses. A
review is required for residential uses. There are four studio
apartments that are to house five employees. We would like this
project to provide four parking spaces.
The bike racks that are proposed should be placed in a location
that is accessible to the public.
TRAFFIC
The traffic generated by this project will not significantly
impact the adjacent streets.
EE/co/PitkinCenterGMPApp
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney D Wq[B
Housing Director �: 7
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
`Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: August 20, 1986
Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the
applications follows:
PITRIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067
s. f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on
the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s. f. of commercial
space and tow residential units (2,3785 s. f.) which were removed in
1982. ?yiS poeo3ecT ch,, ne sews -or> /3v 7�a Rj%*2Q.- c��.so..�..rc•�
S Ah/S7'A,ci
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f..
commercial GMP allotment. The property is` located at the corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and
a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots R and
L and all of Lots M, N and O, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s. f. commercial structure on the
property. 7./tis r.coaerT- cA►- r3a ss� ,.� /SY rn�a �s�,.� ��,�So., o•�tP>
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E.. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s.f.. of commer-
cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena
(Little Cliff's) .. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
building and construct an approximately 4,497 s. f. commercial
structure. TN/S rA 6.lEci CAA- /'Se 9 8R''Fr> /3 Y T/+tos A sprco�.s•LI eATr�
S A9 A-j r A-7. • i s . z. / C_,---
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing.
Thank you.
D
� 1 1 I986
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: CC/C-1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC AL GMP APPLICATIONS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 198
------------------------- --=--------------
Sorry to be late wit r review on the above referenced GMP
applications. This is a very busy time of year for us. Without
going into a great deal of detail for the time being, all three
projects are located int he commercial core and water service is
available to all three projects without any special conditions,
provided the applicant complies with the Water Department's
policy pertaining to water service.
r�
L
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
MEMORANDUM
TO: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
FR: Steve Standiford, Director
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
Review comments on energy related aspects of thePitkin Center Commercial GMP
INSULATION
The insulation values specified in the proposal are significantly
above code. There is no mention of the insulation levels of the
floors and around the slab.
The level of detail and the energy analysis provided is the best of_
any proposal we have reviewed to date.
SOLAR ENERGY
All south facing glass will be "heat mirror" which provides a very
high R-value. This type of glazing has a solar transmission rate much
less than single pane glass, for example. This tradeoff decreases
the overall heat loss through the windows while also decreasing the
overall passive solar heat gain. There does not seem to be any
consideration for using solar energy for heating water.
WATER CONSERVATION
The proposal does not specify the amounts of water each plumbing
fixture will use. Flow restricting "water closets and shower heads"
are specified for installation, which is good. Exactly how much
water will be saved over conventional fixtures is hard to define
without more information.
0 - - ----
i
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1986
RE: PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
ISSUE: Does the applicant meet the requirements of the City's
Municipal Code?
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is
requesting a 3,067 s. f . commercial GMP allotment in order to
construct a building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin
County Bank, 520 E. Hyman. This request is addressed in Section
24-11.5 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Commercial
Floor Area is to be a second phase addition to a proposed
project, scheduled to begin construction this September.
In addition, four deed restricted employee studio apartments will
be constructed in Phase 2. These employee units are exempt from
GMP allocation by special review.
Phase 1 consists of 7,133 s.f. of floor area which will replace
the commercial and residential project removed from the site in
1982. This project was granted an exception from the GMP process
to rebuild the commercial space and (2) residential units prior
to demolition by council action dated 11-23-81. This development
allocation was confirmed and excepted from full subdivision
process by council action dated 12-27-82 and recorded with the
County Clerk on 2-22-83.
The applicant proposes the following employee generated by the
project:
Employees Generated
Level 1
(Commercial 1) 870 sf = .87 x 3.00 = 2.61 emp.
Level 2
(Restaurant) 870 sf = .87 x 5.25 = 4.56 emp.
Level 3
(Office) 870 sf = .87 x 3.90 = 3.39 emp.
Total 10.56 emp.
(equals 11 emp.)
1
•
Employees Housed
4 studio apts x 1.25 Occ. ea. = 5 emp.
The above schedule demonstrates 48 % of the employees
generated being housed on site. (10.56 divided by 5 = 48%)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The above computation is consistent with
Section 24.11.5 (3) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and there
fore staff recommends approval of the application with the
following deed restriction for LOW to MODERATE income employees:
The applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that
the employee housing units shall be deed restricted in terms
of use and occupancy to the rental guidelines established
and indexed by the City Council's designee for low and
moderate income employee housing units at the time or prior
to issuance of the building permit. Verification of
employment and income of those person living in the low to
moderate income employee units shall be completed and filed
with the City Council or its designee by the owner commenc-
ing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County
Real Property records and annually thereafter. These
covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden
thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically
enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate
legal action including injunction, abatement or eviction of
noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last
surviving member of the presently existing City Council of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or
for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording
hereof in the Pitkin County Real Property records, whichever
period shall be greater.
The owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the
units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such
individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in
Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the
requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee"
as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in
and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County a minimum
average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-
month period, who shall meet low or moderate income and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee
housing.
K
No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee
rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six
consecutive months.
When a lease is executed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent
to the Housing Office so that a current file may be main-
tained on each unit.
Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the
Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the
Housing Authority Office after recordation.
ACTION NEEDED: Approval by the Board of staff recommendation.
3
To
-
(�
Date % Time_
Whi e u Weye Out
M
of
Phone i
AREA CODE
NbMBFR EXTENSION
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
WAS IN TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
r l l �IArk " N/Ao rPJ
I K�
T
Operator
CHALLENGER' 01761
D
AM
S& W6
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT �I
MEMORANDUM
TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: CC/C-1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC AL GMP APPLICATIONS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 198
------------------------- -- -- - =--------------
Sorry to be late wit r review on the above referenced GMP
applications. This is a very busy time of year for us. Without
going into a great deal of detail for the time being, all three
projects are located int he commercial core and water service is
available to all three projects without any special conditions,
provided the applicant complies with the Water Department's
policy pertaining to water service.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Housing Director
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
4*101WAspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: August 20, 1986
� t•
Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the
applications follows:
PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067
s..f.. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on
the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E.. Hyman..
The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s.f., of commercial
space and tow residential units (2,3785 s.f.,) which were removed in
1982. -THIS Poea3ec? /3Y 7tta ^snQ.... caA-saa.,/lnrc/>
S A..It^7,'0 -. T/4
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f..
commer-cial GMP allotment.. The --proper-ty-is- located at the corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and
a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and
L and all of Lots M, N and O, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s.f. commercial structure on the
property. T/tis P0-G3&`r c^— '3z s&&-er> fsY ra¢ �s�,s�. c��so���•,rer>
S A "-1s.r"— h>is rK..' cj
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E.. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s.f. of commer-
cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena
(Little Cliff's) .. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
building and construct an approximately 4,497 s.f. commercial
structure. TN,,s .0A 6.3ec-,— GAS- /'oe S ltic Lse> /3Y 7/.Ls3, A f0eA.- Coti s•��ow:Fn
S�Nt } /S-;Vf♦— %,/ ST At/ c-j—
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing.
Thank you. AL__�4
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8166
September 16, 1986
Alan Richman
Director
Pitkin County/City of Aspen
Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
p�6�odrr
%P i s yes
Re: Pitkin Center Joint
Venture Project
Bill Poss has asked me to respond to your inquiry
regarding the "accessory" nature of the two residential units in
the proposed project. It is intended that the units in question
will be utilized by the managers of the property in fulfilling
their managerial functions for the property. The property is,
as you know, a commercial project with associated employee
housing. These units will be sold as accessory to other units
in the project, and this would be appropriately documented in
the Condominium Declaration when the building is condominium-
ized.
I hope this letter answers any questions you may have.
Yours very truly,
BROq(CE A. E 71,
A rofessi n rp ration
OK/e 'At. ireLleirson
BAP:kl
cc: James Martin
William Poss and Associates
0
Sept-mber 16, 1956
and associates
605 EAST MAIN STREET / ASPEN, CO.81611 / 303.925-4755
kir. �ste`fr i='t{rstelii
Aspen/Pit€-in County Planning Office
1 30 South Galena �a Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE Pi t}__i n Center Project
Additional Information Requested
ECEIV
Dear Steve:
Enclosed you will find information requested regarding disclosure
of ownership and authorization by owner for representation for
application submission.
In addition, I have enclosed a letter requesting the special
review process for Bonus F.A.R. and exemption from GMP Allotment -
Deed Restricted Housing.
Also attached is a copy of a letter from Brooke Peterson regarding
the accessory status of the residential units Eyeing constructed
in Phase 1.
If you require additional information, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Bill Po_s
BP= ;en!
Pclos-rem .'J
architecture and planning
•
August 18, 1986
and associates
605 EAST MAIN STREET / ASPEN, CO.81611 / 303.925-4755
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Subsequent Review: 1986 Commercial GMP
Pitkin Center: 520 East Hyman Avenue
Dear Alan:
This letter is a request to begin the special review process required to
secure Commercial GMP Allocation.
Special review is required for the following:
1. Exemption from GMP Allotment for Deed Restricted Employee Housing
(Section 24-11.2 (f)).
2. Floor Area Bonus Review (Section 24-3.4 (Internal F.A.R.)).
The following is a brief analysis of each review.
1. Exemption from GMP Allocation for Employee Housing.
Section 24-11.2 (f) provides for exemption of Deed Restricted Employee
Units from GMP Allotment Procedures. To comply with this section,
four (4) studio employee units of 400 S.F. will be provided on site and
will be deed restricted to low income eligibility guidelines.
architecture and planning
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
August 18, 1986
Page Two
2. Bonus Floor Area Ration (FAR).
The Aspen Municipal Code permit up to 1.5:1 FAR in the CC Zone.
An additional .5:1 FAR may be premitted by special review with .2:1
commercial space if .3:1 of space is provided as deed restricted
employee housing (Section 24-3.4 (Internal FAR)).
The following table described the project floor area, internal floor areas,
and demonstrates that the FAR bonus is appropriate and consistant with the
code requirements.
Area FAR
Commercial Space
Phase 1 (Re -Construction) 7233 SF 1.2
Phase 2 (GMP Allocation) 1767 .3
(Bonus) 1200 .2
Employee Housing 1800 .3
Total 12000 2.0
Please refer to our GMP Submission that demonstrates the necessary public and
private facilities, including utilities are available to serve this development.
In addition, this proposal is consistant with the area and bulk requirements
of the Municipal Code, Chapter 24, including open space, setbacks, and building
height.
If you require additional information, please call.
Sincerely,
Bill P ss
BP/jt
0
n
August 13, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Planning Office
City of Aspen
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve:
This letter is in response to your request for
additional information regarding the GMP application by the
Pitkin Center Joint Venture to build a commercial building
on Lots P and Q, Block 94, City of Aspen (520 E. Hyman). The
owner of record is Pitkin Center Joint Venture, which is also
the applicant. The Joint Venturers are as follows:
Wayne B. Swearingen
3736 Normandy Avenue
Dallas, TX 75205
James T. Martin
215 S. Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
Roderick D. Keith
4511 Emerson
Dallas, TX 75205
William J. Poss has been retained by the Joint Venture
to act as Architect and is specifically authorized to
represent the Applicant in the GMP process. I am the
Managing Partner, and Brooke Peterson is our legal counsel.
Sincerely,
'Jim Martin
Manager
(303)925-8310 • 215 S. Monarch • P.O. Box 10502 0 Aspen, Colorado 81611
0
n
U
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8166
September 16, 1986
Alan Richman
Director
Pitkin County/City of Aspen
Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
R�1
D
Re: Pitkin Center Joint
Venture Project
Bill Poss has asked me to respond to your inquiry
regarding the "accessory" nature of the; two residential units in
the proposed project. It is intended ghat the units in question
will be utilized by the managers of the property in fulfilling
their managerial functions for the property. The property is,
as you know, a commercial project with ;associated employee
housing. These units will be sold as accessory to other units
in the project, and this would be appropriately documented in
the Condominium Declaration when the bdilding is condominium-
ized, i
I hope this letter answers any questions you may have.
Yours very truly,
BRO E A. ET nON,
A rofessi n ration
or 'Al. /Pet lson
BAP:kl
cc: James Martin
William Poss and Associates
0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1986 CITY OF ASPEN CC/C-1 ZONE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL GMP
APPLICATION REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, September 30, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
three 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications. A brief overview of the applications is as
follows:
PITRIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The aril icant, Pitkin Center Joint Ventur-e,- As .requesti nq._ a.
3 , 067 s. f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a
building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County
Bank, 520 E. Hyman. The applicant proposes to reconstruct
4,755 s. f. of commercial space and two residential units
(2,378 s. f.) which were removed in 1982.
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a
81125 s. f. commercial GMP allotment. The property is
located at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue
(Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and a parking lot) , more
specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and L and all of
Lots M, N and 0, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.. The
applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s. f. commercial structure
on the property.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s. f. of
commercial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S.
Galena (Little Cliff's) . The applicant proposes to demolish
the existing building and construct an approximately 4,497
s. f. commercial structure.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext..
223.
s/C Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 28, 1986.
City of Aspen Account. N.12
PKK—APPLIC:A IUN UUNYLKLNUE SUMMARY
PROJECT-
A?PLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNERS NAME:
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: C0j^AMeF(4a'( 6110
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
G Alp N 4 � s s
��77 �� W I I as bon us F A R 2: I
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent
FAQ &-Pw —
t_
Awr Con�cr��flv� _
HPC _
TY06 � Ut a I *#) —
k► 2 S prvu 41 t e'
4. Review is: (P&Z Only)
Comments
.tf�tl� n,T� a ��' ;t �� �, �trnen;�ir,~ � n � sett �• „ry►►� a,�
f' WN hJ (b14•e K A .7 44 aery
ski-bb�IC r� '} ► xy �. f� ,1feF���s N. 'f�lrc��'tt�t�r roo)i wee
nil, fu"'I
t�rKw/ (�.z, rite, EM,!, G4. fo$ee IZ'-fig"l��►„t
fCwt�i'•irt� 1�� T✓��/'I. C�glt!'f I�rly.if�hs�'/��t�-lai�l��'flc��is%�4fi%jSll�s�lA�,
+hey L.4
(CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO)
7. what fee was applicant requested to submit:
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. COMUIENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
Peel fo /ice, ^ 4At 4o Pit SML, e
tip, aaf, &
�A aP.
1'04M rr,,11
M-4u� W&*t Im,
!I- F M O _R_A N D_U. M
TO: THE HOUSING r.MT ORITY :f�OT_RD (fir' `J--HIE CITY OF ASPEN
Y AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLO,1ADO
FROM: ANN B0WMIJAN, PROPERTY IANTICER
DATE: AUGUST 23, 1�86
RE: PITKIN CENTER COi::ERCIAL GIMP
:ISSUE: Does tl:e applicant meet the rcqui_Tc..:ents of t'-:e Ci.tyIs
Municipal Code?
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is
requesting a 3,067 s. f_. commercial GMP allotment in order to
construct a building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin
County Bank, 520 E. Ilyr,.an. This request is addressed in Section
24-11.5 of the City of Aspen IMunicipal Code. This Commercial
Floor Area is to be a second phase addition to a proposed
project, scheduled to I-)c.gin construction this Scptemher.
In addition, four deed restricted employee studio apartments will
be constructed in Phase 2. These employee units are exempt from
GMP allocation by special review.
Phase 1 consists of 7,133 s. f. of floor area which w.-L11 replace
the commercial and residential project removed from the site in
1982. This project was granted an exception from the GMP process
to rebuild the commercial space and (2) residential units prior
to uemolition by council action dated 11-23-81. This ucvelop.ment
allocation was confirmed and excepted from full subdivision
process by council action dated 12-27-82 and recorded with the
County Clerk on 2-22•-83.
The applicant proposes the following employee generated by the
pr of e ct
- Empl.oXees Generate
Level 1
(Commercial 1) 870 sf = .87 x 3.50 = 3.05 emp.
Level 2
(Restaurant) 870 sf = .87 x 5.25 = 4.56 emp.
Level 3
(Office) 870 sf = .87 x 3.90 = 3.39 emp.
Total 11.0
ki
E:I,I�1.oyEes HQs�
4 studio apts x 1.25 Occ. c.a. = 5
The above schedule demonstrates 45 % of the -employees
generated being housed on •ite. (11.0 divided by 5 = 450)'
FT FF RECOI'I''EI%7DXITION The aI)c•, e cc!,. ufation is c.cnsi.stent with
Section 24.11.5 (3) of the City of TT—n T:uni ciTal Code and there
fore staff recor::r::ends approval of the application with the
following deed re:�triction for LO.i to LCIDERA'IE income employees:
The applicants shall covenant i,,ith the City of Aspen that
i=l,e e aployce housing units shall be Ceed restricted in ter:'s
of use and occupancy to the rental gui del i.ne s e stabl i si-iod
and inC.cxed l y the City Council's designee for low end
moderate income employee housing units at the time or prior
to issuance of the building permit. Verification of
employ :cnt and income of those person living -in the low to
r:icderate i:.ccme c gplcyee i_nits sTiall be co ,tpletcd �:nd filed
With the City Council or its Cesignce by the cwner corr.,;Lenc-
ing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County
Real Property records and annually thereafter. These
covenants sha11 be deemed to run with the land as a burden
thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically
enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate
legal action including injunction, abatemaent or eviction of
noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last
surviving member of the presently existing City Council of
I
he City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or
for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording
hereof in the Pitkin County Real Property records, whichever
period shall be greater.
The owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the
units to qualified employees of his oi-;n selection. Such
individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in
Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the
requircracnts of a qualified craployce. "Qualified employee"
_ •: ,,.•
as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in
and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County a minimum
average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-
month period, �-,ho shall meet low or moderate income and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then
applied by the I'ousing Authority with respect to e:.iployce
housing.
E
•
No lease agreei-itent executed for occupancy of the employee
rental unit ::hF.11 J_ ): ova ce for a rental term of less than six
conFecut ve
When a lease is e c cutcd with a tenant,' a copy shall be sent
to ILYe Hous ng C f ice so th-<t a current file may be main
s_
.,j,_ned cry C; c-1i t'!�:i.t.
Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the
Chairman of the Hou :.ing Authority prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the
I'.ousing Authority Office after recordation.
ACTION '_':I_BD: ATproval by the -,_oard of staff recommendation.
C
CASL`oAD SHEET — --
City of Aspen
1. DATE CER1 IFI ED COMPLETE:STAFF
2. APPLICANT: oo
3. REPRESENTATIVE:
4. PROJECT NAME:
,Y
5. LOCATION:
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
4 Step: GMP
PUD
Subdivision
2 Step: J Subdivision Exception ( b�
GMP Exception ( 1 Cu.}r r
Rezoning ( �
P�11�Il�iti u "j, u� V
SPA y�—�; ��<r�s•b.ili�y}�*
1 Step: Use Determination P,�l lz-�Jz
Conditional Use
_Special Review
HPC
No. of Steps: Other:
7. REFERRALS
J Attorney Sanitation District School District
_Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell `_Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Parks State Highway Dept.
Water Holy Cross Electric ire Chief
City Electric Fire Marshal/Building Dept. Other
8. DISPOSITION —.
P & Z— Approved Denied Date m�@r�IC�92
amp. o nd i �-i on
�J
Council ✓ Approved ✓ ` Denied
Date 71 a 2
the rdquest to divide Lots 0, P, Q and Lots R and S, Block
94, Aspen Original Townsite, into four parcels. Approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1) As stated in Section 20-5(b) of the Code, the four newly
created parcels cannot be transferred without a development
allocation or credit. The current development rights are
as follows:
Lot 0: 2,533.4 square feet
Lot P: 2,758.25 square feet
Lot Q: 1,997.35 square feet
Lots R&S: 8,522.49 square feet
9. PRE
These development credits cannot be transferred among the five
At lots or cumulated on one lot unless further approval is received ct
En from the Planning Office. This review is to ensure that each it. Gas
lot is not left without a reasonable development right or if no
He reasonable development right exists, that a covenant exists to ✓ Dept.
Wa prohibit the transfer of the lot without first obtaining a
development right. These development credits can be increased
Ci if the owner competes and wins a commercial GMP allocation for
additional space.
10. PRE
P 8 2) The four plat requirements requested by the Engineering
Department listed in this memorandum must be met prior to
recordation of the plat.
• 3) A statement of exception must be reviewed and approved by
the Attorney's Office and then recorded at the Courthouse.
Reference to this statement of exception must be added to
the plat.
11. FINAL PLAT
Council Approved Denied Date
12. ROUTING:
✓ Attorney \/ Building _Engineering _ Other
AOEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE•
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020 /
RE
D e a r
This is to inform you that the Plannin Office has completed its
preliminary review of your ���fG:'�,Ci��-' r� application for complete-
ness. We have determined that your application
_. is complete.
is not complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) .
Adjacent property owners list (one copy only` needed) .
Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount -of S ___ is due.
A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it
f or review by the ��k4 , V- '_ on
We will be calling yo`u if we need any addit onal information
prior to that date In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review --memorandum available to you. Please note that it
�. is not your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, w ich we can provide you.
B. . Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Please feel free to call '12 _ r_.4, who is the planner
assigned to this case, if you rave any questions.
Sincerely,
P.SPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman, Planning nd
Development Director
AR: j1r
ASIEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
RE:
Dea r
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of your (_,—i?,---^\ (-10 application for complete-
ness. We have determined that your application
is co m pl et e .
is not 'complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) .
Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) .
/ Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount of $ _ is due.
A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it
f or review by the _ on
We will be calling you if we need any additional information
prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review memorandum available to you. Please note that it
(is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Please feel free to call e;k_�_� , who is the planner
assigned to this case, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman, Planning and
Development Director
AR:jlr
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Housing Director
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office
RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: August 20, 1986
Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP
applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the
applications follows:
PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067
s.f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on
the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman.
The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s.f. of commercial
space and tow residential units (2,3785 s.f..) which were removed in
1982.
HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f..
commercial GMP allotment.. The property is located at the -corner of
Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and
a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and
L and all of Lots M, N and 0, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and
construct an approximately 12,835 s.f. commercial structure on the
property.
THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
The applicant, Gregg E.. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s.f. of commer-
cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena
(Little Cliff's) The applicant proposes to demolish the existing
building and construct an approximately 4,497 s.f. commercial
structure.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to the
Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to
have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing.
Thank you.
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP
Planning and Development Director
o Ax-o� w U
t� 'Q&- -\•
-WILLIAM J. POSS & ASSOWES
605 E. Main St.
ASPEN, CO 81611
I
(303) 925-4755
TO Aspen/Pitco Planning Department
WE ARE SENDING YOU I'4 Attached CJ Under separate cover via_
❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans
❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order
DATE
August 1 1986
JOB NO -
ATTENTION
Mr. Alan Richman
RE
Pitkin Center
1986 Commercial GMP Application
❑ Samples
the following items:
CJ Specifications
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
24
8/1/86
Commercial GMP Application
Pitkin Center/520 E. Hyman
1
8/1/86
Application Fee Check No. for $3160.00
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑
For approval
❑
Approved as submitted
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑
For your use
❑
Approved as noted
❑ Submit _copies for distribution
As requested
❑
Returned for corrections
❑ Return --corrected prints
For review and comment
❑
❑
FOR BIDS DUE
19 _ ❑
PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
PRODUCT7403 1 Ee Inc., Ci000n. Nm 014/1
SIGNED: " � //
If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us a once.