Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Pitkin Center.32A-86 au vni I. SW .. IS MIS OM on a Z r O H H r it 01 U L .w 7 0. C m 0. 01 -I .a -. ... ¢ > .. m .. W '0 •w .a I- 01 .+ 01 •• u H µ. _II C .4ar O N W .. -I0 40 Q h 0.L99 ¢ .+V h7 EI J W L L 0 u m .+ o 01 min 01W Cr 01 C 01 L L L h? C L N DI> -+ .a m . mC0a „• MI W C E C C H 1 .+ I CI m 01 > 01 C 0 0 to in m 0 N „, ZIW .y U2 U W EUP InEU CL _II a • PI t ai A¢ u i C W C — U. 7 Y Y 01 • - 01 . I-1 U. 0 1 .a S 4. 0 I 1 0... .+ In C..r WI O C 0..in 0_ UNC 8 I- 00.0C1 -- tli EICI WI Z COI C ¢I CI Q Z U - II CC U C I- HI W W 1 + '" Is 31 E 1 7 J 1 4 C 0. C C r a w a a a on IS a. A _ C .. C 0 .i 4.1 r .. + A , 0 A U 03 0 al IT •.1 0. au •0. -• Cr 0T0. C E _ .S . 0. •.. C9 01 4 E N ++ NM O ❑ 0 0 C N0 11. ❑ U. "" •.1 1 N H U 01 4. — 1. >.0. �. 1 1 0 6 � ON1 1 1 1 E 0° x ... 01 E 7 L L 0 E W • .4 U 0 C 0 0.0 W' n1 ••+L L C C A LL LS. Li. IX C 0 C 4. IO ❑ 1 U 0 1- M N O \ 10 .. '° C E a 01 L M NO m .+ C b 01 T C C 01 U. .y8 m A 0•.. • • r4 .1.1 y1 O C • 0. W. N 0 9 n M ~ L N W •• •.. W Y B U B 111 01 9 w U 'J m i•1 O 4 B 9 O N G O.o JG1U 40 U -. UdOC 0 ,. 0: 1- Z .. •• •• •• •• 1- h ❑ N h 1- .. 1- W W 1- N Z W W , I7 - a .•. h W h ✓ 0. 0. 0 0 0 0. N S M s .. r .. am a ma O z W ..•..+NNMMMM as In•o.o <I •0 N N N N N w Ur 0. Mai la AM w AN Mt wis N ' w Z N C J 0 0 E ~ C 0 M \ W U. 00- Z CO 1- J Z 0 W 0 U t. ❑ '.4 J 1 F- W Z 0 N > 07 •• ¢ r7 w F- 3 CL I- O W Ix U Z Z q a 0. J X 0: a W 0: F N •. C D J N C O W C7 0. Z E C7 ¢ CO CO N a J F- 11 ❑ N 0. C0 Z O EW¢ \WW2= W ¢ L3 I- F- >ON¢ •• d) a W Z N N 0 W 0: Z J O. Z Z N I- - F- a C0 •. a Z W ❑ 7 •1 0. 2 0 3 CD 0. > 0. 01 ¢ "" 0 N 0. N> a W J F C F 0 - 1 CO E 0 F- 0. 0 aCC 2 0: ¢ O z .r r >N W '+ W UN W•.Z •. 30 Z I X CO O0.03WZ3W C C 0 W W - C J N 00) - U W ❑ONWCD> W as >aJ •'� 1410 Z W 0 +V N 0:C7EJEOOI -0 F- > H CD•+¢M m DLO-t- W O- W W ¢O;WO0.¢W J '-+ F =WzZ7N C LIC-JCesL > O F- 30 >I-0 n7Z0. 0: •+ U F-W W N¢ J F- 3050 0 071 OS ¢ W F-W 3100E U J 10- 1ZE•+ - ¢W31-C J 31 a 3 CI) N0¢O.¢UW C ¢N W¢ >F C 300.(110. 0. Z O O O 3 - x W W 0 ¢ W m1 W h ... 0 0 0 d U 9 01 a 01.0 • .. > b d U t 0 4F W L U V 01 Z C0 b L U L OF + O+ L •0 A .3 U 13 01 `• • fO L U L 01 M a Z • > 10 Q .,. ON t O~ !f N Z2 W O LD M 1 ZWO NW F- way -I - ¢ OWJJ JO NN U0 ;J Z >>WF WWJOW aWW W W NN ZtD-C> 3 -W¢J0 YF- atY20NF - 7W Z M W F- l- IC 1004. ✓ OC aaZF -a> W ZO 14 0. IJa W cCwl-EC C 1- I- 0. a >( JWW Z +r U JO w 30 0.- 1 i 0 JWZC W 0Z0Iw m - U x h C J t7 S O Z 3 a - I.- O J a Z a X Q J 0 0 W O a X O J W O W 0 J W W h WO JWiXW3C3c 0. 0 m 1- O 1-1 0 0 F- > W (D N 0.. a W W 01 E W 3 O W J W > L 01 L 01 .• y W C +• .- +1 +1 : : W w 0 3. A L m 41 a9 m m o 4. .• a " e ma 3 am+ 3.W al W L a c al u+.0 a m m W •.. 3 ++m++LUm a +1W m•H.1 • c RI '0 w7 • •1 3 +1 m 10 1.41 ••• c W'0+ 7+1 W a ... 7 01 ID13 7 7 0> Q 111 L 3. L T • 11 'o U 3. 4 3 .• Al L U 0• U W 01 C L 0 • m m W +1 •• C al 3. 0 01 .. W a > 3 +1 10 + +1 01 C .• .1 W AN '0 .. C .• 0l U• A A U > 01 .1.1 0 3 C L• •.• 1. .1 m 04 • m L E , C.. l ~ L 01 3 C.•L +1•w... a 44i 0 a C W 01 al 7 W 10 Y •.. • a W ••• C.0 3 C L 01 C C ••• L +1 W 0> 9.1 3. 4 C W 3 01 01 1 0 0 01 C 3 •.• O W +1 m MIN L W + 3 .. L 4 .0 3 E 3. .• 0 C +1 a > Q: W of •w C a +• al • C • U W •w W ••• W C U) III > L +1 701 c m C L U 10 01 W co ea L m C ••• i b 41 •1 W.0 E E W A • 0I •• .• •• (0 0 b L 7 •.• .0 .. £ L I L 01 W .• L W a 0 > 0_ 7 c +1 C a +1 a 10 .1 .. W m • L a L Q. m U N C N a Z .1 U C +J ••■ 01 - 1- E +1 W +1 +• 01 • . 1 E +• ••• ❑ • •1 • ' 01 W '-1 0' '0 E 7 Id W 3 3 U) W •.• 3 a m +1 3 01 • 01 •.• > .•1 •• +1 C C C L W L l > > +1 C Al U 0' +1 01 +• C L C a OI •.• U 0: •.1 a +1 +1 L '0 1. s N 47 O 01 01 01 ••• .• 1 . 1 1 7 4 0 C N N ❑ m m m W a W ❑ >• • .0•11. w 7 > m •.• 01 al 0 E> +1 C +1 - Q: m W 3 L + 0 a W m III +1 L L 01 £ a L m W 410 40 W 1. 0 al L C • • (0 1.01 Y 01 Z 0 0 U 3 U 1- L 7 .. + C a 0 WC C W 7 C +1 W W 1 1 0 L +1 .1 1 0 3. 0 W C W +1 4• 01 ••1 ••• U U 3 +' + ••• ..• +1 C U m 1• 3. 4 .• 4. 4• W .. U ' " 3 +1 x 3 +1+1 CUI W m x . • c 4 • - c7 UI 4 1 L 0 + 1 c 10 •.. • m W U W N 10 • . 01 '0 W W •• 3 7 0 u E W 3 4• £ C + W W L W 3 4• l U) 3 1. LID L . > 0 1 1 L. W W L W I W m E 41 W 01 ... W 01 W + 0+1 b 01 L. 1 ...1 01 AI 01 a a 3. . • 0 4. m . 0 W-• 3 01 01 3 4• m UI a o- - m 4• - 011 L m • m X O L 01 4 .0 L M W L .0 W W 10 UI W* 7 .. 0> W �1 1 - . - 1 0 C 0 1 4 . 1 0 . � O •• I- -• m I- +' 4 X3 -1 3 010 4 m U 4 D 1 y, N •I. 070 W C+1 am 1 C L L > •.• 0. 01 1 > 01 0 3. 1 E W 0. u + 0 E L a W L E U ••' ••a al • . - 1 4 . 1 0 1 L 1. 0 L W m L 'S C 4 O. W X 3 L 15 C •1 L U U 4• C C 0 4 0 E +1 W W 0 •.• E C 0 .' 0 4• 3.13 m .1 0 M 0 1 0 U • • • W U •w 0 U 0 10+ C C 01 3. 1. + +1 7a,> .•• L L L -41 0 C b a 04.4 4 L L in 0 C +1 in a L L W • W 4• 01 4 9.1 U 0 C O W C -• • 0 W C O C • .• U W W +1 'D L E m a •• •.• N 0 3. W 1. 0 . 4. 3. .• 0 0101 3 + 4 4• E a 4 W C O m o m al C a 7 •• C 4• U. ••• W 'n U c m .. 0 0 W '0 U 10 E• 15.. 1 Y • • •w C a +1 + v3.0m •. u >30 W.• 3>NL •••••mWu m .1 • .l L + L U '14 '.• LL 0 L W a 03 •.1 N W '0 +1 U W W +1 > 10 3. 0 3. 0 +1 C U N W E +1 O. U 1 C a 1 1-1 Y 7 •-/ 0 m L.. 7 C +' . .• a +1 .. • m W 7 W .0 W U '0 O M 0 L N O W 0 01 L 0 W • N u ' 0 W . W 3. 3. M .1 L WQ. 3. + 1 N •47•-• '0 •.•0. U W E U 1. 3. L > C L 01 4 M '•i £ m 1 +1 m > C W U •.1 1.+1 W W WI-- +1 10 .. W -• 01+ 0 (0 L -. A 3.+1 0 W L L C 4• «no 01 m .. •.• m a.. > > N ` 1 U 01 L .. •.• O-+ U.• W C 0 E C • . 1.+1 01 0 •• 1 3. 4L 2 E 7 U W .. 0 .0 0 O. 01 ' 0 .. +1 7 •.• U .p .• I 0 L a • > 01 3 •• •• •^' L •.• L a ••1740 • E in E +• W Z m 10 U 3. W L +1 41 a O. C 4• O. 0 4 + U O. W •• i t a L) 0. .• 0 'a 3. O • .• 4• L W C C 4 E 0 0 01 1. - L +1 E 0 01 W U u m a , •-• Q. 0 4 3. U,O 0 7 L +1 W •.' L 0. L E W 410 E C W .� ' 0 I. - C £ •H c m E u 0 7 c +1 m F- 0 E + a +1 0 0 1. •• m .-• 0. 0 1. w IA L O W 10 0 0 01 0 1 0 + .. .. L E ••• C L • 01 + '0 •.• m In 3. +' .. r .w 4 / . . . U 0 4 - 1 > 'f E m U 11114.1r0 4• 0 C C It* +1 01 L • 0. Q: +1 .. -. W +• 3. C .1 W .4 .w • w U 7 0 E U L W 0l 0 -- C L O 115- • m u W 0 • •• - L L .• m 3 + N C •w 0.13 '0 +1 J C O. -• W •.. N U • . • I WW 3 x C ' S I- • • C C0) 0 01.•+ 0 01 ••1 '.• I +14• W • •. U 4 W '5 ' +1 +1 0 3. '0 0 1. 01 0• •• .0 01 U •• + •• 3 11 3 1.* C W • ❑ .• L N a O W .• •.' b U U a -. Y 41 .H 01 W 0..• W O U N W L W 0. W 0 W L •• C O. + ' 0. ..• ••■ 0. 41 > W U a • U .• ,.1 E '0 1- 3. E C O.o 0.1. 0 •• N£ -• .0 m C W a C .• W U C W P) C .• C C O. m 0 U '0 E 0 .11 W 3. 0 U' 3 01 ... u .. W •.. a x 7 a 03 W 0 3 0 0 L U nil W 0 .•' .. O a +1 1. a •.. W W L x •.. 3. u 0 0 1. 1 L • •.• .. W r1 4 U +• 10 +1 W C .• + 1 m 3. 4 E 4 'a W W 7 ••1 c m u o N W C +1 W d +1 - O • .. U 0. m 0 •.. 7 '0 0 01 3. 0 '+1 main • a 7 •• U N 4• W o u> E'0 ix .c 4. W •.. m 0 ••' 7 0 C +1 .0 L .0 L C ••1 C W W 0 : C > 1 1 1 1 01 L .. W W 7 L 0. 1- O co U •.• 3.+1 1.+1 '-' 4 0. 4• 0. 01 '0 m 01 L L U F 'O d L N d: I-+1 01 ❑ Z +1 as E E I L • C 0 °• 0 0 C C I 7 W T L E L L• L • w •• W C W L 0 W W c 0 0. W U. ulr. u ..LU oa Oral a.0 >UI•. N UI >. a .4 a t a+ •. L c E o W W N •. - at L a+ 10 a+ ea C •• a+ a+ a A •. E t1 •• .. W .0 W C 0 H N W N a U 0.L1 Z 1 3 •. 00 ...41 ++ 0 C •-- a> U a+ ..1 N .. a+ in E E X C W N U •. 7 .. U A •. E O W u c W N .. C E u W 0: Al 1 - 1 C Z1 C 0 3 U 7 3 W- u la W .o W 3 W ma N X C x C 0 a: 0 C 10 -. •. N w N a r0 t1 N W LL W LL In F- 0 L W L W O 4J UI L E O. 17 O. W U N •.. CO C I- UI L W L • r4 a+ 7 W N C 0 L 10 x Ill r C1 4...+ .+ W > U. c •. 0 •. -• r0 U W W Y..x UL ION 7 C W4141 W W W 0 L U. U. 4. W IL a. •. r0 L W a✓ C 4+ 7 .Cl 7 > • UI .0 L , Ill UI(J1 N N 3Z IO•^r •. III 4141 W4+•. 0 at 4 cu 4 10 N. a. 0 W W •0 r0 W.0 U .c 9 a u W a+ 6 a N m a 13 • L L W L m •• W F- w L W •0 L x U a Ei U1 CO N .. F- W W> a 0 0 L - JJ > 0 W W -. U 0. 0 •.. W 19 'O V) N U1 C - a+ > L U IO u M C 0 E a+ . C N w IL •'r •0 4141 M II (o IO C 7 W W W •• : E •.. 'U O 0 + .~ Z U IX .0 C L a+ .• tt a W In 0 al a+ U 0' > L O. C 0 C a+ 3 u C r0 •4141 E a+ it u I W C W a C C 4141 b W O C W C• N W •.. C L W •... 10 W F - EL wa+• - U 0a+ W UI W W 0 > xa W 041 .0 aJ Ot > L 0 C b •4141 C L t1 01 L " .. L RI 4141 .0 a. A C N .4 N. 41.4 Z 3 >'^+ a+ W W C 74 w a+ 15 C a+ (D W •. b (0 w W 0 t t1 • E > a+ 0 0 0 •. C a W 7 F. L x L W U 041 W O II t] 410 E.o a L U L> A W .0 L ,.. (0 C L F- T 1 -• C L 7 t1 0 0 •• tf .0 .W •. U t1 ., .. 0 > W IO 41, m LL •.a+ In '0 61 '44 c m.. U1 L W.. au C W '5 w J a+ Ua. III •••• L W LL t] x UL•. 0 W 014. . t1 W L •. L4• C 0 A a+ W u C .. w u W a+ W> W O1 U .+ W u W to W w aa'0 '" Z J O. '0 •.. > > C � •• 0 0 CO - u L W U W 7 3 a+ c E•. > 0 C W C ( n W C a+ 0 W I- 7 .. C 1 0 1 • 1 4 1 . 0 U L L A 0 E t1 0 W t1 - -. LM•. W U L _ L •. ..w t a+ 1/1 La+. U 0 I Ut1t1•• W /0 C W a W W U •.0 a+ w E -. t1 UI a+ W -• u 0 W •.. > I- a+ W > N •. L a+ w W W 0 0 L 4 a+ ro 0 l0 0 W C •• C ••• W a+ 0 9 W 0 ry., 4141 0 a 0 -- a+ C 0 W W . c . . 3 W .• - L L • .4 3 W O C W 7 C O = 3 •. W L CO I- O U M J et •• F- .0 4+ a+ 3 .. 4. w U a . 0 U 7 01.0 I- a+ II I- > L a N 41 41 7 C U _ 0 L • W y r m 141 x . L + .0 A W c CC C Ct 4- U W C t1 t1 0 0 •• W W U. W C 4.4 W W w L .. .. - - C i 3 A t1 0 U O N a N ,..1 M CJ M N '0 0 3 4 L CO W L L , 41, ,. N y 0 w 0 b 0 N a F- LL U. LL LL W LL U. IL A N.- - W .0 t7 NN N NN N N N U • W 9 ro 07 L S c LL • Nml M NIS 9 1 N 5 - C •.. • t1 • N) ULO 07 NI M •0m 5 1 •0 19 O N. MI ,d CO N CO 1 CO I9 UI 0 U7 •• W' L N B Ill a NI N •• ,.. 4141 1 CI W ~ N o. -. • C 9 N 0 IT 0 • .. S a+ U 0 L -.. ID C UUL9 W a •. a+ C U1 UIN .. . •• W •• m to 0 a+ •.. 0 •4141 m -• 0 .•• •• •.. "RI Z o - • 0 0 +3 01 cWw * •+ 0' W L W .0 • . t1 a 0 0 u 0 01 W W C ,...• E a 0. 0 0 a 1 /1 W 1/1 4+ a A CJ ..41 01 l 7 11 U C •. L C •.. 7 E UI U W N. v N. 7 J W •.. 0 1 0> 0 1.1 W• .. - H =-. W UI .. .. 410 W L •.. -. •^+ ti a > 01515 C W L L 4141 b 0 C 01 •-I '-' 1-• 71 W x 11 W a 4+ WLa+ W a. -L3 . -•+ II 114 1.1 WC A 0 0 0 0 II •. •. W a U a 0 I u c ++ •„ L L a+ 01 310 • RI L ZI L W 0 L >> 0 O. W C L . 0 W •• x W W t1 I- W W 0 I- .. E N O W U -• 01 E A b co E •. 1 CO E .. of 1 410 a t1 W E a+ W O C W a •. E .+ W C E N .0 C E a" .0 a+ t1 L 0 0 L... O o E .0 0 0 L. = 0 W 7 2 0 E 7 0 •• I- u .■ 1- w N UI W I- u a+ .0 O. U CC N 0.. U W N I- Y. o. a a E E a E d 41 0 '5 C W A 1 W W E W a '. 0 .. 0 9 01 L N 0 L m U7 0-1 m W 0 CC in .0 b ro m L N M a M1 -• U7 a 7 7 4. .0 0�4 11 11 11 0 0 ill 13 0 x N t CO C J • ' N W a N In N 0• '5 0 0 •• L 01 .1 N C .. 41 M In N) E L 01 C '•+ •. 41 01 C •• B ro .1 > • y1 W 1 .. 4+ 7 C•• 01 40 •. 0I X x X U Old U 0 0 O 0 3.r N N N 0 0'0 11 + 0 0I 0 L 4+ •.+ al 01 CO W CO E W J 0 .. N ••+ '5 .0 W W in W 41 Z 7 W 7 N. '5 L L N a'5 . y 1 w' a WW 131.. '5t 0 11 11 II .. W L U N 01 > .. W 7 4+ W W 7 .0 0 > 10 41 U .11 I- U. IL U. .. C .. sin 0 U .. 41 •. ro L W C C N N N 0 x 7 W O 2 0 1 a•• U.. •. C 0 0 W a al L E L L 7 U W 9 0 0 W • 01 `" a . W 0110 W U 11> Z N N N 3 0 •C 01 W C t E •• L •• •• W CO CO CO 0 .1 u W >- •.W+ E '50t I7 1 a in 0 3 4+7 0 UYI .. '5 > W J 0 '5Q U 7 Cr) ..• CO W 0 U 0- .. E Cis Cr W W 0 >•. CE •••.0 4+ al WI ' W W -• EN++N? • W •. 0 a W W O x C W W ......... > E N U > t .0 E 'r 0 • C 0 01 •0 0 .1 0 .. W .. . 'h . 0 0 '5 01 • L • • ^ L U 1 *0-40 J wow CC W0 '5 J +1 W • . • . W 0,7 W N 1 1 1 . . 4 + 0. >" >" >" 4 0. N W W41 c I- I- 112 I- C .s Ili 1/1 3 a W J J 01 1• E I- •t I- + 10 • +1 W C Z I W ++ 1 •. E L >...o .. 41 C 41 W 01 0 E OI A W .. a - c •. .. 0 0 •0 .. 0 W N : > L E ++ 0. 4+ ..4+ 0 W +1 CO ,- •• t UI O U '5a a 0 '5 W II W 0 * C U L 0'. '54 W EUt C W u •. 7 W.• C ro 0 9 •• U . root a a04 W • u U W 4+ 7t++ W 0 4 > W C U 41 t ro C .. L E L 4+ •. M N W 41 •■ C0 6'5 •. 4+ C> ro .. 7 0 01 [0 41 .. •. 7 t W• L ro C E CO >. J '5 ro t 41 N 3 •• 0419 > . . 0 E ro • . .. 1 0 '5 W•. W.. N C 4+ t W 01 W `• > W VI c W U U t .. 0. 7 0 C .. > T U1 0 4+ 7 •• ro L C C L U '5 30 4. U 4+ O .. C W'0 041 . C 0 0 '5 W 01 4 0 L t ++ '5 4+ .. W c 7 •. 4+ d .. •C E W i > 0 C L.. W C 4701.4 0>017 .. +1 c E J U1 W 0 W .• '► ro W a W t C W E U 0 W W a. •. .. W 0 0 • •C 3 U •• '+ ..„ W4+ L C '5 Z W L L 3 •. U ❑ 4+ C'5 W U C 4+ >' 4+ 0 •• C N •^1 C O. 4 N 7 •• W 41 •• ro as •. 0 •... al U a 7 •• 0 ,. " al • 0+ 0 .. W 2 U C '• 7 a UI 4- ,• •. E.-1 W 0 •• L S[ > C •. t U W •. m 1-• 7 4.. O L to W U1 0 L d 0. + W L •• W 3 4+ N , W UI 0 '5 01 W W•. t •• M L Ill • . ol.0 '5 13.a O c U1 • . 7L =i W •D a4+ ++ CO W 7 ++ W a. c +1 W 44 +1 M- Z L 0 ro c 4+ ... U 0 0 a•.t c• •. +� 3 UI UI C c + U .1 0 N 0 VI I W 1] UI J 7 .. W h1 41 a. O CO +1 0 •• W •• 0 •• W 0 t .■ U1 0 .0. ' - 1 '5 I- W U a IT 04 O W C '- > I- •... 4+ •. 0 3 0 W U t 7 7 -• 0 '5 W 01 7 UI UI 0+ W Z ■ • 7 L t t L L 3 + L• U + W me 0) C •• a 0 .. W +1'5 UI 00] U C W 9 a 1 0 a: 41- >+ U L 0 •... 0 4 U U 44++ C '5 • U1 C F- 'f W L.1 0 "'5 ,•• S t '5 4+ •C C •• W C W W C 0 0* W 0 N 0 C W W 0. . . L O ..... • C 0. t• Z 0.0 41 L W E C 0: .. U N L C j ❑ 0 L c U • 0 '5 0+'i-. 0 1 •• 1 U E ro W.0 •• 3 O. 7 L •. 7 0 0 Q L N 7 W '5••• Si L U + . U W•. 0 "' . 0 01 • •. ro 0. * 5 U 3 11 1 0 1 aW W414+9 E13 4++ E W'5 4+ 0 +1 .o u RI Y •• > •. • 41 •• W L a W W .. W C .. + W E C41 U1 UI C 01 W '5 in •n W 0 c 4+ 0 1 0 4 C t '5'5 W E > 7'5 3 # •C 0 0 W W W W 01 L •• a D t t C • • :LOW 0 0 4 - 1 0 1 E 0 0 0 0 •• F U N L L '- a "1 I - U L '5 4+ VW Q U I- a- E " 0- UI " .. Z 3 •• a c m a rnt L • 4.' W W t 0 gal t C Y .. W AM 7 d C Y 4. 4. 01 U •.. : Y C•w•1 7t C Y .• Y m 'fl 3 4• h- 0' O 0 Y•. U Ill 1 Y t is m 0 441.4 N • - I CI rim ..•.. N C LY•. L U 3 Y 7'$. Y 0 L••. t N N Y U Y . . ••+a QY U CO 0 1 > 1/4 Y 7 W d W u .. C U m .. 0 1 L d C W Y W •...- t >• d N a c U c a m W W C • . . 0 m m E 7 0 m u •.• C C •w t> N O Y 0 W ••. U 0 a U 7 L W W N L Y .0 C Y •w 7 L Y W 7 •.l m a d a 7 .- a it a L 'F W Y Y a U d C .. 0 0 UI W 0 U C W t E in a s W to o. ... Y N ma •t•0 7 m U O N 7 01 L •.. CL al 0 7 O. N mam .. LECCW .... ••>. YY Wt U 'a.. O. 00 a Y C E W 0 7 0 m UI m a a Y C • ... UI U Y t Y Y 44 0 W W C N m C a Y •.. 7 • L C L •• d W 7 U I- W u O W 111 UI Y Y d U• 0 L Y 01 III d •.. d d Y U U 0 m W L 0 L •.' N m a am > • U I • . ' C U 0a 'PI t d t > t a4J '0'0 W•- Y a 0 7 C W 0 L Y L 0 U C t C.0 C W >• ••• 0 •.. 0.0. 01> C .. • U1 .0 C N Y 0• W L o c o •w .. C m t 7 m N -' 3 L O. 01 N N d '0 ut Y Y I •.I 0 C •.. t U a •a Y W Y N .. •.• m 0 -. a 01 a m L • .4 d d 7 a a •• N Y W VI E UI UI • . . C L L. UI C • W C C W 0. L W W W •- 0. x .. W 010. d •.• W I O I O I C L M W '0 0 E) Y . C d d L Y.0 L O' E W W 9> C m •u 0 -..0 L C •H '••' 7 3 C .0 L •• N Y 0. O U UI Y Y 0' Y C .0 .. U 3W 0. 01 0 0 01 0 Y m 0 0 C • W N 7 mNamd aN a W MIN Y d x .a N Y d N '0 W 4• •.. 4. "13 N U1 0 ••. Y'0 .. 171 >. Y W It 0 L • 3 •-1 N Z Y 0 t UI u d UI L UI d.0 L •- d •w C RI L m ••.'0 d 0 d 9 L 0 ••..0 01 0 1 W • m a 0 W W m t NY NY 7 m •� '0 L > L C Y . . t Y C '-• NU •w ,C 4. 1„. 4. a0. LY U 1- 01 mm -• L 0 L W E C I E C C E N 44 Y L • .. U ••• E 13 U C ... • 9 d Y W C0aIll 4'010 >••.•.•N W 0 L • W m7WL•..Wm74• d tCL Y 01 • . I m O. L L m L 0 1 3 , . . 1 0 � X C .. 0 C.0•^'Y a 24' L• m d d U c t E D O Et+ . .. 0' a c • d o ma •. > 0 7 c m a•.. m 4' NdUa WW 01014 W 4'N• 1 C ail W u L ... 1 4' C E 0' Y L L C C Y 1- N u 0 4'..m a at m O .. C 01 l5 L -.... T. •..c Cleod0CC .. «d 0m c LmmcWaum4.mW0 C O 4. 44 UY 0. YY 0 N x Y a C UI N L•..4' aC •.44• C C4• >•.0 4• •-+ o U t c a ••• N O. N Ul N W Ill a 4'• 7 4' u 0>. c .• ... O W Y Y u u o •.Y 7 9 7 •. . -• d Y•.. Ill X 0 C W d O'W C N'.• 0' L a -. W ••. u •.. 01 d C C L .0 d L Y N L a C m 1 4 Y m .. m •.. m L m •0 7 'O o m L t 7 7 t c m m 0 .0 t 01 .. 0 a x 104•.x 4. •.. ••• -..• t L 0•.. C 0 C L CO m 3 m CO L Y O N UI .0 •• I- Y UI E u1 W m 0 a W 01 t m O. Y Y 4• t m U m 0 W 0 Y Y '0 UI • . L Y 0. W C a C W T. c u ro 0 C 0 4' W 0 n m a+Ya m g4 u a O '0 t m t m•.. 01 01 0 m C C L •.. L L W N .•. 1- Y E df L N }' •N 7 m T 0 L 0 a 4' d g a m 0 • 4' m 0 C Y 0 U m W m W L C 01 7 •.. L• M 01 d Q1 U^ ••• U19Yt C L L L x u 4••0M7 -. • .. Y E T •0 •+ C UI Y •.. C O o 0 t 0. 111 ....... •.. Y O W M" C 0. 9 m m E c C . . 2 m ••. U7 •.. Y a E C 0 0 E m UI W 14 m `• C a• L .. a ..i.w.w t 0 N L m W d m L U W m • 7 01 Y .. 7 W N Y N o d 4• Y W L it t m 4' U1 Y Y Y L UI Y '0 m .0 7 W >. .. u U Y W 0 0 L a 44 a t L UI U1 N U Y • . . •.. 4' 0 .0 .. W m ••' C m O. 2 m .. a 0 W m C W 0 •A 0. 7 UI E Y 7 •.. •.• L •w W m a+ O m L t •.. E 3 W 0 Y Y m 4' C •. ' h L O L U C C U Y L 0 W d •.. . . 4• P .. •.. C E Y d Y W U N 01 O' C W a.c 'a d 0 Y ._ Z .0 N o W UI W m 0 C 0. Y 0 L 4' E .. 0 01 > 0 0. C .0 .0 m L D U ••. Olt ••• c L 0 W m '•• m O W W U1 •- 3 01 3 W C m Y Y > . ., ••• L C L U W 7 a U E I Y W L W Y o N Y Y •.. W co m 4' al 0 m UI Y W C 0 L •.. 0 L '0 N C 0 0 .. Z W u L m a•• d 0 t c W Y 7 0 c 3. t 04 YW a L7 0 0151'1 o u waY uc oa010'W a•.,001 0Wd a t•n 01.0 da 0 > >Y 441 c •.» m WY 0 3.. c In ... m.. rnY N J Y 07 L.0 -.•.. 0•.. C O.4' U L•.. L a 0 •4 LE• C W ^ PP W C L C 7 0 1 • d L E O' W • . . L m W W 0 . > . ' 5 m m •0 ••. W 1/ 0 0 : 4• a>•OY N U a E •.•Y N 0 + t >• L 0 > d V• '0 L.0 • C 7 0 L . r 01 7 • W d •.. 01 0. 0 al C W 0. Y L W 3 m t Y N t •- Y a .. L i . 1- N m m 4• C 7 L m U W W 7 0 . 0 m W O L C C •• t 4' •.' ON m 0: 0 U C •.. L E 0' OI .o E L d L UI L O m •w C T 7 L W W 0.:0•-•111 U C C t U C d >• a a 0 0 C a a m 0 C 0 W T w 1- > 1- • 4 4' a t . .. m •.. - C . 4 0 • .. a a ••. L 4' 0 E W N C Y a .0 0 I-1 •• I- .. Y E Y L m -a m 41 •.. .. d m 3 d E U1 3 W t Y • •- Y t ^ 4' Y .. Cr •• S C 44 W N 0 •• N Y m L 0 Y d at Y m C UI 9 01 0 .. • 0 U J U W 0 Y L t Y >• ••+ Y m m L U 0'0 el d 4' m U C U W 0 .. W Y •.. O.0 C C C Y C 0 C 01 Y 7 U ••• > d •.. a C L C •.. 0 m E C •.. L m 7 N Y 0_ ,,. 3 7 c C C 0 .o It •- • . . .. N L > L E •- 4 7 0 L U 4• W ••. 7 Y- m •' W 0 •.. pI U t .co L 7 W 0 0 01 3 N U W 0 .. a .0 01 01 L .• .. 41 0. UI Y L U1 4- 0 0 1444:0101- - > m W N d •.. t UI W •.. N Y 0 d N C t Y a d m NYC .- d d Y C 4. 9 W • m .0 W.0 d m Y Y t •.. C L t •w O C C x t a ••. •.. 0 4• 7 t t 0 •. m W 0 0: -' •' 1 C07•..7 I-0 W0. 1-t m•. U + d 4' N Y L 3-. 0.0 1- LE a a W .. w U 1 �0 I U III W ro 1 • 4JCU w 0 Ile no N W w N 0 - f.. B m 40 40 19 .O 071 M •N a W • W - I9 51 4) NI it N N N •-1 W� t 1 01 .. 7 Si 00 m If] 9 ID 431 R N•..t 7 •O sss-.I m W C .. W N a U .1 >I • . .1 W N 4.1 N .1 I • L 0 L W 0 7 1. 1 1 S S I S F S S N S I S I N L W C ro B C O S S I S I CO u L U L 0 CCI .+ N M L L 0 > M -• Cr .. .. .. + Z .1 W u I ro � E O L W N E D 0 L 0 r E L C 0� W • ro t L 01 U C •- .d N (0 L Si .+ N > . . •. 1 03 0 1 1 C I I > 10 U „� .CEO: 0• U 7 c C •1. U E C 0I .0 CC a' L L W C C a C 0 0 C 111 c N L - W L CO W .1 L 0 0 W L •. U NroTE N E >. •.. •.1 Nro 0 L •-I 1 m 1 E c .i .+ E .+ ro a8 L ro I a+ W 0 .• W C a 0 0 •.. N 12111 •. u W C N O W Feu u L c L ( 0 CU U LL a c -0'0 -1 01 Lror.* u 7W01 W uro u y 10 .• W •.1 7 Lu. N h u.-• ro 10E+ N c.1 a C N . 1. L . 0 U t N re - C UI h] C W. C L •w to co ., a 1 5 + L.cOL 01- + -• 0 L 1 - 0 ).3 W 04 r0 ¢ O. Oa ro- .o W I 7 -w o ,e W •- 8a•.. 3 am a. 01 0.0 10 8aiX a+ N .raa 0 a s U] 0 .+ M W l •.. ro t a+ >• 3 40 0 c ro .0 •-1 W 0: • 0 MUU-i L aWtoL0.N4+0 W 07uro ••1 W 1 0aeIt -.0 ...• 7 I 0 •... •.. • .. 10 a .. L 7 a 07 •...s •.1 .1 ro LOC N ill C:Qy: m: ... 10 01 . 13 N •w X01 RI ro nip W L IA a 01 7 0 . - 1 - 1 • 1 1 1 . 1 N - " C 0 W L 01 C On C N N N O F W L •unl I - W L . C 1 O 12. N w4 LL. U•1 •0 0 •" 1 1 F W c ro . O > 0 ro x O >0.+ •r O> Z 0 u a W Z O u N 0 2 0 0 C I ro L 0 .. L N 01 0 0 I.0 0104 y. W C .. •.n 0 0 •.. • ... 0 W L 10 .+ l W •w 3 01c a u3 W u at I�OD 03 IS •009.000I M • .o N 0 0 1 > 7 L L 03 - 0 N N - CO 8 .O U7 0 I In 431 CO W W 4 .J N IT a 7 .+ t .. •.1 9- W W I N W 4.1 10 L C E .0 N .0 ro .+ L L 1 I9 m -+ 0i m N 9 Si U7 In L W N 0 W O o U C L U .+ 7 .r N N J •t . UI L 0 0 • U 7 0 N W 7 .+ ro y. 01 •. • 01 .+ L U W> L 0110 > O >..S > 4 N 10 1 04 1 a+ 0 a+ W W 1 O. L C rot .0 L Na ro ► 01 C• 00 + 0 10 0 > a 4 art W L C C ••• O c a u W ro •.. a W W N .+ •.. 0 .. 0 re .. L 3•w4+U 0 N U .+C a U C -• W 0 N ro c a 0 '$ 7 •.. C ro 10 0 a C L 01 0 O N '0 0> ..t 7 ••a+ WOW•.. L EN W L a 0 L W G O C u C..0. W L 3 01 0 0 01 7 01 10 t O W a a 01 - 0 U 0 0 .. N L W U 0. 0 L � 0 L -• > 0• W 0 E a s .J L .. W ro a u a+ • W 1 0 W .0 u .+ E .. `. c C ED 0 W W a E C .0 a N L 0 ,.ro.a,,. U I0 0 1 E 4.i '0 ro W •r U 0 0> IL ,., .. •.. of • .. 0 01 L a 0 W E C0 W o T .X W •w 7 L U. to 111 41c NE •.10. 0 "1 Ca •'+L L , , UU L .000 •. a s C •.. W U- 0 L •.. 0 +1 W <.. 03 0 • . . c > 4 1 1 3 n W L W t C 11 0 0 O . 0.1 0 1 . 0 4 tD u > • ro a a . 1 - + E W z co CO a W 0.0 1 0 O c t W X W N .. 0 7 .. L W L 0 01 5 . 4 t> 111 3 - 0. ro - 1 10 ' 0 U W • 01 .1• E N a103'0 Om O C L C Z 0 0 0 • .. E .0 > L +.. - 1100 I- . l 1 •.1 10 a •• L ••• W 0 W W L0 ro t 0 O ro C U Q N N Q Y : W: ••■ 1 0 ,.. a 4.1 .+ 0 L a 0 .. 4- U a a •.. W J . in •• CO CO N . C ro a W a • . 1 W al .0 W 0 0 -ii 7 1 : W \: C 0 all 0315 034.1 •F U 0 1 4 > 1 0 4 1 L 03 01 01 15 W o N OM -•W U74OIA I- t - L 7 W U t a/ al 0 •-. 0 .0 0 0 4 .0 L Z I- a u 0 X •- I- > I E 3 • . F a .. N I- a 1-1 +1 T I I 01 C as mca .. 41 uc a0 1 1 m•M m m . , 7 I +1 W 4 m m m 10 W•M W E C C 7 •4 0 U m C '^1 ++ L 9 .. .1 N N •.. L E 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 m .c Z W 0 U m w • .1 U W W L N L L. IA 41 1 m 0 01 C • 0 E L . .. W W> C 10 W +1 +1 in +1 to a L .. C .c 10 0 +1 + 0 0 w M c h L ' ' ' . 4 . .c •4 m 0 Z Z .w ~ .c Z N UI.1 .U. 01 • ++ • ++ 0 U 10 N m 3 m 4 C L •• N +1 m +• > 10 U 41 E •4 W a W 0 W ++ > 4' .4 PI a C C - .. • WW•4 0: W•M 1- WU CLUU .1C'D 0 0 (11 •4 A10CLU.. W m 'el LL 0 9.4.4 13 W CmLmW 44 4. as C 41 W W .4 U •4 N ++ 0 W 0 L m » 3 1 0 ' 0 E 1 0 d L ++ ++ W 7+I AL 7 U RI L. M C9 0. 01 W L -: L m m C.. W. a C 9 A ++ .M >• • .. L L . •M W ++ m 7 '4- a W 10 •• .1 L L c 111 L3++ J OLU in 0: 10 .0 L La 4m u U )" 1 0 m U1 0 •M .1 C m O W .. c 141 3 L c w m •• 3 T N N is F- .0 01 w m •. C 7 7 L t 01 10 0 U. 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 . C 3111• C W W .. t 41 U A ••1 0 0. a C C C U W + L .4 0 +1 Cr C E E ••• 0 J 0 J III U + W ++ L a 7 •M 0 L 10 4 3/4 .c m 10 m W a C WI .• A 0 m W L 7 . T U.. 10 .+ 44 3 ++ 3 3/44 N 01 L L . 41 •• +1 m +1 F- L + N 10 9 L 0 Ul 10 + W > >17 U 0 m m .M U 0 Li 7 .+ >1 7 W 0 W W 7 3/44 .4 J W W .1 t t 7 W .1 > >. 7 01 0. W +. +1 41 m L C a 1 7 > .0 4 - ' . . t > 0. > Z a '0 c 17 a m UI m.0 "i U1 ^1 O 10 C 3/44 +1 N '0 0 1 c 1 +1 0 10 L W 0. 0 ++ a 10 W 0 0 1 0 Z W .. C 1 0 U 7 .1 C> 1 0 L 7 .0 7 C L U a L m W L 0 L I. C W U •M W L W UI .4 3 01 N 1 0 9 m 1 - 1 m C m a t 0. S d A E 4.i + '0 L •• W W U1 L 01 +1 0 010•..4.1 W 'n 7 W .4 c m m •M .0 L •M 0 D: . 0 Y 0 W ++ C Y a m es 0) .. 9 L m U1 10 .. C > +1 0 •. W m 10 4 • N •M .1 C 07 m C C .. 10 1 3 9• L .. .. J W 4• T I- C U UI 0 9 9 10 .4 C t W 3 W it •M C 7 1 - W '0 w L C C t C • •• W 17 .4 W N u LEA u W U MO F 3 9 m Q .c m ++ C •• C .4 W 3 •• 7 + b U 14. •M •M a 4 L • C m C W W + .0 m > m 0 3 a Y c 10 0 .. 7 0 UI m T E m m r m ++.c 1. C C m tt 94 0 •4 0 .M 7 .. L 1 0 � m a W L L ..I L 10 N W E .. •M 10 W +1 .. > 1 0 Cr W + .c W W 7 +1 W .-1 W *1 W W 1 0 W Z 1 0 .. W C 0.1-4 0 1 01 UI W'0 . N W U L L U1 4• .01 4• ,� 4.1 .c L L.0 0 L •M m .1 .. 3/44 •4 0 13 1 01 N '0 a W it C .0 W . •M 0 >. W .0I m -•I F- U +1 4 U • 3 .0 NI 0... L M a -1 C .0 Al + 3 , I- E 4' 4+ ++ Ul it • CC W y W U L +1 T W 7 .., . '0 all .+JW+ ;0-4' 17 C C Y 4• .0 0 L'0 0 W 0++ >• A C W Y 4• c • 4 W 4• U l • H .. 1 414 W +. > a 3/44 .D L 10 I + L 0 •4 + W C 0 +1 a •4 0 .. 0.4 C +1 0 •4 1 6 .. U 0 C m m 7 W •• • . 10 W m 0 L m m a C W W m 0 a •.0 Z .0 .0 C L 10 7 •. W m W ++ a .• 0. 'n .0 3 W L m . 01 1 +1 0 7 7 0 7 3 '0 L T W C ••' U 0 ++ 0 L w C •4 •4 Y •M N N m W . 1 . . 0 3 UI C : 1 1 / 4 . 1 0 L Z 7 W 0E.C13 E c+1 0.4 c W 0 E 0 c •M +1 L /0 .+ a N 41 L ••' •4 C 010 'U a> •0 .W 0 '0 0 CO L C d 111 C'0 0 U1 W 'L L.0 U x - .0 ++ >. W 13 Ul UI •• 1 C 7 .M 1 N .0 0 W +1 W .0 4• 0 W a ,. • 4 .0 00 3/44 4' U1 +1 ++ + L •• C .. C 10 41 W 3 U C + E 41 .0 01 0 .c N Y W .1 10 1 - 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 U 0510 W W 0 E + L c .4 • 0 T O W U S W C •M Lea .. OL "n >YU 7.410 ..4.4++ 3010.0 W+ 3 10 3/44 7 L U 0• 0 u c 1 - 41 'D L T W .0 .. F- .. U CL E m a '0 L m .0 0 W 10 0 10 c 7 •M 0.c m W .. W m m C W 0. m m a c - W W+ C W.0 D W• al 3 C 0 3/44 UI 7 • ++ L m 4 a u c 4 W +' +1 W L u 0 A•• 0 01 W 44 4 m .. N •0 ++ +1 W W W 0 in .. 01 a +1 m x L 17 L +1 W.0 0 N 10 C W m 9 Ui •• 17 V + u •• .0 •• 0 0. 0 01 a• as C . + C Z F- 7> 0 C 01 C m+ W •M •4 10 W.1 01 0+ 0 1 .4 7 ++ m 3/44 •4 > '0 0 0 •4 1 - am 3 7 3 L + ++ 0 m m c : 0 7 T: +1 .. W C U 0 0 0 0.0 0 +1 111 .0 W 3/4 3/44 „, LEM- a •M 0 7m +10.1 Wa0.1 C WcL0 .4CC u0-13Z T O 0 13 10 • L: .. 7.c u E 0. + •4 10 c W .M 0 W m •4 3/44 41 .. C L m W> it W 7 0 +1 m L m E N 9 •4 .c 10 .M u 3/44 .J .. > •4 as .4 L .4 m L I M C Cr U m a c .. .• W 3 +1 4• 1 0 W W 0 E 7 U •M L 7 0 : • W C •. W >. • m 111 ..1 N •4 L • L •i C L 9 L 0 d 10 E . 1 0l41 1 S •• 1 0 • .1 m C J • 7+ • •B 0a 0+1 0 aL - W u >• u m 9 U I- U1 W C UI W C Y.o W C a a 1 0 •4 m E w W + 7 01 10 .0 4• .. •• 7 +1 W m •• 7 U m • 0 0 +1 a 0l .c L '0 a .. 4- + 0 W •4 'fl Z 0 0 a m .. W (0 m M W •4 3/44 W L m L E 0 U N +1 '11111 +1 0 1 0 7 u 7 ro w •M C O u W u 1 - 1 '^ + " + .0 a 0 0 >..1 10 3 7rLOC 0W c00 E > uu c > 01. 1 0 •4 cam amen 0: a 3 m W 7 01 J C W C W 01 x W 13 0 •4 c 1. L •4 L m 4 C no ml m +1 E .... L S I L 0•• W L 0. U T'0 3 W'0 L W W > 0l all L m .0 0 1 W W 1. • a •M a s 01 - N 0 •4 10 o f .. W d 1 1• C 4.1 Nu CI ...+ •4 W W 7> w in 7 9 in 10 0 W 1 4 WI W m m .. 0.4 3 W W'D 4• J1 .. •4 . c .c 13 0 1 W 0 0 L 010105.01. W WI .0 4• UI W C W •• 7 0 0 1Y a C 0 01 C 31 - 4 1 ++ 90: 0: aS CL 7 m'0 0: -I I- 0 0'0 N •a all SW i .. N 0 W • a 0 c I E L 11 c 0 W W 0 0 L N ro . 0 .. 0 a+ 01 L L U .. 4041 4+ 01 01 01 a+ O O u W •.a W a+ '0 '0 a+ to '0 W C L a 7 w. '0 a+ to '0 1 0 a'0 11 '0 ...0 •.1 1a L W 00 1..1 = C 1a W 1 01 N .+ C C 0 .+ '0 O N r 0 .. 01 Y WI W '0 o E •.. 'E - UI 4 •.. 17 to 411 .0 C L C .0 to to.0 •.1 • .. W . •.. W U'0 W•.. CCWW E • a+7 .0 • .. L ,� - 0 1 • u m a: o W C•..L ++ 0 m>4 1. 8 0O. u04 u .W3 C77 L 0 0 4 0. 4.J 0. 01 .0 a > 0 0 0' 1 um W C W U C .0 to 01 l 4 J . 4 3 01 a+ 4. C o a1 a+ 0 .. •.. •.+ C .c Q .. A III a+ L U 0 0 .. C U a1'0 0. .0 01 a+ a L C .0 W 0I-w ..•..to Of Caa+ • a CD u1 I aa01 C W U .. 3 Os 0.'0 > O C III 44+C0a+ 170W:Wa m W atE-4 •.••.1...t am :•.. 1- 01 • Uc 1 0 0.W0 0i a+toa+ U > ••• W E W C .0 W Y to x 01 C E 1 0 0 L L a E e •• 01 L .' Z W ••• • •. 0 C W C •+ a L 4WLIll as •UIW 0 WEUOL z 111 7oW m 0.. 10 1 D 0 vu 1 0 L 3 al ..1 coo u s+ O W W L> NM a+ W 0 W m W.0 3 W W N A" to .. a C a 0 C '0 U w• 7 9 l '0 l • W • > a+ I- '• W U 0 W 10 01 tD •.. 01 Y 0 to >.0 .0 10 Q m W .4 m m •• W a C W to u 44 L U a+ L > 10 •. L m a .r •w Y w• 0 C . c in T ••• L W 0 J 11 •.+'+ 10 0 CZ L 010 B W ..4..4 2 O a+ U C'0 AI >.O .. a a L.0 W c W •• . • m •.... m a � C 0 3 C •w N y 1 0 W I x U L O . H Z W C'0 to •.1 0 7> 7 •.. o. a+ Z L W 3 B W W O a 2 •.. y C 1a 7 1 a .0 .. > 1- '0 Y IA 4- C O 0 L W „• •n w m C > •.. E W .O 7 to 0 4 1 0 ) U 0 1 0 4.. 0 w• M0 0 C 0 J 0 3 •... W L 7 W •w a+ •4 C .0 w• W a1 n n . 0- L a W a) .c a+ .0 1- 7 C L ••1 C Y W W .. L . .. O.a+C ato m ta+a+ .. .00a'0 1, rao ✓ c •.• w W . > a+ 1 a .• m x U .. .. - •.. et .c ++ E ar Oi 4.+W•• F - WCCL W+ 0 • U W '0 • -I•.. w u mu'0 .„. ....c 0 0 1-• .0 • . t W •F L w• •.1 w• Cr .0 w• 0 7 W .0 Z 7 C x 1a 0 3 I- a •.. 01 I- a .0 > 0 u 0 3 0 ¢ I- 0 10 .O'0 3 w E •-• W ll. U W W 01 a+ u '0 •• 7 A I W to W 10 Did W a C 01 •.. L .0 '0 W C •.. .c in to 0 '0 A x a+ 0 01 to L ••. L 1- W W W C W •4 w• .. b A 1p 10 C W w a+ W L'0 •..'0 W O 0 L I- •.. 1a W L • a+ C . C to •.. L a+ •• O L • a CC Z • . . > L . 0 • •• W 0 N U W c 3 W U 01 a U 0 to 0 r O 7 0'0 11 7 C C •.1 a+ A C W c W a+ CC C 0• • l L 0.0 W.0 0 aJ W •n .,. L++ • C.. 0 Ww• W N '0 L3 ZCUT 0W 001 01 1 0 • . 1 L Y• L O. L .. 1a O W L E N C ' W E C a+ 0 of 0 7 U'0 a+ C •.. 'n m 0. 0 ••. C C 0 2 a a+ c c++ a+U '0 U 0 . 4 .1 0 01 u'0 m 0 • • 1 0 ••. 0 7 . 4 0 to C W •.. 19 L W to ld a+ •.. ••■1 L a+ •" - L• C L W b C W W N 'n a+ L a >. •.. •'^ '0 a •w U F- U 0. .0 > C U 0 a W 0 .0 C C ,MR C m M to W a+ 0 to aJ A a+ L 44 C to .-4 a + a+ 3> 7 I- W E W a E •.. C W aU a L W •• a 0• 45 W 0J+ 0: 0 0 •w W U •- 0 C to W U 01.0 E a+ C.c ••• r O C W '0 0 ++ W '0 •.. •n W (0 m 1- W •.. o a+ > 0i to 0. a+0 O aIWd 0'0.0 2 . 0 0 1 01 E'5 - W •. l ( n U • . . C al '4 > z W 0iC L++ a Z W a+ Z '0 0 to Y W '0 C •- a N >•.c 7 a+ E a+ W to 10 C •n 10 1-1 0 L 0 • . . L O 4 - I 0 1 3 4 N UI C U • ti U re L r C C 0 U C U C •• ++ 0 U . L to W O U •••4 W I- 0 0 010 W 0 F L 0 C C 0 U w L A 7> = W 0. 01 w• Z W++.. 3.. 0. 0_ J O 04 4.4 W A W .. 10 0 0 0 ' n E 7 o 1-1 3 0 '0 W a L U m a 3 O. L (0 1 a a •.1 W O W 0 0 a aI W 0 a+ E 3.C>EW 2 a '0 + w >a L .0 0. a >u J U 0: ••• W L •w .0 •• •A .w W W C T O. C in > W •n C W .. C s CO 0 W 0 U a+'0 a+ . Y U W L L 0 1 • 0 0 W a N L .0 W 0 . 4 - 4 4 4 O U 'n I- 4.1 W a+ c CC 4• W W a E to J 0 01 • 7 A a+ 0 •r 010 0.. co N C L O I O O a C L> 01 W 0. a+ m W 01 W 2 2 a+ U a+ w W L 7 a+ C E •.1 0. 7 a+ 0 W> U E .1 > C a+ O E 0l • W •w U •.. W a+ E to U.0 O 'D W L •w 0 •.. •M m 7 0 a+'0 .. .c W ..I G -1 E W to .. a+ 7 a+ L .. 010 .4 m m m •.. W W.0 a " r UI w'0 '01 W 4.1 .... m.. W Ww•0 as w•41a7 >0 >1010 U • I CC A �I I-- to 0 3 N N W I-- 0 I- •w • H L 11 1 0: '0 W.c 0 vI «. m a 7 1 W 0 a w ,• r W ASO 1 a MI 0 • • C " C • W L N 0 c C 10 " •" E N • "•" E 7 L o • a E . 0 + > 0 .r W 0 0 C .• W L 3h- w c .. 3 W • O. W N '0 •••1 ,... � 0 O+, IA 0.- 01 W E N C'0 L N Q 0. E 0. ' 7 W 7 W Oi >. L C E 01 01 ' 0 C • H L 00 N w 0 1 ¢ L .0 701 0. L L 10 T 0 A 0' N L W O' E C 7•"++ 3 C •" N W 1 0 L 1 C O L ++ 01 N N b .0 0 y O y 7 7 701 + •" ■ O 6 4 C O. E 0 "1 L ++ 0 +4 C 0 E C 0 L U C 0"0 L ".• L W 1 0++ W 0 >. '0 + +1t N Z c.0 - C m•" m -. W +1 W 9.1 4. 1 •+ • r. ++ .• 0 0 ">.W • " + N L W 7 � L 7 ++.0 L 0 .. z .c C W c 0 > W ++ m++ U .. CI E O.c W 2 0.c U C L '0 r Q 7 0 ++L L+ 10 ••• 0 A L Q: O L'O '0 L W 0. .0 3 RI + • L .1 C L .0 T W L 0 0 15 .0 A L •" N 1 0 L • U LY C W 10 r• L J A W 7 N 41 L 0 W +1 ++ ■• W F- > 1 D W W> E W •" ." C L •" 0 W w 3 . 3 0 W 3 1,1••4 - C 4 LJLJ N UJ ma me l CI me 1 • 1•■••• _r r 1w.eibp, Q " 3 ¢ O le. CC rg ra --. - - vrertrts� p 1 ET r li * * U CL E v g * i x x I ri ..... if E u to I 1 , — _ I }} �r C i :. : i I i 1"1.. E3 ''y— gm `�`• J_o:_! S 1 1 ...--+ — u O 1 ,. c �? I 4 W Q _ 4 W O Z ' - Y ' < m, y I a as nn rir i i i nn n ril . ... .... - r LE ULII LILI WI L 1 - %i .....:....: !:.. R . . ■•■••wr •■•• ••■••• ...moat ■■...„........... 0 MO a . •-• -': ...::-...?: C:.1.1.::" I a ljj z (Ak / MI - 0 i y eilW a �. - ' • � rte. - - _,,,I . (.-� • ..... 0 D • ' ' ... 'w 1 j l m — W > I . I I 4 .. F I S31Nf1N 1 r i 2 1...., .—..... :ja gn zt‘‘ ■.. ..,I co 1 a LJ I u I t 1 IIfM3ivJ j ut �� � \< = '� 1 ' ' 1' II 1 " ` ,1 et Z • i O "1 Ilia' �� 1 • y I C j Afy 1 ' f� • ..—... — 0.∎• i I ' _ _ w - _. i bi l 'P , � ri411 �' �!ii� ni !lisp �i �l� 1�ti _ a I I • : • CI • II .. I •. — — — — — — 4 t — — — -•—' N3H < 6 1 a T " Q z — y ,C H r� �� �. — Z 1 .� �� — rte. .� �� r.s W O r ../111c1211. • • W rte. -�. -- - 1 r la .Y 7 4 J G J = yr < J i ni •• nn nn nn riri flIt 1 : Y N1 _ ,... ... a . 0) z . 41 maga 7c 0 gr r. 1 .. r a p .., . 1 ,......_- > . ---------Th , ± LU •••• _ .; .1 W . - -- , - _ --..--- a,-. 1 1I- ......—• , • r-=-- ' ' -:\ I -- ' i•• .7-.....,.. at As I , IiI r i III 1 1 HILL": a • • •••••-- -a.. as 2 W Z -• -1 ..... —.-,.,.. & 1.14 , ,.. Co IS ,.._ - . * 3 It - ...... I ! Z ■.I MII .00 I F .1 1•.• i • I , t i ' i,1 • 1 Mt l i MI . ....2_,,;( 1 . ./..,/. ID ■.- N4. ,0 ,Ift-- a ,...A3,r!--,1 N". - \HI L. h., pirg " 1 1 Itla •- r- ' i ... o i h aa...—.....s........p.ew.sims... agingralms . A I . P IP_. 1 a - ..,.. —.....- - .,, , al• - I i 1 ralt".72111.11-4=7.1° I, at a - iiiiii 1 t ilemern x ft!! --itisiv i - I 12 " 131g •IVIS --=. ---_..--=_ Pi ' •.=.11 1 i Kel ins a =I — ,_ I- . I i i Al ....! I Ad ril 1 — - • WI* I 1 -4 / 1 i -.• I =YAM \ 1 ' $ 1= 1 1 I . I , . • I ...1., i 1 KAU 1 1 I a I W I P • . i ! , 1 , .... !el ,.., 1 •-t--_,-,,fr--- -„..._, . , , t I ' 2 s. , i ,_ ____.: , 41 .—..---___,•,:, ■ .... . 1 ... w z < es _....____ I z I z o cc "' 1 I—I o SIM ipti 1.1. 1 a In I AS I r - - - -- l I 1 1 • t I r _ 1 f I i NOY Mil I SIN MI ill 1 as m. ANY Ana ass . W 0 0 4- z 0 i �- _� > r I - ti J r \ F� i 0 l � 1' i pal �1'I ? I� ® ® ' o M 1 _ ____ r 1-0-.vi _, _ mill 102 1_ II:maw ,...ir 1 , _ ,_ ... _ ... _111--- ,_ r , i 2,..i a ! sir i i „I J E ii _ ! iiinni.ispi 7 I 1 i'' — IIIr• it iii - ,! f w- ' i J V ali F �� , . : no_ 411111•■ NS r T 141 g R in AO lem MO IIII al 1 2 0. 1 1 0 1 tiiik p ll .. Jr . 0 t', _ • -1...... O. I 1� t-1 1 t. o 1 10 ' d -; 1 . ■ %, ,,,,Y ;_. of 1 1 • _.., i _ v ¢ � ,, . 1 rimir - .......\'‘ a ....:(;;;* 44%. L— Y . 11 . .. -. t illi ti 's 1 Aill 1 i} 1 \ '.., , ' ;.. 4„: . 1 1 . STOREFRONT ELEVATION STUDY W J C W z C) CO W C C y D UJ 1 - (0 C C z C CC w I- C SON INN eat 520 EAST HYMAN ST. WATER AND WASTE USAGE SCHEDULE WATER WASTE 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 r 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" DL4M. 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. J Cle H W 0 2 W H Co } N J J W CC G a a S a 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'xI21t4" — CONC, GROUT. . 4 y NM te / . « � . REMOVABLE CONC. O ° — COVER WITH LIFTING - •! RING ���� r` • :.• 't• 6" PVC INLET ? c.) f' • o;• w i - MIN. IS OF I f a S 2 . ROCK FILL AROUND IA PERFORATED ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SECTIONS 8- • Q G G 00 0 Z UNDER BASE / • 0. 0 0 0 0 C s — CCW 0 o OF 0 y o F Q 5' INSIDE 0 a 0 U CONC. BASE 1.3 O ° INSIDE0 4 a a ' POURED I HOLE I IN PLACE Y. y'.• ='t •..� C e. I t l — 6 4° 0 S t. S • W S i DRYWELL DETAIL N. T. S. N, CO z 0 • C.) 0 .111/1 0 Alt a < 1191 UJ a _ CC UJ z Ui a a a a PROPOSED BUILDING U VALUES 520 EAST HYMAN ST. TYPE I WALL - UPPER AND PENTHOUSE LEVELS; S, E, 8 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 w „ 6" BATT INSULATION 22.00 5/8" GYPBOARD 0.56 .W INSIDE AIR FILM 0.68 TOTAL 25.83 II = 1/25.83 = 0.0387 - TYPE II WALL - PLAZA LEVEL S, E, S 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' - 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 2.51 U II = 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 UIP1'SiDC Alit Ella U.1/ PLASTER 0.40 2" RIGID POLYSTYRENE 10.00 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 3.43 U III = 1/35.43 = 0.0282 ROOF 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 48711 UR = 1/48.84 = 0.0205 HEAT MIRROR GLAZING - SOUTH FACING ONLY U G = 0.23 W iA a .P4 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 26% SAVINGS PHASE I & II HEAT LOSS 25% SAVINGS AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE ABOVE NUMBERS, A SAVINGS IN THE OVERALL HEAT LOSS FROM THE STRUCTURE OF 25% IS SIGNIFICANT. SINGLE HOUR LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT FOR Aug. 2 PM: PHASE 1 & 2 - PROPOSED JOB NAME: 520 HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 OUTDOOR DA /W8: 84.0/ 59.0 F INDOOR DB: 72.0 F RH: 49 Z. * **** * *w ***** **** *x ** ** ** * * * ** * *** * * * * * **** * * * ** *err *** *x ** Space Cooling Loads & Cfm Space Sensible Suppl'v Air Space Name Molt ( tons /space) ccfm /space) • BASEMENT -PHASE 1,2 -ARCH :: 1 1.25 912 ' PLAZA-PHASE 1 & 2- ARCH m 1 5.89 4.,287 ,. UPPER L- -PHASE 1 & APCHm 1 7.24 2e4 !='EPI ' fhli:ic.- •PHASE 1 & :'. -AI =:CHs; !. 7.09 73,160 • • • • r r w a --- HEATING LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT PHASE 1 & 2 - PROPOSED JOB NAME: 520 HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 WINTER DESIGN DRY RULB: -15.0 F INDOOR DE: 72.0 F *******°*******************+******************************** Space Design Heating Loads Space Sensible Supplv Air Space Name MuLt (2tu/hr/ (:fm/space} ww ---- ----------^~~� — BASEMENT 1,2 x 1 i3.274 310 ww PLAZA-PHASE 1 & 2-ARCH x 32,030 7B5 UPPER L-PHASE l & 2-ARCHx 1 70.6v? 734 FENTHSE-PHASE 1 & 2~ARCHx 1 70. 1,e °w *************************+*********************************^^ � • ~° � mw °w A � A � A A —~~-- , . ' • SINGLE HOUR LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT FOR Aug. 2 PM: PHASE 1 & 2 - PROPOSED JOB NAME: 520 HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 , SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 OUTDOOR DB/WB: 84.0/ 59.0 F INDOOR DB: 72.0 F RH: 49 % ~ ******+***+**************************+***w****************** Zone Loads & System Information Summary ^ LOAD COMPONENT GENSIGLE(Btv/hr) LATENT(Btv/hr) °w --- - - SOLAR GAIN 54,842 9 mv GLASS TRANSMISSION 6.977 0 WALL TRANSMISSION 2,447 0 m* ROOF TRANSMISSION 1,936 0 TRANS. LOSS TO UMCDND. SPACE 0 O . LIGHTING ( 34,753 W TOTAL) 118.613 O wu OTHER ELEC. . • 0 W TOTAL) 0 G PEOPLE ( 278 PEOPLE TOTAL) 68,115 56,994 °* MISCELLANEOUS LOADS V 0 COOLING INFILTRATION 4,844 ^5"935 ~° .COOLING SAFETY BTU's 0 3 '`--- ------�`----------�^--------` -` � 257 771 5� 05� 5�B- SUE . ' . ~ NET VENTILATION AIR LOAD 20,622 -40,80: SUPPLY FAN LOAD (BHP= 2.7) 6"958 V -~ ROOF LOAD TO PLENUM 0 0 LIGHTING LOAD TO PLENUM 0 0 ~ ' TOTAL COOLING LOADS 285,251 10,257 TOTAL COOLING LOAD = 295,5()9 8tu/hr; ^` or 24^63 ton: or 564.5 sq ft/ton ZONE TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 13,901 sq ft ************************************************************ TRANSMISSION AND SOLAR GAIN BY E>:9OSURE LOAD COMPONENT AREA TRANSMISSION SOLAR GAIN (sq ft) (Rtu/hr) (Btu/hr) ,.----- .----� --...~.. - GLASS LOADS: NE 0 • 0 0 .' E 452 1.371 19,765 SE 0 C 0 S 316 1,434 29,522 3W 0 0 W 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 N 632 4,171 5.355 H 0 0 3 - WALL LOADS: NE O 0 - E 2,340 548 - "° SE 0 0 - =" S 1,830 1,784 - SW 0 - °m W 2,740 229 - � • NW 0 0 ~ *m N '2 -114 - ************************************************************ ~= COIL SELECTION PARAMETERS mw COIL ENTERING AIR TEMP. <DB/WR} = 73.6/ 62.9 deq F COIL LEAVING AIR TEMP. (D8/WB) = 57.0/ 56°6 deg F ~* COIL SENSIBLE LOAD = 285,251 Btu/hr COIL TOTAL LOAD = 295,509 Btu/hr ^., COOLING SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE = 57.0 deg F ~w TOTAL COOLING CFM = 15,623 Cfm COOLING CFM/SOFT = 1.12 Cfm/sqft ^w RESULTING ROOM REL. HUMIDITY = 61 % HEATING LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT PHASE 1 & 2 - PROPOSED JOB NAME: 520 HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 WINTER DESIGN DRY BULB: - 15.0 F INDOOR DB: 72.0 F iFiFitiFIpiFiFiFiFll iFil• iFiF#!•+ FiFifiFiF****+ F# *iF+ F+ F**** iFiF* *** #iFitlFiF****!tiF+F+!•MM+(.i *** HEATING LOAD SUMMARY Nata: Heating load is computed at winter design condition. LOAD COMPONENT LOAD (Btu /hr) WALL TRANSMISSION 29,0 ROOF TR•ANSMISSIION 9,358 GLASS TRANSMISSION 50,55L TRANSMISSION LOSS ro UNCOND. SPACES 0 LNFILTRATION LOSS 35.122 SLAB FLOOR 23,364 HEATING SAFETY BTU'S C! r SUB- Tf.:TAL 147,518 NET fl:`.- 1F. " LOSS 37, 77 $ TOTAL HEATING LOAD 131,292 HEATING SUPPLY CFN 3,525 Cfm _ HEATING SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE 110.0 deg HEATING VENTILATION AIR CFM 353 Cf:n HEATING SEASON ROOM DRY BULB TEMP. 72 deg F *iF'Y.* * Y********** if ***aloe****a#******* #if** ***iFi * *****##** **iFX.* • aY W Yn r SINGLE HOUR LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT FOR Aug_. 1 PM; PHASE 1 & 2 CODE JOB NAME: 520 EAST HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 OUTDOOR DF /WB: 85.0/ 59.0 F INDOOR D8: 72.0 F RH: 49 Space Cooling Loads & Cfin r Space Sensible Supply Air Space ('•lame Mul t ( tuns /space) ic•m /spar_e) BASEMENT -PHASE 1 & 2 x 1 1.25 912 • PLAZA LEVEL-PHASE 1 & :. 1 6.. 07 4,411 TIPPER LEVEL -PHASE 1 & 2 ,. I. 7 ,39 5, 371 • PENTHSE LVL- -PHASE 1 & 2 x 1 7.7.9 5,37 • • • w w • fw a HEATING LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT PHASE 1 & 2 - CODE JOB NAME: 520 EAST HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 ° WINTER. DESIGN DRY BULB: -15.0 F INDOOR DB: 72.0 F ,. *iFM 1FiFiRikiF# *ifiFiF****# iFiflFiFaF ****iF#iFiFifiFiFiF #iFdFlt KiFiFiFit #iFiFiFiFiriFitifiFiF*iF*** Space Design Heating Loads a Space Sensible Supply Air — Space Name Mutt (Stu /hr /space) (ctm /space) a BASEMENT -PHASE 1 & 2 1 13.274 318 a PLAZA LEVEL -PHASE 1 ?. 2 x 1 54.530 1,305 UPPER LEVEL -PHASE 1 t?: 2 x 1 43,335 1.037 a PENTHSE LVL -PHASE 1 & 2 A 1 85.991 2,057 -a M• 14iF# fiFil lF+ k1FiFli! 9F1F? PiFit• RikiF: tkiF! F**** iFiFlEiFitiFitik**** iF#iF****iti4MiF+FiFiFiFi!+F*** a ar • a• .a. a a a a a a SINGLE HOUR LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT • ,, FOR Aug. 3 PM; PHASE 1 & 2- CODE JOB NAME: 520 EAST HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07 /29/86 a SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 OUTDOOR DB /WB: 8.5.0/ 59.0 F INDOOR DB: 72.0 F RH: 49 Zone Loads & System Information Summary LOAD COMPONENT SENSIBLE(Btu /hr) L.ATENT(Btu hr) a SOLAR GAIN 51,295 O a GLASS TRANSMISSION 11.440 0 • a WALL TRANSMISSION 4.581 0 ROOF TRANSMISSION 5.890 0 a TRANS.. LOSS TO UNCOND. SPACE 0 0 LIGHTING ( 34,753 W TOTAL) 118,610 0 ■ OTHER ELEC. i> W TOTAL) 0 ti PEOPLE ( 278 PEOPLE TOTAL) 68.11.5 56,994 a MISCELLANEOUS LOADS 0 0 a COOLING INFILTRATION 5,248 - 6,342 - -- - - -- SUB -TOTA I..S 265. 179 50,657 - NET VENTILATION AIR LOAD 2.982 - 47,550 SUPPLY FAN LOAD (BHP= 2.8) 7,055 0 ROOF LOAD TO PLENUM 0 0 _ LIGHTING LOAD TO PLENUM 0 TOTAL COOLING 1_OADS 29 ,' 17 7.102 TOTAL COOLING LOAD = 302.319 Btu /hr; or 25.19 ton; or 551.8 sq ft /ton ZONE TOTAL FLOOR AREA = 13,901 sq ft TRANSMISSION AND SOLAR GAIN..I BY EXPOSURE. LOAD COMPONENT AREA TRANSMISSION SOLAR GAIN (sq ft) .(Btu /hr (Btu /hr) GLASS LOADS: NE 0 0 0 452 7,272 17,826 .. 516 3,689 28.046 SW 0 rte) , 0 a•. NW r1 is O N 672 4,519 5,427 H 0 0 0 ` WALL LOADS: NE 0 0 -- E 2,340 585 - SE 0 0 - S 1.330 2 .377 - - SW 0 0 — 9. W 2,940 1,617 - NW 0 i 0 - N 2,040 0 - a ******** x.******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COIL.. SELECTION PARAMETERS all COIL ENTERING AIR TEMP. (DB /WB) = 73.7/ 62.9 deg F COIL LEAVING AIR TEMP. (DB /WB) = 57.0% 56.6 deg F ' COIL SENSIBLE LOAD • = 295,217 Btu /hr a COIL TOTAL LOAD = 302,319 Btu /hr COOLING SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE = 57.0 deg F a TOTAL COOLING CFM = 16,071 Cfm COOLING CFM /SOFT = 1.16 Cfm /sgft a RESULTING ROOM REL. HUMIDITY = • 61 HEATING LOAD CALCULATION OUTPUT PHASE 1 & 2 - CODE JOB NAME: 520 EAST HYMAN DATE PREPARED: 07/29/86 +,1 SITE NAME: ASPEN COLORADO 60615842.0 WINTER DESIGN DRY BULB: -15.0 F INDOOR DP: 72.0 F w ***************************** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** HEATING LOAD SUMMARY Note: Heating load is computed at winter design condition. LOAD COMPONENT LOAD (Btu/hr) me WALL TRANSMISSION 39,203 w ROOF TRANSMISSION 2.281 GLASS TRANSMISSION 76.560 r TRANSMISSION LOSS TO UNCOND. SPACES 00 INFILTRATION LOSS 75,122 +� SLAB FLOOR 23,364 r HEATING SAFETY BTU'S SUB-TOTAL - 197,129 em NET VENTILATION LOSS 45,13' TOTAL HEATING LOAD 242,261 HEATING SUPPLY CFM 4.716 C f m - H=ATING - SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE 110.0 deg F . HEATING VENTILATION AIR CFM 472 Cfm HEATING SEASON ROOM DRY BULB TEMP. 72 deg F me i a r r em r s F x a oc I z W a. 0 W r > W 0 U. 0 z 0 CL O KIP W - J r we r S um LAW OFFICES t*. BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ^a 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (3031 9 25-816 6 a August 1, 1986 a a HAND DELIVERED a Mr. James Martin Pitkin Center Joint Venture 215 South Monarch al' 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. a a a a a. a Mr. James Martin August 1, 1986 Page Two ar 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 NIB 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 y, 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 PETE SON, A Pr. essional Corpor tion By• .P Br.ok_ A. Pe er-.o BAP:kl 4- a ar a a r 4- ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 4 a 4- August 1, 1986 William Poss �. William Foss and Associates Architecture 605 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 a Dear Bill, I have reviewed Building Department files pertaining to Lots 0, P, Q, k, 5, 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 the reconstruction develop- --. ment plans. 2) No expansion of the commercial floor area beyond the 7,289 square feet verified as existing on Lots O,P and 0, and no more than 2 residential units. 3: Provision for a utility trash enclosure. In addition, 1 have reviewed documentation of further Council action on the same property, which occurred on December 27, 1982 and again established development credits. I find that the available documentation adequately verifies the amount of commercial floor area '7289 sq. fl.) exempt from GMP, as provided in Sec. 24-ii.2ta;, of the Aspen Municipal Code. 7f I may be of a.ddition:c_ izssistance in this matter, please let me .LOS:. w r . v� Chi>r Pu ldine Official m LW: l c; AO s all offices: mail address: 517 East Hopkins Avenue 5O6 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 r MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager pr FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office iVN., RE: 1986 Commerical GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews DATE: October 21, 1986 Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council grant commercial growth management allotments to Little Nell, Wesson Building, Pitkin Center (520 E. Hyman), Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse Building. The Planning Office also recommends that you carry over the unallocated square footage in the office zone but not that in the CC /C -1 or NC /SCI zones. Requests: The following applications have been made in this year's commercial growth management competition: GMP Reconstruction Allocations Space /On -site Project Zone District Project Requested Housing Total Quota Competition 1. Little Nell 6,992 sf 12,339 sf 19,331 sf CL and Other 2. Wesson Bldg. 2,487 sf 2,906 sf 5,393 sf Office 3. 700 E. Hyman 9,000 sf - 9,000 sf Office 4. Pitkin Center 3,067 sf 8,933 sf 12,000 sf CC /C -1 5. Hunter Plaza 8,125 sf 4,740 sf 12,835 sf CC /C -1 6. Storehouse Bldg. 3,077 sf 1,420 sf 4,497 sf CC /C -1 Quota Available: Quota for the Commerial GMP competition is calculated as follows: 1 Zone District Annual Exemptions/ Total Quota Category Quota Additions Available Quota Requested CL and Other 3,000 sf 0 3,000 sf 6,992 sf Office 4,000 sf 0 4,000 sf 11,906 sf CC /C -1 10,000 sf +4,813 14,813 sf* 14,269 sf NC /SCI 7,000 sf 0 7,000 sf 0 *See Alan Richman's Memorandum of Sectember 22, 1986 for details of the CC /C -1 quota calculation (attached). Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, Pitkin Center, and the Storehouse Building. The above projects needed HPC conceptual approval to be eligible to submit GMP applications according to Section 24 -11,3 (d). The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the six commercial GMP applications at their regular meetings of September 2, 16, and 30, 1986. Scoring was done individually by each Commission member, and the scoring summary sheets for each project are attached hereto. Also considered and approved by P &Z were the following special reviews: 1. Wesson Bldg.: a. Parking Reduction: P &Z unanimously granted a reduction in on site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on the condition that the two residential spaces shall be demarked for the use of those tenants. b. Bonus FAR: P &Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1 subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge of the property in conjunction with the adacent landowner. 2. Pitkin Center: a. Parking Requirements: P &Z approved 5 in favor and 1 opposed two parking spaces for the two 1- bedroom free market residential units. b. Bonus FAR: P &Z unanimously approved an FAR of 2:1. 2 3. Hunter Plaza: a. Trash and Utilities Area: P &Z unanimously approved the requested 25 ft. by 10 ft. trash /utilities area. 4. Storehouse Building: a. Trash and Utilities Area: P &Z unanimously approved the requested 8 ft. by 12 ft. trash /utilities area subject to the placement of a trash compactor in the basement of the building. b. Restaurant Use of Open Space: P &Z unanimously approved the requested restaurant use of required open space. Allocation Issues: All of the projects except 700 E. Hyman met the minimum thresholds and are eligible for allocations. The one successful Office Zone Competitor (Wesson) and all three CC /C -1 competitors (Pitkin Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse) can be given allotments from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Little Nell project was granted an allotment by Council on September 22, and is included in this discussion only to formalize that action by the attached resolution. The Planning Office recommends that these five projects be given the requested allocations, as would be accomplished by Council Adoption of Resolution_' - (attached). Carry -Over of Unused Quota: Over the past several years, the Council has generally eliminated allotments remaining from the prior year. The quotas which Council can either carry -over or eliminate this year are as follows: CC /C -1 544 sf Office 1,513 sf NC /SCI 7,000 sf The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to carry over the unused quota in the CC /C -1 and NC /SCI zone district categories. In the CC /C -1 zones, we are seeing development in both 1985 and 1986, at a rate within the framework of the growth management policy. There is no apparent need to increase the quota for 1987. The NC /SCI zone district has seen no development activity since the imposition of the quota. While some activity may be necessary to keep up with growth in the residential sector, a carry -over would create a 1987 quota in these zones of 14,000 sf, which we believe could encourage one or two projects of a scale inconsistent with our development and growth policies. 3 • ti 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." 6 • 4. Hunter Plaza Existing Floor Area Credit Issue: The applicant has requested a technical clarification on the calculation of existing FAR to include the covered area over the gas pumps, in addition to the area within the building, for which we have already given the applicant credit. A letter from Vann Associates is attached presenting rationale for this interpretation. The Planning Office agrees that technically this area should be included in FAR. However, it is our understanding that the only reason the applicant wants to obtain this additional credit for 865 square feet, is merely to reduce the size of the cash -in -lieu dedication which must be made. Since employee generation is based on net leasable square footage, Whether we include or exclude the gas pumps is irrelevant to the applicant's net employee housing generation. It would be inappropriate to allow this area to be included in the Reconstruction FAR, therby reducing the amount of GMP allocation, and consequently reducing the employee housing commitment. We recommend that you find the canopy does not count toward a floor area credit. 5. Wesson Building: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in- lieu payment to the Housing Authority of $16,625 to house 1.25 moderate income employees. The Housing Authority recommended approval of this program and P &Z accepted it on September 16, 1986. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment of $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit." City Manager's Recommendation: �! f I- (CSC U(. ( i� i?/t' i�'n:,G rjn [ vM may' y'r/,, - To LAW gc L{ ' 62 47/, sry ()U0t»5 SCe4 5P.0,✓! 7) itp , CASH //- LIEN D(' r.JOS sr L ( i } Scen %S 7d fnMc2 Sdri9e /N /if 74/A i /3p. (2 Ceelfr1✓ r 7 s of b n Pitt tins/,'c, taw Y fry/kb/J.71 / f.7 ' 1 " in k 1104 if V :6V fat e &4/ 0 'r t-r5T 7 ,0 6 7AL ` V1.i/t tfrze floor/I-4 • ny /IRIS - - (+DoStw fJz F/ it/cs alit/hp M/P Act) - TrF2, 4f/AY5 / /16- w t u''C 1 thus/ pit t JUR iry (AA-- ft 7 VG !a / /OLt , Y 7 _ 1 I i Q 4. r meter stack Xr I C g . 1 e n N - Li \ h ••1 \ \ Tr - � ' 7 \ a Ul m 1 t.,.. Q N M A o x a m .V CO a 1 3 m v m " ---€ -- Co N- N 9 'g a nE ° ' 1 P = �z _' C.-M- - - - \. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager y� FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office KR, 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 j 2. Wesson 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: 4,143 '.. _� t� . 1�1'AWC' 6 ge l r 4L, 1�1W ur'�L la ;tbal �VY i'C 2 � ".�� 34,7v :. �c7h rii 7 ° , t{ Hn,.7 < C,.. -II T L 11�. Lc fl r e. nr..I s ^e« �^ id ,/ .. b si:.�r (7rfe� �� oer,�, : N. ���,rk^:.� r till cc r ,Y, �0, 1 rlr it 4. 4k.: L ;a..2f• c a�a. A ictMCeit ( l:,t car U1C 15 ih � ipg 44 M, ,a � a tf" i r 6) leo3 Nav jiOAP 1 ill f n l c.i wc'f 4k X+: 10„ 14 n 3L&.‘1 f> Z r,rr} h my* 4JJ 40t T{. , ( ivtii t, . iiii 'h)414141kthi 4k:h14At no=LtP it:Jilt • ter oo k —, ,:+ ,.f_,. , 1 :.(t,•J,f4 rte• • Zone District Annual Exemptions/ Total Quota Category Quota Additions Available Quota Requested CL and Other 3,000 sf 0 3,000 sf 6,992 sf Office 4,000 sf 0 4,000 sf 11,906 sf CC /C -1 10,000 sf +4,813 14,813 sf* 14,269 sf NC /SCI 7,000 sf 0 7,000 sf 0 *See Alan Richman's Memorandum of Sectember 22, 1986 for details of the CC /C -1 quota calculation (attached). Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, Pitkin Center, and the Storehouse Building. The above projects needed HPC conceptual approval to be eligible to submit GMP applications according to Section 24 -11,3 (d). The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the six commercial GMP applications at their regular meetings of September 2, 16, and 30, 1986. Scoring was done individually by each Commission member, and the scoring summary sheets for each project are attached hereto. Also considered and approved by P &Z were the following special reviews: 1. Wesson Bldg.: a. Parking Reduction: P &Z unanimously granted a reduction in on site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on the condition that the two residential spaces shall be demarked for the use of those tenants. b. Bonus FAR: P &Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1 subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge - of the property in conjunction with the adacent landowner. 2. Pitkin Center: a. Parking Requirements: P &Z approved 5 in favor and 1 opposed two parking spaces for the two 1- bedroom free market residential units. b. Bonus FAR: P &Z unanimously approved an FAR of 2:1. 2 • 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. aliseetteir Issues: ©, P. S All of the projects except 700 E. Hyman met the minimum thresholds and are eligible for allocations. The one successful Office Zone ftt , senvjh Competitor (Wesson) and all three CC /C -1 competitors (Pitkin ' 014 �,� ,,�,yGf•: Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse) can be given allotments ,l n 1 , from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Little Nell project was granted an allotment by Council on September 22, (4, Oct., i and is included in this discussion only to formalize that action alt 1::fz ,t-. by the attached resolution. iOL R "` k" " ' Planning Office recommends that these five projects be given rrk X14 the requested allocations, as would be accomplished by Council pi kJ Adoption of Resolution (attached) . ik rnfa w+ ( tarry -Over of Unused Quota: •,/ell,,,h. w Over the past several years, the Council has generally eliminated 1` , , ii�.Ttli allotments either carry carry-over on eliminate which f oilows: H. Lalie c.00,, CC /C -1 544 sf tea f J tI rle,,. }t Office 1,513 sf ir`, iNr,-6zr NC /SCI 7,000 sf N' cojl,'i I!e >" The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to yy e � p"" s {' ' �; , �i1,_ carry over the unused quota in the CC /C -1 and NC /SCI zone district d.wRhy urnwiy6 categories. In the CC /C -1 zones, we are seeing development in � Lin1 both 1985 and 1986, at a rate within the framework of the growth 'r1 management policy. Th_ereis no apparent need to increase the 1 r7 kn quota for 1987. The NC /SCI zone has seen no develo ent activity_ _since the imposition of the quota. while some activity may be necessary to P keep up witnrowth 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 ( At,; ,) Ivy A.rvv .�K 1 �34t u'1r;4 - '�'6;,, , 2 ; -4,-, t - r . :i . ,1 :n n . l�r,'� ^a. `: ✓'71 -+, /41, 1 U 99 x J Z 7 J i L.{ M. k p : r :T b� N 1 . J d 1 t r l �J row . N U r .;, � f � be ts t91u P12 itl ik.:) c0'i on* 7" RI -j ),th EL tin tri I � , Iq�W fJ I [ & 4 yA they - fd ,tvx p'+b 11,9 tia La.1, ,�?kt , i(„s brik tL Chi k'..:J I rk t ) J. %,t, r�,�} Q cip The Office Zone is seeing the first n opment this year ,. , since the quota was established in this zone district. We { believe that carry -over of the unused 1,513 sf is reasonable,,,,„,1 because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office 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 Eyler) 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. tihnt p A$ h St,ahC l ��i'�IG -. l4 .. FYe 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 IU , parking requirements uSections24 -4for 1 e( ). The housing nt would (t ";Tt ;L 104 provide two on -site parking spaces for the use of the two free market residential units, and no parking L A ,(,,(1¢- �-n;ur) spaces for the four employee units. The Planning "T" Commission accepted the two spaces and recommended to ?_ Council to establish no parking requirement for the f 4 sett' " I14 ' u," employee units in a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed. ',t1 tL. (K�. f a (L-.' (1 The Planning Office position is that some on -site -2 sew, employee parking is needed. The one space per bedroom �z �r standard used in other zone districts would result in dl' , �'F , t�' I � Licht four spaces for the four employee studios. We believe e , : - (, •- l � , 4 7 ° f - � ^s Dff't i f ,,,,111-4 1.11,4:1 s�m�t in-"' r .,.c „� t, ��'�z 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 c} ( et; rMnde- ,1 { InecCM Section 24- 11.2(f) of the Municipal Code for four (4) on -site employee units. Each unit would contain 450 51v %l is, square feet. On September 11, 1986, the Housing I Authority recommended approval of the proposed program. PAZ Gndrn %C;�� M P &Z unanimously recommended approval on September 30, "• 1986. ti'f�,;• , 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 V hi 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 C ks) - i. CD41•4401in $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for - the equivalent of 39% of the employees generated. This 7 ppp ebt calculation was made based on misinformation on employee I N Pr,,�� generation. ayment of $70,000 toyhouse13.043 calculations low income employees fr,&. tnIL?(L,,.)tfli( 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 PJZrtt(40242Ji:f62r City Council. In making their recommendation to you on this issue the Planning Commission expressed concern that the 4 cw ; ;)tL fPP'J cash -in -lieu be sufficient to build employee housing and the c t vi, L Bo Housing Authority develop a program to build employee housing units in a timely manner. A joint P &Z and Housing 4 Authority meeting is scheduled for November 25, 1986 to Px N , co„..., begin to address this issue and to initiate the Housing ifs+ 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 e Autliorit y prior to issuance of a building permit." 4��N Y� ��✓ � ,,,, tip..,; R( •1 :f �y i) %+` i:� f4q e I , ! „ ) t , Gp Gi f 3. Hunter Plaza : -- fiTie app lean proposes to make a cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Authority for housing the equivalent 01311 ` kr ft) fu of 9.2 low income employees. The Housing Authority recom- rk Hrwyr 0ti, mended approval of this program on September 11, 1986. P &Z 4 recommended approval on September 30, 1986. (0 er oari r fry Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000 to provide housing for 9.2 employees at the low (hhCt... t.ou 1 ' income level , as adjusted to the current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit." 6 4 1 '' 0 f " ji . i ' 0, . . . --, 1 v .A -i,- (5(,24;— ''(,---. t.c7rEs • . 0. A „ .43.es i v.41 4/ , • 1 )..5 k lc I ) ' ' ,- . ij A ', ,V1 -c-ill F. -:4 r ,u 4 ,- escvtt, 2 , I t ,, t'j,, Li ‘) I 3,4 r ,.., 4/701`i 4. Hunter Plaza Existing Floor Area Credit Issue: The applicant - ne -tiffii,„,; has requested a technical clarification on the calculation i of existing FAR to include the covered area over the gas purnps, 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 / 1,, ,--, ,1, wants to obtain this additional credit for 865 square feet, ''VW.I'LlA is merely to reduce the size of the cash-in-lieu dedication ,i I ,;14 which must be made. Since employee generation is based on cl - rrH • net leasable square footage, Whether we include or exclude —,_, --.Tc the gas pumps trirreTekrifff to the applicant's net employee " Tkl 'r Gr A housing generati-on. 1 '/ 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. i-bfievn 5. Wesson Building: The applicant proposesem:ket 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. 1,/,`, 4 5,1( 410 ru,41 ‘.6 -“,'. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash-in-lieu unignm payment of $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate etiych,,,,,,, income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedulejv ,Q4 at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit." g 1 ,41 c 0 _,,i„,,, j k,A; i r , f i i i 7i, 4 j', ICA (.,, 4 l icv tc et/ 164 -0-4 4 - Wit is),Oli rig c evt11,..14 , r,,, 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, PITKIN CENTER, HUNTER PLAZA AND THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING THROUGH THE 1986 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION, CARRYING OVER OF UNUSED OFFICE e y QUOTA FOR THE 1987 GMP OFFI COMPETITION AND GRANTING FUTURE ;1, is�� 1 YEAR ALLOCA OF " CL A ND OTH ER" ZO DIS QU OT A b ,�i(enc�o: . n Lrt `� }p�tnl >fi ��in,>> 07 lit (a CtIL-P WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24 -11.5 (a) of the Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of 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: Zone District Project GMP Allocation Requested Quota Comp. 1. Little Nell 6,992 sq. ft. CL and other 2. Wesson 2,487 sq. ft. Office 3. 700 E. Hyman 9,000 sq. ft. Office 4. Pitkin Center 3,067 sq.ft. CC and C -1 5. Hunter Plaza 8,125 sq. ft. CC and C -1 6. Storehouse Bldg. 3,077 sq. ft. CC and C -1 ;and 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; 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 Total Points Given by P &Z (avg.) Little Nell 30.9 Wesson 31.7 Pitkin Center 31.7 Hunter Plaza 30.4 Storehouse Building 29 700 E. Hyman 24.6 ; and 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves --- design by the Historic Preservation Committee shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 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 will 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 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. f °f f��a 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 of 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- - soaping 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 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 lL A. Design elements of the building will include a �� height not to exceed 33 feet, breaking up of the voy\Ni massing, vertical proportion of windows, doors and dormers and use of brick. The exposed wall of N , the Thrift Shop abutting the plaza will be given a V C " ' brick facade or another treatment that is accept- able to the HPC ,..J t , hiti ,O 5 A i l1/4 _ 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. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ; and 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. 6 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 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 day of , 1986. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SB.44 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Growth Quota Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Quota Available - 1986 CC /C -1 Competition DATE: September 22, 1986 Following is a summary of the status of the quota for the CC /C -1 competition in 1986: 1. The annual quota in the CC /C -1 zone district is 10,000 sq. ft. 2. There is no square footage to carry over from prior years due to Council's action in Resolution 85 -29. 3. There have been the following additions /deletions to the inventory between 9/1/85 and 8/31/86 which need to be accounted for in the inventory since they were exempt from the competition requirements: Additions Deletions Hotel Jerome + 5162 sq. ft. Hotel Jerome - 6836 sq.ft. The Grill + 145 sq. ft. Brand Bldg. _ sq.ft. ft. Total + 5307 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 co co el N 15 en at N b -or ON .� a CI 0 KO N 7 C- > c] lei .._11 ,.. 1 . I-. CV b¢ r1-11111 ~ Hf !w.... 01 CO W el t . a . tel C C c4 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' + 1 1Hc bl ai I MI t7I y7. w ._ ...__ —rH 1 H + H H d._ ^ oi I 01 NI W h 3 11 u, I C I N � CO �I ^ I I of 21 N 11 ty1II ride/ H + H H W O� N in en V +H+H ~ N H 0 Y C V w C E CO co c o w o N w w U 0 11 .0 10 w 0 •!1 0 0 0 v V1 4 4) fl C W CC cu U 0 0 C N C 0 (t( 4 0 7 .Z io 0) Co 4 W At ..i 0 0 -.-I (j CO 0) .I./ ..-1 4 1) 0) m H H 4 Cl •.I .-1 •.i 4-1 4 •• 0) Z w ri 1 . W N O N i-7 >1 m 0 z b1 C m N p 4 .j ..../ H pc a >1 o l w C O 14 ,-1 ¢ W • 4� W r 1 � w P. m (0•..4 H m a .n � H ( r d V in 4) H C D 0 a H w " J W 0 w w M 10 0) >1 01 (q Cl 01 N W 0 w q PWO a q p" a. I a N 4) U C 0 01 4i H 0 .0 7N .iM WN.-1 4Y C 4 ' M H 0 .ii w wans •-1> 43.0 0 0 q o p Z z < CO COWd >E 4 - 0W 3m ' a m a a w Co 1-1 m of o 0 1.... 7 C p H W 8 7 > C • • • • . 4 ¢ R1 H t� O ( 7 .-1 N f'1 • IA b Q N .i N fn v t l 0. r. O N .4 . CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GNP APPLIONTICILS TALLY SHEET PROTECT NAME: WfSPOn Dental Building Date: 9/16/86 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL P&Z \M2ING MEMBERS David Jasmine Welton Banana aim_ A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 2.5_ L2__ 2. Site Design 2.5 _ _2_ _ 3. Energy 2.5 2 3 2 3 4. Amenities 2.5_ i_ 2 _2- 5. Visual Impact a_ 3 — — 2 6. Trash and Utility Access 2.5 _1 .2. L2___ L2_ SJB1OTAL: 15.5 15 15 14 14 14.7 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 2 _2 S-- LZ_ 2 2. Sewage Disposal L1 3. Public Transporta- tion/Roads 4. Storm Drainage 2 2 _2— 2 5. Parking _2___ :1___ SCBIOTAL: 8 7 Z- St— 1— C. Provision of Employee Housing 10 10 10— 14— 1O 10 D. TOTAL: 33.5 32 32- 30 31- 31.7 D. Bonus Points _. _A_ -5___ 4.2 TOTAL POINTS CATEGORffi A, B, C and D 39.5 16 37— 14— 33— 45 9 CITY OF ASPEN m tItI&. GIP APPLICATIQiS TALLY SHErT PROTECT NAME: 700 E. Hyman Date: 9/16/86 1 2 3 4 5 AVERPGE TOTAL P6Z VOTIMIG M EMERS acv' d Jasmine Welton EMMA Jim_ 1 1O'1TL A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 1— 1-- 0.5 1._ 1- 2. Site Design 1.5 _1 0.5 1_ 1 3. Energy 2.5 1— _2___ 4. Amenities 1.5 2__ 5. Visual Impact _2___ 0.5 1 _ 0 6. Trash and Utility Access _2___ 1_— SUBTDTT,L: 9.5 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 1__ _2___ __1__ 1—_ 1_ 2. Sewage Disposal 1__ 1 —1— 3. Public tiion/Roads rta- 1 1 __1 1- 1- 4. Storm Drainage 1.5 1—_ __1— 1—_ 1 5. Parking 1— _1— _ __Q__1__Q SUBTFYPAL: _5__ 6 5.5 C. Provision of Ehiplcyee Housing 10 10 1_ 10 1E_ TOTAL: 26 27 12_ _25 2€ D. Bonus Points _0 TOTAL POINTS CATEGORIES A, B, C and D _26__ 27 19 25 26 _2Q_b CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCEAL GMP APPLICAT75 TALLY SHEET PROTECT NAPE: The Storehouse Date: 9/3Q/86 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL P&Z VOTING 14143ERS Boger ! Lton David Al Jim Jasanine A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 2.5 2- 2- 2 2.5 2.5 2. Site Design 2.5 2.5 2_..5 - _1.5_ 2.5 3. Energy 2.5 2- 2- __2- 2- 2 4. Pmenities 2- 2- 2- _L2_- 2- 2 5. Visual Impact 2 2- 2-_ __2- 2-- 2 6. Trash and Utility Access 2- 2- 2-_ 2-- 2 SUBTOTAL: 13.5 12.5_ 12.5 1l__ 12- 13 1275 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 2-- 2_ 2- 2- 2-- 2 2. Sewage Disposal 1-_ 1- 1__ 3. Public Transporta- tion/Roads 4. Storm Drainage 1.5. 1.5_ 1-- 2- 1- 2 5. Parking 1 Li___ SUBTOTAL: 6:5 6.5 6 Z_ St- 7 6.5 C. Provision of anplcyee Housing 9.75 . 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 TOTAL: 29,75 20.75 28.25 29.75 27.75 29.75 22- D. Bonus Points _a_- TOTAL POINTS _ • CATEGORIES A, B, C and 1) 29.75 2=5 241.25 maa 22 21a5. 29 D, and E • CITY OF ASPEN W WW1AL GMP APPLICATIONS TALLY SHEET PROTECT NAPE : kin Center - Date: 9/30/86 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL PO fl FEPBERS Iffier Math amid Jamne AL__ JUL_ A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 2.5 2.5 2.5 I_ _2_- 2.5 2. Site Design 2 _2_- 2.5 2 . 5 2 3. Energy - 1__ -_- 2.5 4. Amenities 2 2 j-- - - 2 5. Visual Impact _ 2 2.5 _2-- -2-- - 6. Trash and Utility Access :2- _2- _2___ _2___ SUBZOTAL: 13.5_ 13.5 14.5_ 14 15 13 _14_ B. Availahil ity of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 1 LI- _- 1 _i___ 1 2. Sewage Disposal _l___ a__ 1 3. Public Transporta- tion/Roads 1 LI__ _ 1 -1- 4. Storm Drainage 2 _2- _2___ 2 2 �- 5. Parking _ 1.5 ±1___ SUBTOTAL: 6 6.5 5.5 J6___ ±5- 6 5.8 C. Provision of Employee Housing 114- 10.4 10.4 114 10,4_ 11.4. 10 4 TOT11L: 29.9 30.4 30.4 30.9 30.4 29,j D. Bonus Points �._ _ 0 _5_- -L_ 1.5 TCTAL POINTS - CATEGORIES A, B, C and D 22.2 30,4_ 35.4 34,9_30.4 214_ 31.7 SB.22 CITY OF ASPEN CONNERCIAL 3MP APPLICATIONdS TALLY SST PROJECT NAME :Sinter Plaza Date: 9/30/86 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL P&z VOTING HEWERS Rmigg. Mato mvid 3Idmn _1__ Aim_ A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 2.5 12.5_ 2.5 2_- 2-_ 2.5 2. Site Design 2- 2..5_ 2.5 2.5 2__ 2- 3. Energy _2_.5 2...5 2- 2.5 2- 2- 4. Amenities 2..5_ 2.5 2..5_ 2.5 2- 2- 5. visual Impact 3 _3 2._5 2- La___ 2- 6. Trash and Utility Access 2__ 2- 2_- 2__ 2-_ 2- SUBTOTAL: 14.1_15___ 14- 15.5 15- 13.5 14.6 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 1- 1-_ 1- 1-_ 1-_ 2-_ 2. Sewage Disposal 1__ .L_ 1- 1-_ 1-_ 1-- 3. Public Transporta tion/Roads 1-_ 1.5 1_- 1.5 1- 2- 4. Storm Drainage 1__ 1.5 1- 1_- 1-- 2- 5. Farling 1_- 1-_ 1- 1- SUBTOTAL: _ 6.5 5.5 - 8 -5.8 C. Provision of Employee Housing 10 10 10 10 15_ 10 10 4UTAL 29.5 31.5 29 31 30 31.5 30,4_ D. Bonus Points JO- _Q___ _0 IOThL POINTS CATEGORIES A, B, C and D 29.5 31.5 22- 31-_ 31.5 30.4 SB.30 h tiS (ET 2 11996 I 'n • • MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ [1\\ V I ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER 106 S. MILL. STREET. SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (703) 920 -1018 October 20, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO8 1611 ATTN: Alan Richman Planning and Development Director RE: Hodge Capital-Company GMP Application for the 700 East Hyman Project Dear Alan: As we have discussed, Hodge 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 willing 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/Pitkin Planning Office October 20, 1986 Page 2 consideration of a revised application will remain in effect. Should our appeal not be withdrawn, we do plan to submit additional documentation in support thereof. Very truly yours, MYLER, STVE9R & SCHWARTZ By: / David J. all-r Attorney for Hodge Capital Company cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. Hodge Capital Co. Vann Associates „4 October 2, 1986 Mr. Dave Myler Myler, Stuller & Schwartz 106 S. Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 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 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 application." 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. This 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 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWART7_ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID 1. MYLER 106 S. MILL STREET. SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STUI.LER ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 ALAN E. SCHWARTJ.. (303) 920 -1018 September 29, 1986 HAND DELIVE D ,= a r 1 Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 1: 'y 130 S. Galena Street !h % Aspen, CO 81611 ATTN: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Hodge Capital Company GMP Application for the 700 E. Hyman 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 Hodge'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. I£ 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. MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Aspen /Pitkin County 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 Commission'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, ST 'R & SCHWL'TZ /� By:/ David J. M - DJM :kim cc: Hodge Capital Company Paul Taddune, City Attorney 1 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 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 v rva N 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, VAN AS-Ste -I. ES 1. 7 .unny Mann, AICP cc:At(hony J. Mazza Regular Meeting Planning Commission - .t - 1 ` 98 1T I 1 7 X986 1 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to ord:r`at 5:05 p.m. with members Al Blomquist, Jim Colombo, Roger Hunt, .:smine 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 2 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 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 6 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 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 8 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. PITKIN 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 9 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'S 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 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 REOUEST - 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. , t 3 / Jiti Kathryn Koc , City Clerk 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 1986 Commercial GMP Competition in the CC and C -1 Zone District DATE: September 25, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review are the Planning Office recommended points allocations for the three applications submitted on August 1st for the Commercial GMP competition in the Commercial Core and C -1 Zone Districts. QUOTA AVAILABLE AND REQUESTED: By Resolution 29, Series of 1985, City Council did not carry over the unallocated quota for commercial development in the Commercial Core and C -1 Commercial Zones and set the 1986 quota at 10,000 square feet. Given the additions and deletions to the commercial inventory from 9/1/85 to 8/31/86 as explained in Alan Richman's September 22, 1986 memo (attached) the available 1986 quota is 14,813 s.f. Quota allotment requested for this competition is as follows: 1. 520 E. Hyman 3,067 sq. ft. (Pitkin Center) 8,125 sq. ft. 2. Hunter Plaza 3. Nature's Storehouse 3,077 sq. ft. Total Quota Request 14,269 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND ANCILLARY REVIEWS: 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. commercial space, including retail shops, a restaurant, and professional offices, and 4,178 sq. ft. of residential space, including two free market and four deed - restricted employee housing units. Prior approvals given this project include (1) a GMP exemption for demolition and reconstruction of commercial space and two residential units, approved by Council on 11/23/81; and (2) a subdivision exception to split merged townsite lots into four (4) separate parcels, Lot 0, Lot P, Lot Q and Lots R and S of Block 94, approved by Council on 12/27/82. Ancillary reviews in this application include: a. Employee Housing GMP Exemption to deed restrict four (4) on- site units to low income. b. Special Review for Bonus FAR of .5:1 bringing the total FAR to the maximum allowable of 2:1. c. Special Review to set the residential parking requirements for the two (2) free market and four (4) employee units. HUNTER PLAZA: The proposed building is located on the northeast corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue in the C -1 zone district and would replace Palazzi's Texaco Service Station. 4,740 sq. ft. of the new building would be reconstructed space. In total, the two (2) story building would contain 12,875 sq. ft. of commercial space (external floor area) , entirely devoted to retail commercial purposes. A cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000 (as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 9.2 low income employees would be provided to the Housing Authority. Ancillary reviews in this application include: a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash - in -lieu to house 9.2 low income employees. b. Special Review for reduction in trash and utilities area requirements. 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 2 of their proposals. Public hearings will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of each hearing, the Commission members will each be asked to score the appli- cant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to each project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, and 3 amounting to 25.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2, and 3 to be eligible for a GMP allotment. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category 2 = 3 points; and Category 3 = 8.75 points. Should an application score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points to each application as a recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively score the proposals. The following table is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the rating. Availability of Public Employee Quality of Facilities Housing Bonus Total Design of Services Need Points Points 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)(3.) of the Municipal Code, as amended. c. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing Office. d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. B. Special Review for Reduction in Parking The Planning Commission has final review authority over free - market residential parking requirements in the CC zone and the ability to recommend employee housing requirements to Council. Sections 24 -4.6 and 24- 4.1(c) of the Code give the applicable provisions for the two actions. The applicant would provide two covered parking spaces for the use of the two free market residential units. This meets the standard of 1 space per bedroom required in other zone districts, and is acceptable in staff's 4 view. No on -site parking would be provided for the use of the four employee studios. The 1 space per bedroom standard would result in four more spaces required on- site. Some reduction from the standard is reasonable given the following factors: 1) Low and moderate income tenants would live there and some may not be able to afford a vehicle, and 2) Location within the downtown makes walking to work, grocery stores, and entertain- ment very convenient, and therefore, a car is not necessary. Consequently, the Planning Office believes it is reasonable that over the long term, at least 1 of the 4 employees will not have car, and we would support setting the parking requirement at three (3) employee parking spaces for the project. It should be noted that few options for off -site parking exists in this location. Parking on adjacent streets is limited to two hours or less during the day, and is occupied day and night in winter and summer. There is no municipal parking garage that might serve this need, and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed (although it is a possibility in the future). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the parking special review for the two spaces for the two 1- bedroom free market units. Staff recommends P &Z to recommend Council to establish a requirement of 3 parking spaces for the four employee studio units. C. Bonus FAR Special. Review: The applicant requests approval of a special review for bonus FAR to add 1200 square feet of commercial space (.2:1 FAR) and 1800 square feet (.3:1 FAR) of employee housing space. This amounts to .5:1 FAR increase, which is the maximum allowable in the CC Zone district according to Section 24 -3.4 of the Municipal Code. Section 24- 3.5(a) of the Municipal Code states the criteria for P &Z's review: "(1) Compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses and zoning, including size, height and bulk, proposed site design characteristics, including landscaping and open space and visual impacts such as viewplanes. (2) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the availability and adequacy of water supply, sewage treatment, storm drainage, roads and parking 5 �YIY v..✓ 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. 6 B. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and Utilities Area: Section 24- 3.7(h)(4) sets the size of the trash /u- tility service area in the CC and C -1 zones and allows for the P &Z to vary the required area by special review pursuant to Section 24- 3.7(b) (attached). On page 31 -32 of the application, rationale for this 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 7'). (4) Trash compaction will be neither required nor provided. The Engineering Department stated they do not have any problem with the requested reduction, however, they recom- mend installation of a trash compactor. The Planning Office also notes that the alley service entrance (approximately 5 feet wide) also goes through the 25' x 10' area for trash and utility. While it appears that two dumpsters may fit in with utility boxes, three may constraint service flow from the alley into the building. With a compactor, as recom- mended by Engineering, such a problem should not occur. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested 25 ft. x 10 ft. trash /utility area subject to installation of a trash compactor, as meets the approval of BFI, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING Application: A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The applicant has proposed to pay $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for the equivalent of 39% of the employees generated. This calculation was made based on misinformation on employee generation. Subsequently, revised calculations were made for payment of $70,000 to house 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income employees, to the satisfaction of the Housing Office and Housing Authority. As discussed in regard to the Hunter Square cash -in -lieu proposal, we support the acceptance of this option but recommend that the Housing Authority must develop a housing 7 1i +r 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. (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 anti ci pated. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the area reduction given the trash compactor. Engineering also recommends that the compactor be placed inside the building and not next to the dumpster. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested 8 ft. x 12 ft. trash /utilities area subject to the placement of a compactor, as meets the approval of BFI, in the basement of the building. Installation shall be accomplished prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occu- pancy. SB.64 8 CITY OF ASIA SAL GIP APPLI(ATIQiS TALLY SHEET PROTECT NAME: Pitkin Center Date: 9/30/86 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL Pad WITr1G MEMBERS S i%l td mid Jw 81-- Jim A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 2.5 2.,5 _2.5 L 1_ 2.5 2. Site Design 1-_ .Z_ 2.5 2.5 1_- 2 3. Fsergy 1- 1-_ 1- - 2.5 4. Amenities 1 2 .Z -__ _2_- 1- 1- 5. Visual Impact 1_ _ 1- 1_- 1- 1-_ 6. Trash and Utility Access 1__ 1- 1__ 1__ 1__ 1-_ SUBTOTAL: 13.5_ 13.5 14..5 14.5 15- 3 14 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 1 1- 1- 1_ 1- 1- 2. Sewage Disposal 1 1- 1- 3. Public Transporta- tion/Roads 1 1 1 1- 1- 1__ 4. Storm Drainage 1 1-_ 1__ 1- 1- 1- 5. Parking _2__ 1..5 0.5 1- _0__ SUBTOTAL: 6 6.5 5.5 1 1- 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. 30.9. 30.4 29A 30.2 D. Bonus Points Q_ _ 1- 1-_ 1- 1.5 - WEAL POINTS QBS A, B, C and D 29.9_ 30.4 354. 34.9_30.4_ 29-.4__ 31.7 SB.22 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROTECT: PTTKIN CENTER - 520 E. HYMAN DATE: 9/22/86 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 2.5 COMMENT: The proposed building would contain 12.000 s.f. (FAR 2:1) and the eastern and western portions would stand 34 and 36 feet high respectively. The structure is stepped back from the front property linP four segments. reducing the frontage directly on Hyman Street and creating a more open and attractive view of the Pitkin County Bank Building to the east. The building height is approximately one foot taller than the Mason And Morse Ruining and 11.5 feet shorter than the Elks RW not out of character on this block. The ru i-i.cafed sandstone. tumbled or old brick and historic storefront and window portions 11 _ - - - • _ , - - . 1. , • / - 1 - City Banque and should complement the character of the street. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: _ 2 COMMENT: ,- o_ 1 -r, • ' -, '•, • ,- ••-, - • - percent of site) and the mid- blocis_pedestrian link on the east '.- • , - • •t • - - •• - - • •- - - 9, 1 part for outdoor dining) but a minimum of green space. The high duality landscaping of the Pitkin County Bank Building will not • - - - - • . - s • • • ' ' t - . _ . - - • • ' - ' • - p.aoosed to avoid potential service access problems in an al ready cramped and congested alley. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 3 COMMENT: The Roaring Fork Enerav 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 COMMENT: The urban park and mid -block link are a enities of this project. The park appears to he primarily for use of increased .. ... / ! • - 1" • . • . - • _ • - - II- • • too mach paving and have little visual interest. e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 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 --• •• •• - • • • - - •• •. •- •• • •. •• 't • -• nor considered necessary by staff. SUBTOTAL: 13 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 2 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The Water Department stated that the project can he -. •n ,- r + n -+ + , ma, +• + =•: conditions. The Fire Marshall stated that fire hydrants in the area are adequate and response time from the Fire Department -+ • • •: •.• • •' -+ + - • o,' II' • • - • o' - K 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: _A — COMMENT: The Sanitation District stated that this project can he 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 loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The project i s within two bl ocks of Rnbey PMrk and 1/2 • • •❑ 1 - • - 4 - 1 4. _�- • , '.1• .•.• , and pedestrian access. The Engineering Department commented traffic generated by this project will not significantly impact adiacent streets. It should be noted that streets are presently congested in the CC zone district. d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: 2 COMMENT: Applicant proposes to r .tri n all storm drai nage water on site through use of a drywel 1 system drai ning into the subsurface •• 1 -- 4• • "•- 11 R•1111'I -• .1- .1 • • $.• design and drywell locations are not stated in the application and should be reviewed by the nepartment. e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: 0 COMMENT: No parki ng i s provided for the commerci al uses of the building and two covere spaces are provided off the alley or the si x (6) resi dential uni ts. The Code does not requi re off - street parki ng for commercial uses in the CC, but it does require ._ • - ' • - , • - 9I I• -- • I• • - I - I and P1 anning Office hel ieve the rpsi denti al parking i s i nadequ- t • •'- . 1• n- 1• •• _ • - • .. ,5• • _ ❑ - , of the the 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 for each 12% housed RATING: 10.4 COMMENT: Four (4) studio emits would be provided on -site, housing five (5) employees. E7een employees would he generated i associ ati on with the additional commercial space of the project: therefore. 45 percent of the empl oyees would he housed. The Housing Authority reconunends approval of the employee housing proaram subject to a deed restriction for low to moderate income empl oyees. 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: The Planning Office does not award bonus points. 5 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 13.5 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 5 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10.4 (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 28.9 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 -- TOTAL POINTS: 28.9 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office SB.50 6 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 13 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 5 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 9.75 (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 27.75 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 -- TOTAL POINTS: 27.75 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: ARpen /Pitkin Planning Office SB.101 6 CITY OF ASPEN 6 1(k) COMMERCIIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET ^ PROJECT: t ap I K fJ DATE: Q< v 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 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: 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: / 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: j 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: f COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis - 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24- 11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: A 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 • v, l 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (3'7 (minimum of 5.4 points needed /_ to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: V (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10 (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- V gories 1, 2, & 3 r (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Z Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 4q g g � l 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET JL I PROJECT: / /AAA -4/1 ' DATE: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: Z 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: Z/ COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2..- COMMENT: - SUBTOTAL: / co' 2 • 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formul a: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: 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: ' 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: _Jae' 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 f "\ 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: M i 1 COMMENT: 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT: 5 5. TOTAL POINTS / Points in Category 1: Ib (minimum of 5.4 points needed / to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to 1,/� remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 6VIL/ (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 0 4 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 4 t t t ir 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET W PROJECT: r 1�1 �Zl V V `"CQ--C DATE: f 3n I �S 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: ? Q COMMENT: J s Qy, \DL` I Ate 4 aM ! i4 1 • ri- { \ - g 40 r? su a0 -1)( - ?An U ,(A-e/) -C cuLetoyerlA vim, 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: 1 , z' S COMMENT: 11��YO (t ' \)` C�l�� ' & iS r(T1VL1 5 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: Z 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: C2 COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 14 2 • 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT: b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: 1 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: Z 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. �I_ RATING: COMMENT: �1CIL �(.16 --C_ C&4)\ SUBTOTAL: Co 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: IO 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: 4 Q v‘9.0-) Sr2N\Y�� CI tW iG∎ t P� ✓l C C� \r€ II�G -11 COMMENT uncu t_ l(hnrnks bp r , o\ )i 4■ or) of nn -4si QArAV t-ei Huy rte, w4P c� s mPmcoDus f J 5 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 14-6 (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 o .9 (minimum of 25.8 points needed ��tt to be eligible) Points in Category 4 ` - TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: /IiC L/lc& 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL , GRROW � TH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: Y ' 7Z /if) (? ( - 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: 7 `5 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 e -` 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: .v 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: SUB TOTAL: / 3 5r 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. 1.4- 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: 4 COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: �` C 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: 764 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. 7T� BONUS POINTS: c V COMMENT: 5 • P r 5. TOTAL POINTS / fr 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: ��' (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: (Melts► p A13h 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET 22 PROTECT: PCTACtq l � DATE: 6 1 • 0.8 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: 7, COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 I orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2' S COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: Z COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. -7 RATING: !— COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: I i t 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: 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. 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: t 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: G- 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: r 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: (o 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 recor d. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT: 5 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: ( of 5.4 points needed / to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: foal (minimum of 8.75 points needed t{r to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- � 1 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: 4111 L114 _ 6 CITY OF ASPEN ♦.MMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET V 7� 7446 PROTECT: AM/7C — 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: L' COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: C 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: SUBTOTAL: 14C 2 • 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT: b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: fi COMMENT: 3 c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: 1' COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24 -4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: •5 COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 3; 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis - 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24- 11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: ' COMMENT: hiais 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. BON POINTS: COMMEN l 7111/ CT& iki&eti -"/• /• 7 5 5. TOTAL POINTS `7 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: 1 ' C / (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: Flame of Planning and Zoning Member. 6 5Zb . tly rOr / MEMORANDUM ejtk1f, C`€ tPY A(tth(hnhehi (a) TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office DATE: September 8, 1986 RE: Pitkin Center GMP Application 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 510E.tlymn MEMORANDUM pjtk1Yt (tht1r gtfi4(hfied (a) TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office 4, DATE: September 8, 1986 RE: Pitkin Center GMP Application ________ 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 MEMORANDUM (� 11) n „ i1 TO: City Attorney L5 U L/ Housing Director SP /71986 City Engineer Aspen Water Department an•IIPAspen 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. vyis Preo3eC? cw'- /se 5em•se/t /3v pm. AsnaM coa.soL„>nre/ S A r,tnt , e , ... Cannt /e,ci HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f. commercial GMP allotment.. The property - .s - 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 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. Tilts Pteascr GAS tot Su-fl Ay rfl AC•w.. Cofr-so utanten S AL., t*V' h,STA,c:i 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. T/iis t',1e4Ecr• CAS- PI& s ti-er› /'3V 7 1 11 9 AstrA- Cot.sao 5 4'0,,r4- 7 ,•- pp/ Si n.# cj-- 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. / LA_l6 0t /4c 4 /) /, -'r s 1 11036 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: CC /C -1 ZONE DISTR CT COMMERC L 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. 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. e> M E M O R A N D U M TO: JANET LYNN RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 RE: PITRIN 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 % of the employees generated being housed on site. (10.51 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. 2 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 O AC Date 8 r�9 Time Whi e Y u We • Out of -`)/ G one AREA CODE MBER EXTENSION / TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL V WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL —1 7M-Pr - Pt Message nzz G �� yM,v`r�✓ /J� .: �� ✓K Ups .�.4;; �.: Operator • CHALLENGER' 01761 , GCS[ [MEEIrTh $ q I1 we ft:A ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT - I 1 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 RsEpi TO: City Attorney Housing Director 7 086 / 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. 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. 78'S PRo3ecs cn•- as sea-er /3v Ina Asna... CA...so..,,.nrc 5A•-•TAr,o..- h, state 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, 14 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. 7n1s reoaacr CA'-• s3a sea. -s.› Ay rni Ageism co..so■,onrer> SA,_ r*Sw..- h/s Tra, 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. Thies /'R n3 ecr- CAI- re Seas - e,> /3 Y 77■9 A IPN- COA - S•ar bin et., 319'Nr 4.7,... 7,/ ST ,L./ c. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing. Thank you. . - AC 0 0 LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 1303) 925-8166 i September 1 6 , 1986 S E f 16 Alan Richman Director Pitkin County /City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Pitkin Center Joint Venture Project Dear Alan, 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, SRO* E A. -ET RtiN, A rrofessi.n•I Corprration AFL, A 1 A. Pet-,son BAP:kl cc: James Martin William Poss and Associates ASPEN PROPERTIES 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 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 n 13031925-8166 September 16, 1986 Alan Richman Director Pitkin County /City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Pitkin Center Joint Venture Project Dear Alan, 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 L 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 withlassociated 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 bljilding is condominium - ized. I I hope this letter answers any questions you may have. Yours very truly, BRO' E A. 'ETR'ON, A rrofesi.n.1 Coro.ration : /,..Y — : Pe - BAP:kl cc: James Martin William Poss and Associates . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1986 CITY OF ASPEN CC /C -1 ZONE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 30, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers, 130 S.- Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider three 1986 City of Aspen CC /C -1 Zone District Commercial GMP applications.. A brief overview of the applications is as follows: PITRIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP --The-applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venturer-is-requesting-a.„ __. 3,067 s.f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman.. The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s.f. of commercial space and two residential units (2,378 s.f..) which were removed in 1982. HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f. commercial GMP allotment.. The property is located at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage 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 PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: P+ +kin (a �Jtin11 lot APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: OA Pe2 Comm A16,1 REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: CofIM-eici) Gt f 2. Describe action /type of development being requested: G nir .Rn " 4 - S S , 444;+ kn - 7,03 o s �. , s , 4 1 � 77 rfr (1tit- I) r Y 1bcaus FAR 2:I • 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral A9ent Comments F AR gums, _ 5 Nat Li P d-7 trail I1nKr 6i* � r a e 1 n Q vi1 a rnJ st +� ie; it a _ tn� Id) i KArt s t a4- D(d)k4) Awe, ra�-o(. - _ 'fl -Iobt I( {g ink W vett . 7f „ �ef• r t il l t. 7 j tiC�7�tii flt iete. — 1 p IAN f at ) , n4i . . r +-/ 1 rr L1te Cr /bit �fi1Gn / _ t lK Kau,. 1'tt Grub„ 64, t, set wit PZ..„7„ k/— eJ,1 yoiv N P C - tewt, +(K� siLikki1 Jkiy tontt fill .hh te ts1Otbc,4t.W / tit 4 0 )511 11 1 , tit ;1,41 _ +he L, rod, 14 Ku . 2D110 t1i h); 144t A !ley 4. Review is: (P &Z Only) (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. //'' COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: p f r���( the/ to iF nrn �AUk y 60 tit UM epic?, 43 -10 o & G� 1 S FFAA bn s 4 ) p d K1tl 1 U its if /.010t Let Kcn 1'ritis ( td (ikefaP htetrlr1/,1r4, /Itikyt) ••, J M E M O R A N D U M • . • `!' : TEE HOUSING LuTEceNITT ) chJ:";m3 CITY Li? HSTEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLC:,APO FROM: ANN BOWN N, PROFFRTY MANAGER RATE: kROUST 23, 1986 RE: PITKIN CENTER CO!_.r tCIVL GET tLo Dees i_::e T7.i ('ant .`sot the rtquincu.Lents of the C]. i:y s •unicip&1 Code? BACNCROUND: The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067 e.f. commercial G14P allotment in order to construct a building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Dank, 520 E. E l -.an. „ .. ,. t is addressed in Section 2. -11.5 of the City of Asrsn IS'anicipal Code. This Corrercial Floor Area is to be a second phase addition to a proposed project, scheduled to Login cone... is ruction This Sortie 1` er. Irl addition, four deed restricted c:uploee studio aparl:cnts will Le constructed in Phase 2. Theis ;.e c 1c1 c'. oi.ts ote catflpt from GNP allocation Ly special review. Phase 1 consists of 7,133 s.f. of floor area which will replace the co: nercial and residential project removed from the site in 1982. This project was granted an exception from the GIP process to rebuild the commercial space and (2) residential units prior to demolition by council action dated 11- 23 -81. This cc.veloyment allocation was confirmed and excepted from full subdivision process by council action dated 12- -27 -82 end recorded with the County Clerk on 2-22-83. The applicant proposes the following emp1olce c;_::crated by the - project: Fr_nl0yRS Gn^ratel! ... Level 1 . (Ccsmerc.ial 1) 870 sf = .87 x 3.50 = 3.05 emp. • Level 2 (Restaurant) 870 sf = .87 x 5.25 = 4.56 cep. • Level 3 (Office) 870 sf = .87 x 3.90 = 3.39 cnp. ' Total 11.0 cramp. _ 1 Employees Housed • 4 studio ages x 1.25 Ccc. ca. = 5 -_,p. The above schedule demonstrates 45 % of the employees generated being housed on site. (11.0 divided by 5 = 45 %) he :.bc, e coaputtion is consistent with Scction 24,11.5 (3) of the City of Asfen Funici.hal Code and there fore staff recommends approval of the application with the following deed restriction for T.C;d to i.CITERA. E income employees: '";e 1i shall covenant with the City of Aspen that �:��� _.cants : Cue employee housing units shall be deed rc5tri ctrd in t O)=S of use and occupancy to the r.cntal guidelines established and indexed Ly 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 lcnz to cC,erase income ccployee units sLail be completed and f i1c-d with the City Council or its designee ;ree by tthe owner commenc- ing on the Cate of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These cov=enants 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 appropeelate legal action including injunction, statement 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 u: ad-hert in 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 Uousing Authority with respect to employee housing. - - - -- 2 No lease agrecment executed for occupancy of the employee - i e:.t:21 unit ..:doll 1'3:c -7 for a rontcl term of lc -s than six connecttiit :: ;. c;t hs0 ^ilea a lcc, e i S e: ocuj :cd with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Calf :too no Li:o a current file may be main— -..:d :1 c.'7 Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Cpairman of the F?ousing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Lousing Authority Cf flee after recordation. ;,y the 'card of :toff roco oondation. 3 No. 'Y7 ` f? CASLLUAD i,UM'J SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE: STAFF: ( 4-04) - (23-/ 2. APPLICANT: nl/r ,t % _Stit a0000 _ r 7af/i�; 3. REPRESENTATIVE: (27.(2/7/2, d 7 7 ,,Ir 4. PROJECT NAME: Pith, (Qi/Z Aysymy,),,1,7J 5. LOCATION: Fi.a`C ' C) Fa, , tr // pilr 7(/ (1 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 4 Step: GMP Subdivision 04. \J* 2 Step: ✓ Subdivision Exception ( /Of 6p // f 79 ( (,r 5'° GMP Exception ( Rezoning ( SPA 1 Step: Use Determination Conditional Use Q4-2_ 12-131 Special Review ( Cpun('\ HPC No. of Steps: Other: 7. REFERRALS /ALOCkt - (- Attorney Sanitation District ____School District \/ Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas _Housing _Parks __State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric Fire Chief _City Electric J Fire Marshal /Building Dept. Other 8. DISPOSITION -- P & Z v' Approved ✓ Denied Date (3cp_Cnber 1992_ .'amt° rondi4b ons a5 (nc)ncii's apprvuai il . i I / Counci l ✓ Approved ✓ Denied Date 12-/P-.7 I82 Council 8 ron{-edi a.e f roua4 erE 0 the request 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 i n 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 I from the Planning Office. This review is to ensure that each it. Gas — En lot is not left without a reasonable development right or if no Ho reasonable development right exists, that a covenant exists to / Dept. — 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 i 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 I/ Building _\/ Engineering Other . A'4EN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020 bas E. ?,71a -`�i, GU ' 6 RE Dear �G,:c'S�� kt . • This is to inform you that 'the Planning_ Office has completed its preliminary review of your 6 6i?7`Y 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 $ is due. A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it for review by the aksc 4 ( » on ,X 4 _,7v1 ' < -, ',.,?) . 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 memorrandum available to you. Please note that it ) (is notl your responsibility to post your property with fin' 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 a...ao f5ri4eo ) , who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, P.SPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, Planning 'dnd Development Director AR:jlr A PEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020 R \\ Qcs ■,05 E .r`...5\ RE: i .���.•. �fa_..,o�L✓� Dear ■•A� This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of your 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 $ is due. A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it for 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 S k'U"e - , 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 I to MEMO FROM ALAN RICHMAN, AICP Planning and Development Director "No Q •\\ Qasy • Ly ^ S l c�L c•- C A'h �� v �.9 c � • n a w9 cP • --e-0 t \Ivey S.� `2_ WW.Oa 9 YOti h �\ �.T- • �. W `-1 ` C A h c - L - 4 a . '.... \: � . •12_ A •\ ks " ' V tt .4 w0'.a d 0 top. Ito (\4, -„4 ^ L11-0n •••r. .o -. 'p "A.A\ `` A- .,.UPC ,LLIAM J. POSS & ASSO" 1TES jf44ELts OF 4W-OSRID44QL 605 E. Main St. ASPEN, CO 81611 DATE JOB NO. (303) 925.4755 August 1. 1986 ATTE NTION Mr. Alan Richman RE: TO Aspen /Pitco Planning Department Pitkin Center 130 S. Galena 1986 Commercial GMP Application _Aspen, CO 81A11 WE ARE SENDING YOU M Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ 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 g 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 File SIGNED: