HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Pitkin County Bank 534 E Hyman.A55-90 1
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 9 14 90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE:_ T qo a73l - If - 13 - 005 A55 -90
STAFF MEMBER: tST
PROJECT NAME: Pitkin County Bank & Trust 1990 Commercial GM V '
Project Address: 534 East Hyman Avenue
Legal Address: Lot 4 Pitkin Center Subdiv.,Lots R & S. Block 94 I
APPLICANT: Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd.
Applicant Address: 534 East Hyman Avenue. Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Vann Associates, Inc.
Representative Address /Phone: 230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $3250. NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 20
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: _XL__
P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: CP NO
2 j `ctZ ,c-t,,.
I CdlAPAA VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
` > 2 < ,,,
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO &I MO. V
VESTED RIGHTS: NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
RE RRALS :
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspecto
Envir. Hlth. X Roaring Fork Other - - . ni c( c)
_X__ Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center ,,. ,, «1
DATE REFERRED: ( 02(.01 ( 1 4 ) INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: O ' `z DATE ROUTED: CO , 2/. 95' INITIAL:Y
City Atty City Engineer _ Zoning _ Env. Health
_ Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
a
ORDINANCE N0.23
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PITRIN COUNTY BANK
EXPANSION AT 534 E. HYMAN (LOT 4, PITRIN CENTER SUBDIVISION)
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council awarded a 1990 Commercial
Growth Management allotment to the Pitkin County Bank for a 2,240
square foot expansion; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Committee granted Final
Development approval on April 10, 1991. This was the last review
required of this project; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the Pitkin County
Bank expansion was included in the application submitted to the
Planning Office by project representative Sunny Vann; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a period of three years from the date of final approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the Pitkin County
Bank Expansion. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
years from April 10, 1991. However, any failure to abide by any
of the terms and conditions attendant to the approvals shall result
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded
1
by the Land Use Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights.
Section 2:
The establishment of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are
general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to
land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited
to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In
this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the
applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
Section 3:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this
ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the ___
day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /D day of
1991.
)
_-
2
John ennett, Mayor
AT ST:
../ / ∎- _ Al le
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this o7c7 day of
1991.
l ip. 66 -`—"
John nnett, Mayor
ATTE -T:
Kathryn Koch, City Cle
I
jtkvj /Pitco.vest.ord
j
3
�L
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director /�A//
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner (�/"�
DATE: July 22, 1991
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #23, Pitkin County Bank
Expansion Vested Rights
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends Second Reading of
Ordinance #23, Series 1991.
BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1990 the Aspen City Council granted
a Growth Management allocation for 1990 Commercial square footage
to the Pitkin County Bank for a 2,240 square foot expansion to
their existing structure. Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -108 A. of the
Aspen Municipal Code, a GMQS allotment must be used within 3 years
of the date of allocation by City Council. In addition, the
applicant requests the development plan associated with this
approval be vested for a period of three years by adoption of a
vested rights ordinance. Pursuant to Section 6 -207, vesting of
property rights requires a Vested Rights Ordinance and two readings
before Council.
The Historic Preservation Committee granted Final Development Plan
approval on April 10, 1991. This approval is the last review
required for this project and establishes the date upon which the
vesting period commences.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City
Council approve the Pitkin County Bank Vested Rights and have
Second Reading of Ordinance #23.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Vested Development Rights for
the Pitkin County Bank Expansion and have Second Reading of
Ordinance #23, Series 1991.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment - Ordinance #23 for Second Reading
jtkvj /Pitco.vest.memo
KU.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner ���fffJJJ
DATE: June 10, 1991
RE: First Reading of Ordinance #023, Pitkin County Bank
Expansion Vested Rights
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends First Reading of
Ordinance #25 , Series 1991.
BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1990 the Aspen City Council granted
a Growth Management allocation for 1990 Commercial square footage
to the Pitkin County Bank for a 2,240 square foot expansion to
their existing structure. Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -108 A. of
the Aspen Municipal Code, a GMQS allotment must be used within 3
years of the date of allocation by City Council. In addition,
the applicant requests the development plan associated with this
approval be vested for a period of three years by adoption of a
vested rights ordinance. Pursuant to Section 6 -207, vesting of
property rights requires a Vested Rights Ordinance and two
readings before Council.
The Historic Preservation Committee granted Final Development
Plan approval on April 10, 1991. This approval is the last
review required for this project and establishes the date upon
which the vesting period commences.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City
Council approve the Pitkin County Bank Vested Rights and have
First Reading of Ordinance t.„1.3.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Vested Development Rights for
the Pitkin County Bank Expansion and have First Reading of
Ordinance #a0 , Series 1991.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment - Ordinance #43 for First Reading
jtkvj /Pitco.vest.memo
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: Bill Drueding L/44
DATE: January 2, 1991
SUBJECT: PITKIN COUNTY BANK -- GROSS FLOOR AREA
In Article 3, Definitions, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations,
Floor Area is defined as "means the sum of the gross horizontal
areas of each story of the building measured from the exterior
walls, or from the center line of the party walls, including the
floor area of accessory uses and of accessory buildings and
structures."
The basement of the Pitkin County Bank is considered a story
(even though exempt from FAR calculations), and thus included in
the calculation of gross floor area.
Section 5 -503 states in the beginning paragraph, "Within the
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C -1), and Service /Commercial/
Industrial (S /C /I) Zone Districts, all permitted and conditional
commercial business shall be restricted to the following maximum
gross floor area, excluding any basement, for storage (except
commercial storage) purposes or underground parking."
This section restricts maximum gross floor area and,
specifically, excludes basements for storage (except commercial
storage) purposes, further adding to my interpretation that the
basement story of the Pitkin County Bank being used as offices,
and not storage, is counted in gross floor area per Section 5-
503.
BD /cic
cc: Amy Margerum
Francis Krizmanich
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THROUGH: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
Any Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Revision to Resolution No.5 (Series of 1991) for the
Pitkin County Bank's Housing Mitigation Plan
DATE: February 18, 1991
Summary: The Planning Office recommends the approval of revised
Resolution No.5, which corrects a cash -in -lieu figure and two minor
'procedural considerations.
Background: On February 11, 1991 the Council approved Resolution
No.5 which accepted the Pitkin County Bank's housing mitigation
plan for it's 1990 GMQS Commercial Development allotment. Since
then, the applicant has requested that three changes be made in
the language of the resolution.
Proposal: The most important change involves the cash -in -lieu
figure which The Bank must pay. Originally the resolution stated
that a four bedroom unit would house 4 persons. The Housing Office
has since clarified that only 3.5 persons would be housed. This
raises the cash payment for the remaining balance from $24,500.00
to $42,000.00. The tenth "Whereas" statement and Condition No.2
have been corrected to this effect.
Secondly, the resolution has been revised to state that the cash -
in -lieu payment must be made prior to issuance of any building
permits for the Bank expansion. Originally, the payment was tied
to permits for either the housing unit or the Bank construction.
Since the housing impact is generated by the commercial use, it
seems appropriate to require the payment when the commercial
construction begins. Condition No.3 contains this revision.
The third clarification changes the party responsible for filing
the deed restrictions for the unit. Originally the resolution
stated that The Bank file the restrictions. Condition no.4 has
been changed to read that the Church, as owner of the unit, shall
file the appropriate restrictions.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends adoption of
Resolution No.5 (1991) as revised.
Proposed Motion: I move to reconsider and adopt Resolution No.5
(1991) as revised.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd,'City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: . Kim Johnson, Planner •
DATE:, February 6, 1991
RE: Pitkin County Bank and Trust 1990 GMQS Affordable
Housing Proposal and GMQS Exemption for Affordable
Housing, Resolution No. , 1991
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this housi .
proposal and adoption of Resolution No. , 1991. + ��} ,'r; 4
ailica Cad
COUNCIL GOALS: This proposal supports Council's goals of ensuring A, ;!
an adequate amount of affordable housing and development 'of /" "'
consistent and fair government process.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In December 1990, City Council did not
pass proposed Resolution No. 59 -90 in which the Pitkin County
Bank sought approval for cash -in -lieu payment for their entire
employee housing mitigation of 4.7 employees. Council directed
the applicant to explore all options of securing actual housing
units and return in February with another proposal.
At a January 24, 1991 workshop meeting, Council gave preliminary
support to this proposal. The outstanding question remained
whether or not to accept a partial cash -in -lieu payment.
/ BACKGROUND: Pitkin County Bank received a 1990 Growth Management
Allotment for a 2,240 square foot expansion to trie r existing
structure at 534 E. Hyman Ave. Based on this increase in net
i \ leasanie area, 4.:7-more-employees would be generated. The Bank
sought to mitigate this increase by a cash -in -lieu payment of
\_/ $164,500.00 which was not accepted by City Council in accordance
with Section 8 -109 J. of the Land Use Code.
PROPOSAL AND KEY ISSUES: The Bank and the Messiah Lutheran Church
(located at 1235 Mountain View Dr.) have gotten together with a
proposal which will benefit both parties. Please see the letter
from Sunny Vann, Attachment "A ". For some time, the Church has
felt the impacts of the housing crunch, especially regarding a
convenient home location for their pastor. Briefly, the Bank
will financially assist the Church in construction of a 3
(possibly 4) bedroom apartment as a second floor to the existing
church building. This will reduce the cost of the project to the
Church and will provide deed restricted housing to satisfy the
•
Bank's GMQS requirement.
The Church currently has a Conditional Use approval for the
church use. If this mitigation concept is approved by Council,
the Church must amend their Conditional Use for the on -site
housing through the Planning and Zoning Commission.. Last fall, .
architects for the Church had several discussions with the
Planning Office regarding this amendment process. The Bank has
now committed to process this amendment on behalf of the Church.
Depending on the outcome of the Commission's review /approval, the
unit might supply housing for three or four persons. The i
applicant seeks to pay cash -in -lieu for the remainder of the
employees at the low- income price category ($35,000 per
employee). If a three bedroom unit is approved, the cash figure
is $59,500.00. If a four bedroom unit is approved, the amount
4 , drops to $24,500.00.
In addition, Section 8 -104 C.1.c. provides Council GMQS Exemption
f for creation of deed restricted housing. This exemption language
is included in the proposed resolution as a house - keeping
j ' measure. Undertaken at this time, this action will preclude the
XD P Bank from having to return to Council for exemption after the
. o -.mission's Conditional Use Review.
9 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Pitkin County Bank's housing mitigation proposal with conditions,
I�` and adoption of Resolution No. , 1991.
r A ALTERNATIVES: The Council could direct the applicant to continue
exploring real estate opportunities to provide actual housing
i h units for their GMQS requirement.
Ulf PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , 1991 for
��y* the itkin County Bank employee housing mitigation proposal and
W f , GMQS P exemption for affordable housing.
/' CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
r
Attachment "A" - S unny Vann Proposal Letter 0JIt' . j a { Q, IV U.,) n
Resolution No. , 1991 1% /
171/ 1 ) 1(p ,, i ,,
4 , . ( ;f t ,
( //( ij �� 1 . 4p �a « � ' , /1t � > , �- jam
I i „o ,,..o 7./ r Pc, ii, f , (
• RESOLUTION NO. _
(Series of 1991)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.CODNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
.APPROVING HOUSING MITIGATION IN THE FORM OF DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR
NEW HOUSING AND A CASH -IN -LIEU PAYMENT FOR THE 1990
GMP APPLICATION FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY BANK ADDITION AT 534 E.
HYMAN (LOT 4, PITSLH CENTER SUBDIVISION) AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR
.
THE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990, the City Council of the City
of Aspen awarded commercial /office development allotments for
1990 pursuant to Resolution No. 58 (Series 1990) under the growth
management quota system as set forth in Article 8 of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the development project known as Pitkin County Bank
• Addition was awarded 1990 commercial /office development .
•
allotments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council initially rejected cash -in -lieu as
the affordable housing mitigation proposal as offered by the
Pitkin County Bank and provided direction as to the preferred
methods of mitigation as authorized under Section 8- 109(3) of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the development for the Pitkin County Bank Addition
must mitigate for 4.7 employees; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Bank has now requested that the
City Council. approve an affordable housing mitigation method by
which it shall deed restrict one (1) three- bedroom unit of
approximately 1,400 square feet to be owned by and constructed at
the Messiah Lutheran Church, 1235 Mountain View Drive (Parcel
"A ", Block II, West Meadows Subdivision); and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Bank will work with the Housing
Authority to determine the income category to which the unit will
be deed restricted, anticipating that the deed restriction will
reflect the Church's salary level for the eligibility of its
current and future employees; and
WHEREAS, the proposed deed restricted unit will provide
housing for three (3) employees; and
• WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Bank will mitigate for the
remaining 1.7 employees by a cash -in -lieu payment of $59,500.00,
or $35,000.00 per employee at the low income category; and
WHEREAS, the Bank commits to obtaining all appropriate
municipal approvals, including Conditional Use approval for
construction of the unit on the Church's property; and
WHEREAS, during the Conditional Use process, the Bank will
seek to increase the unit to four (4) bedrooms, thus reducing the
cash -in -lieu obligation to $24,500.00.
WHEREAS, the City Council shall grant exemption from Growth
Management for deed restricted housing which complies with the
housing guidelines in accordance with Section 8 -104 C. of the
•
Aspen Land Use Code.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the Pitkin County
Bank's housing mitigation proposal to be fair and equitable and
consistent with the mitigation requirements contained in Section
8 -109 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: In accordance with Section 8- 109(J) of the Land Use
Code, City Council does hereby accept the employee housing
mitigation plan for 4.7 employees as required by the Pitkin
County Bank Addition to be a deed restricted unit to be
constructed at the Messiah Lutheran Church, with cash -in -lieu.
payment for the remainder of the employees at the low- income
category amount, with the following conditions:
1) The Pitkin County Bank must obtain Conditional Use Approval
from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for the addition of
the employee housing unit at the Messiah Lutheran Church.
2) If a three (3) bedroom deed restricted unit is approved, the
cash -in -lieu payment for the remaining 1.7 employees is
$59,500.00 (low income category). If a four (4) bedroom unit is
approved, the payment shall be $24,500.00.
3) Payment must be made to the City of Aspen at the Finance
Director's Office prior to the issuance of any building permits
for the housing unit or the Bank addition. Receipt of payment
shall be forwarded to the Housing Authority and the Planning
Office.
4) The Bank shall execute a deed restriction in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Aspen /Pitkin County
Housing Authority. Proof of recordation of the restriction with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder shall be forwarded to the
Housing Authority and the Planning Office prior to issuance of
any building permits for the housing unit and Bank addition.
Section 2: The acceptance of this deed restricted unit by the
City Council constitutes a Growth Management Exemption for
affordable housing in accordance with Section 8 -104 C. of the
Aspen Land Use Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council , that the mitigation
approval as herein awarded shall expire pursuant to Sectionr8 -108
of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code on the day after the third'
anniversary of the last date of approval of a site specific
development plan, unless a building permit is obtained and the
project is developed,. or unless an exception from or extension of
the approval is obtained.
Dated: , 1990.
•
William L. Stirling, Mayor
•
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado at a meeting held , 1990.
•
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
•
pitco.cc.reso.2
Attachment "A"
JAN 3 i ;_21
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC,
Planning Consultants
•
January. 30, 1991 •
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company /1990 Commercial GMQS
Application /Affordable Housing Proposal
Dear Kim:
The Pitkin County Bank originally proposed to meet its
affordable housing requirement of 4.7 employees via a cash-
in -lieu payment of $164,500.00, or $35,000.00 per employee.
The proposed payment was based on . the low income category
(i.e., Category #1), as this category is normally required if
such payments are to be accepted by the City Council.
As you know, the Council tabled Resolution No. 59 -90, which
would have approved the Bank's cash -in -lieu payment, and
directed the Applicant to pursue a more acceptable affordable
housing solution. In response to the Council's directive,
the Bank would like to propose the following alternative to
the original cash -in -lieu payment.
1. The Messiah Lutheran Church of Aspen, with assistance
from the Pitkin County Bank, will construct an approxi-
mately fourteen hundred (1,400) square foot, three (3)
bedroom unit on the Church's property.
2. The deed restricted unit will be owned by the Church and
will be used to house the Church's minister and family.
The Church may also rent or sell the unit to other
qualified employees subject to applicable Housing
Authority guidelines.
3. The income category to which the unit will be deed
restricted will be determined in cooperation with the
Church and Housing Authority. It is anticipated,
however, that the deed restriction will reflect the
Church's salary budget to insure the eligibility of
current and future employees.
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 30, 1991
Page 2
4. The Bank will obtain, at its sole expense, conditional
use approval for construction of the unit on the
Church's property. :Obviously, the receipt of all
required land use approvals would be a condition of the
Bank's affordable housing approval.
5. The projected construction cost of the unit is approxi-
mately $120,000.00. The maximum cost of the unit to the
Church, however, will be $75,000.00. The Bank will pay
the difference between the $75,000.00 and the unit's
actual construction cost.
6. The Bank will provide the Church with a ten (10) year
mortgage, at an interest rate not to exceed nine (9)
percent, to cover the Church's share of the construction
cost. The mortgage debt will be serviced by the
Church's current $1,000.00 per month subsidy of the
minister's housing expense. Repayment of the loan will
not commence until a certificate of occupancy has been
issued for the unit.
7. The three (3) bedroom unit will mitigate three (3) of
the Bank's required 4.7 employees. The remaining 1.7
employees will be mitigated via a cash -in -lieu payment
of $59,500.00, or $35,000.00 per employee. •
8. To the extent feasible, the Bank will attempt to
increase the size of the unit to accommodate a fourth
bedroom. If successful, the Bank's cash -in -lieu payment .
would decrease to $24,500.00. The ability to obtain
approval for an additional bedroom, however, is uncer-
tain.
9. The Bank will commit to the construction of the unit in
1991, regardless of whether the Bank proceeds with its
approved expansion at this time.
10. The issuance of a building permit for the Bank's
expansion will be conditioned upon commencement of the •
' units construction, its deed restriction pursuant to
Housing Authority guidelines, and the conveyance of the
remaining cash -in -lieu payment.
• The above scenario represents an attractive proposal for both
the Church and the Bank. From the Church's perspective, it
will own a deed restricted affordable housing unit which can
be utilized to house the Church's minister and family. The
Church's cost will be limited to. $75,000.00, which is
substantially below both the unit's estimated construction
•
•
Ms. Kim Johnson
January 30, 1991
Page 3
• cost and the cost of purchasing a similarly deed restricted
unit. The housing subsidy which the Church presently
provides its minister-is sufficient to service the mortgage
on the unit. The mortgage is below market rates and is
limited to ten years.
From the Bank's perspective, the proposed alternative will
reduce the amount of its cash -in -lieu payment for which there
would be no recapture. In addition, this alternative avoids
the prohibitive cost of purchasing raw land or an existing
free market unit for development or conversion to affordable
housing.-
I would appreciate it if you would confirm that the Bank's
alternative affordable housing .proposal has been scheduled
for consideration at the City Council's February 11 meeting.
As we discussed, it would be helpful if you could prepare a
vested rights ordinance for the Bank's GMQS allocation for
Council approval upon first reading at the same meeting.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
• VANN SOCIATES, INC. •
•
Sunny Va , AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Charles Israel
JAN 23
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
January 22, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company /1990 Commercial GMQS
Application
Dear Jed:
Pursuant to Section 8- 108.A. of the Land Use Regulations, an
application which has been awarded a GMQS allotment is
considered to have complied with the approval requirements of
a site specific development plan. The effective date of the
approved site development plan is the date of the last
development approval received. The GMQS allocation and
related development approvals expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date of the last approval received
unless a building permit is obtained or the approval is
extended.
With respect to the Pitkin County Bank GMQS application, the
last approval to be received (i.e., the effective date of the
approved site development plan) will be the City Council's
approval of a resolution accepting the applicant's affordable
housing impact mitigation. As you know, the City Council
tabled Resolution No. 59, Series of 1990, which would have
approved a cash -in -lieu payment for the mitigation of the
Bank's affordable housing requirement. As no mitigation
alternative has to date been approved, the expiration date of
the GMQS allocation remains unknown.
Section 8- 108.A. of the Regulations establishes a period in
which a GMQS allotment must be utilized or otherwise lost.
As I understand it, the primary purpose of the provision is
to prevent the accumulation of allotments which, if subse-
quently utilized, could have adverse growth impacts on the
community. The provision does not, I believe, vest the
applicant's property rights as provided for in Section 6 -207,
as it does not require compliance with regulatory procedures.
230 Easl Hopkins Avenue • Aspen Colorado 81611 • 303/925 -6%8
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
January 22, 1991
Page 2
Section 6- 207.C. requires that, in those matters where the
City Council has final approval, such approval shall be by
ordinance. The City Charter requires that two readings of
the ordinance occur and that a public hearing be held. As
the City Council is responsible for the allocation of GMQS
allotments, and the approvals of the method by which afford-
able housing impacts are mitigated, the Council would appear
to have final authority with respect to the GMQS process.
As Section 8 -108 of the Regulations considers a GMQS alloca-
tion and related approvals to be a site specific development
plan, it should be possible to vest the Bank's allotment as
provided for in Section 6 -207. The resulting vested rights
status would protect the applicant from changes in the land
use regulations as provided for in Section 6- 207.E., and
would expand upon the protection against expiration of the
GMQS allotment provided for in Section 8- 108.A.
Please note that I requested vested property rights status
for the applicant's GMQS allocation and related development
approvals in my initial application. As the actions taken to
date by the Council do not appear to have granted such
status, I would appreciate it if you would review the
applicable regulations and provide me with you comments. If
it is your position that Section 8 -108 effectively grants
vested property rights status, then Council approval by
resolution of the applicant's revised affordable housing
mitigation should complete the process. If compliance with
the provisions of Section 6 -207 is in fact required, then the
Council must approve by ordinance the applicant's site
specific development plan and related approvals.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
::::hta , AICP
cc: Kim Johnson
Charles Israel
Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
(303) 920 -5090
Sunny Vann
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO. 81611 January 9, 1991
RE: Pitkin County Bank - Interpretation of Gross Floor Area
Dear Sunny,
Attached is a memorandum from Zoning Official Bill Drueding
summarizing Land Use Code information on building size,
specifically gross floor area. He explains that the basement
level proposed to be used for new office space shall be counted
as gross floor area, thus pushing the entire structure over the
12,000 square foot limit for financial institutions within the CC
zone. As I mentioned on the phone, Planning staff concurs with
Bill's interpretation. However, it was generally felt that
alternatives should be available for consideration on case by
case bases.
A proposal for amendment of the Land Use Code would be the
appropriate avenue to seek input and endorsement from the
Planning Commission and City Council. Staff would like to get
together with you to discuss your ideas on methods of review,
ultimate sizes, •area calculation, etc. for special cases such as
the Pitkin County Bank expansion. I would be glad to organize
a meeting with you, Amy, Bill, Leslie, myself, and perhaps Jed
Caswall to discuss options. Please give me a call and I will
work with Amy and Jed to find a close in date and time, as they
are typically more difficult to schedule. If I can help in any
other ways, please let me know.
Sinerely,
4 '—
Kim Johnson
Planner
Attachment
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Kim Johnson n
FROM: Bill Drueding(J/r v
DATE: January 2, 1991
SUBJECT: PITKIN COUNTY BANK -- GROSS FLOOR AREA
In Article 3, Definitions, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations,
Floor Area is defined as "means the sum of the gross horizontal
areas of each story of the building measured from the exterior
walls, or from the center line of the party walls, including the
floor area of accessory uses and of accessory buildings and
structures."
The basement of the Pitkin County Bank is considered a story
(even though exempt from FAR calculations), and thus included in
the calculation of gross floor area.
Section 5 -503 states in the beginning paragraph, "Within the
Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C -1), and Service /Commercial/
Industrial (S /C /I) Zone Districts, all permitted and conditional
Commercial business shall be restricted to the following maximum
gross floor area, excluding any basement, for storage (except
commercial storage) purposes or underground parking."
This section restricts maximum gross floor area and,
specifically, excludes basements for storage (except commercial
storage) purposes, further adding to my interpretation that the
basement story of the Pitkin County Bank being used as offices,
and not storage, is counted in gross floor area per Section 5-
503.
BD /cic
cc: Amy Margerum
Francis Krizmanich
r..
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTIONS OF REQUIRED
PARKING AND TRASH /UTILITY SERVICE AREA FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY
BANK EXPANSION, 534 E. HYMAN (LOT 4 PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION)
Resolution No. 90-90
WHEREAS, Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd. represented by Sunny Vann
submitted an application pursuant to Growth Management
competition for Special Review in order to expand their existing
structure by 2,240 square feet of second level floor area; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Bank is located in the CC
Commercial Core zone district; and
WHEREAS, Section 7 -404 B. of the Aspen Land Use Code
(revision date August 1989) allows the Planning Commission to
grant reduction of required off - street parking in the CC zone
with a cash -in -lieu payment of $15,000.00 for each space reduced;
and
WHEREAS, Section 7 -404 C. of the Aspen Land Use Code allows
the Commission to grant reduction of required trash /utility
service area; and
WHEREAS, the parking reduction requested by the applicant is
for four (4) spaces, based on a generation rate of 2 spaces per
) 1,000 square feet (4.48 rounded down to 4); and
WHEREAS, at the time of application there was no on -site
parking and the trash /utility service area was already
dimensionally non - conforming by one foot in depth; and
WHEREAS, taking into consideration that no space is
available on -site to accommodate any parking spaces or increased
trash /utility service area; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the referral comments submitted by
the Engineering Department, the Fire Marshal, and the Sanitation
District, the Planning Office recommended to the Commission
approval of the Special Reviews with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission heard presentations by the Planning
Office and the applicant at their regular meeting of November 6;
and
WHEREAS, by a vote of 5 -0 the Commission approved with
conditions the Special Reviews for reduction of four (4) required
on -site parking spaces and reduction of trash /utility service
area to an area of 9 ft. by 21 ft.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: that it
does hereby grant approval for Special Reviews for reduction of
four on -site parking spaces and trash /utility service area (at
9'x21') for the Pitkin County Bank Expansion of 2,240 square feet
with the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
1. The applicant shall make Payment -in -Lieu for 4.0 parking
spaces ($60,000.00) to the Building Department for transfer to
the City Finance Department.
2. In the event that a transformer easement and /or a pedestal
easement is required by. Engineering, it shall be submitted and
approved by the Engineering Department and then filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk's Office.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on
November 6, 1990.
Welton Ander o�hairman
1 t
Jan C ,,rney, Deputy/ ity Clerk
jtkvj /pitco.reso
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager \' /
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Directory
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner VV
RE: 1990 Commercial GMP Allocations Resolution #
DATE: December 17, 1990
SUMMARY: The available 1990 GMP quota for commercial development
is 8,000 net leasable square feet. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends the allocation of 2,240 net leasable square
feet to the Pitkin County Bank project and 5,760 net leasable
square feet for the 409 East Hopkins project.
Two applications were submitted for review for the 1990
Commercial GMP allocation:
PROJECT REOUEST
Pitkin County Bank Addition 2,240 net leasable
409 East Hopkins Redevelopment 6,823 net leasable
Pursuant to Section 8 -106 (J), Council shall by resolution
allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who
. shall have met the minimum threshold score under the Growth
Management. System.
Although both projects achieved minimum threshold in all review
categories, Pitkin County Bank received the highest score with
31.48 points. 409 East Hopkins received a score 28.73 points.
The 1990 Commercial quota is 8.000 square feet. 1,063 square feet
short of meeting the 1990 development needs of both projects.
409 East Hopkins is requesting an Excess Development Allotment of
1,063 net leasable square feet. Review of the excess allotment
request is presented in a separate memo and resolution.
Resolution , from the Planning Commission, is attached
forwarding the scores to Council. Resolution is also attached
for your review allocating the 1990 Commercial GMP Quota.
COUNCIL GOALS: The application supports Council's goals to
encourage growth that will reinforce our sense of community, to
preserve the traditional character of the town, and to develop a
consistent and fair government so that citizens know what to
expect.
BACKGROUND: The annual quota for the commercial zone is 8,000
square feet of net leasable space.
The Planning and Zoning Commission scored the applications at a
public hearing November 6, 1990. Both applications exceeded the
minimum threshold. The Commission also reviewed and approved by
special review reductions in parking with a cash -in -lieu payment
and trash /utility service area for Pitkin County Bank. Special
review reductions in the trash /utility service area, the open
space, and the required off - street parking were reviewed and
approved for 409 East Hopkins.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Pitkin County Bank- The applicants propose
to construct a 2,240 square foot addition for business purposes.
409 East Hopkins - The applicants have applied for 6,823 square
feet of the 1990 quota for the construction of a commercial
building. The applicants propose to redevelop the entire site
replacing 2,375 square feet (pursuant to GMQS Exemption) of the
existing Alpine Bank building for a total net leasable of 9,198
square feet.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move for adoption of Resolution #_,
allocating 2,240 net leasable square feet of the 1990 Commercial
GMP to the Pitkin County Bank proposal and 5,760 net leasable
square feet to 409 East Hopkins.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Resolution #
B. Resolution #
1990.comm.allocation
2
ATTAHCMENT A
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO THE
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A 1990 COMMERCIAL GMP ALLOCATION OF
2,240 NET LEASABLE SQUARE FEET TO THE PITKIN COUNTY BANK
BUILDING, 534 EAST HYMAN, LOT 4 BLOCK 94 AND 5,760 NET LEASABLE
SQUARE FEET TO 409 EAST HOPKINS, NORTH 80 FEET OF LOTS D, E, AND
ALL OF LOT F BLOCK 88
Resolution No. 90-
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use
Code September 15 of each year is established as the deadline
for submission of applications for Commercial development
allotments within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the annual quota for the Commercial zone is 8,000
net leasable square feet; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on
November 6, 1990 to consider the Growth Management Quota System
competition for commercial development, at which time the
Commission did evaluate and score two applications that were
received: the Pitkin County Bank Building and 409 East Hopkins;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that both projects
successfully met the minimum threshold of the individual and
combined categories for a score of 31.48 points for Pitkin County
Bank and 28.73 for 409 East Hopkins; and
WHEREAS, the application for Pitkin County Bank seeks 2,240
net leasable square feet and 409 East Hopkins seeks 6,823 net
leasable square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission moved to accept
the scoring, subject to an audit, and forward through this
� n
Resolution the scores to the Aspen City Council; and
WHEREAS, Pitkin County Bank receiving the highest score
shall be allocated 2,240 net leasable square feet and 409 East
Hopkins shall receive the remaining 5,760 square feet of the 1990
Commercial GMP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO that it does recommend to the Aspen
City Council a 1990 Commercial Growth Management allocation of
2,240 net leasable square feet to the Pitkin County Bank and
5,760 net leasable square feet to 409 East Hopkins with the
following conditions:
Pitkin County Bank
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
1. Assessment of the capacity and function of the drywell system
shall be made and reviewed by the City Engineering Department
prior to issuance of any building permits. Any required
improvements shall be depicted on plans submitted for building
permit and be complete prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
2. Landscape renovation work to the corner park, west side of
the building, and the front sidewalk area shall be included in
the building permit application and must match the plan which was
presented in the GMQS submission.
3. As proposed in the application, the fire hydrant located in
front of the Bank shall be replaced by the applicant with an
updated model approved by the Fire Marshal's office. The
building addition shall be equipped with fire suppression
sprinklers.
4. Pending the outcome of discussions regarding "gross floor
area ", the Bank's use of the structure may be limited to 12,000
gross square feet.
5. The applicant shall mitigate for 4.7 low income employees by
supplying the appropriate deed restricted units approved by the
Aspen /Pitkin Housing Authority or by payment of $164,500.00 cash-
in-lieu, acceptance of which shall be approved by City Council.
409 East Hopkins
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall review with the Building and Environmental Health
Departments, energy efficiency systems that will improve energy
conservation.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the
applicant shall provide benches and bike racks, and shall repave
the full width of the alley along the property line adjacent to
Lot F as represented in the GMQS application.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall comply with the representations made within the GMQS
application including:
a. $5,000 payable to the Finance Department to credit the
Water Department for the installation of the main
extension and hydrant;
b. $3,000 payable to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District for sewer system upgrades;
c. $5,000 payable to the Finance Department to credit the
Engineering Department toward storm drainage
improvements;
4. The applicant shall mitigate 60% of the employees generated
by paying an in -lieu employee mitigation fee or by supplying the
n
appropriate deed restricted units approved by the Aspen /Pitkin
Housing Authority acceptance of which shall be approved by City
Council.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on
November 6, 1990.
Welton Anderson, Chairman
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
pz.reso.409allot
•
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1990)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
GRANTING COMMERCIAL /OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS FOR 1990 UNDER
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code sets
forth a growth management quota system governing new development
within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8- 103(A)(3)(a) of Chapter 24 of
the Municipal Code, eight thousand (8,000) square feet of net
leasable space is available for development allotment within the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C1) zone districts of the
City on an annual basis; and
WHEREAS, development applications were received and reviewed
by the Planning Director for 1990 development allotments in the
commercial zone districts and forwarded to the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate and
score the development allotment applications at a duly noticed
public hearing on November 6, 1990, as required by Section 8-
106(D) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined that
the Pitkin County Bank project and the 409 East Hopkins project
successfully met the minimum threshold for individual and com-
bined score categories and scored the Pitkin County Bank project
0
3
at 31.48 points and the 409 East Hopkins project at 28.73
points; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance
with Section 8- 106(H), ranked the Pitkin County Bank project
ahead of the 409 East Hopkins project and forwarded its recommen-
dations and scoring to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended
that the Pitkin County Bank project be allocated a development
allotment of 2,240 square feet with the 409 East Hopkins project
receiving an allotment of 5,760 square feet, thus, exhausting the
available 1990 commercial development allotment of 8,000 square
feet; and
WHEREAS, no challenges to the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion's scoring and /or rankings have been submitted to the City
Council as allowed under Section 8- 106(1) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
In accordance with Section 8- 106(J) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen does hereby
grant to the Pitkin County Bank project a development allotment
of 2,240 square feet of net leasable space from the 1990 commer-
cial growth management quota.
2
Section 2
In accordance with Section 8- 106(J) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen does hereby
grant to the 409 East Hopkins project a development allotment of
5,760 square feet of net leasable space from the 1990 commercial
growth management quota.
Section 3
In accordance with Section 8 -108 of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the development allotments as awarded herein
shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date
of approval of a site specific development plan for the projects
as identified herein, unless a building permit is obtained and
the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or exten-
sion to the approval is obtained.
Dated: , 1990.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held , 1990.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager '
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director �V
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: December 10, 1990
RE: Pitkin County Bank 1990 Commercial GMP, Request for a
Cash -in -Lieu Payment for Employee Housing Mitigation,
Resolution # .
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the 0 allocation of 2,240 net leaseable square feet from the 1
5 99 4 0
n Commercial Growth Management Quota to the Pitkin County Bank
91 64 Addition. B k's proposal includes mitigation for an'pinyee
Let housing via a cash -in- ent. "' T£ is Council's decision to
accept the ai payment, upon approval of the GMP allotment.
� ,a COUNCIL GOALS :. This project supports those ( goals reflecting
I encouragement of growth that reinforces our sense of Community,
1cr1 preservation of the traditional town character, and reliance on
consistent and fair government process.
C . BACKGROUND: The annual quota for the 1990 Commercial category is
8,000 net leaseable square feet. On November 6, the Planning
Commission scored this project at 31.48 points, which led the
r t other submission, the 409 E. Hopkins Building. Special Reviews
for reductions in parking and trash service area were approved
for the Bank by the P &Z.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 8 -109 J. of the Aspen Land Use
Code, Council may grant a project the option of mitigating for
employee housing with cash. The Council shall consider the
following factors:
1. Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop
affordable housing with monies received from payment of
affordable housing dedication fees.
Response: The June 1990 Affordable Housing Production Plan
projects a housing demand for deed restricted units ( combining
both public and private responsibility) of 800 units for 1990-
1995.
2. Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable
housing.
"
Response: This site has not been identified for housing
according to the Production Plan. However, scattered in -town
sites are the highest priority in the Housing Production Plan.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well . suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to development or historic
preservation concerns.
Response: This site is located adjacent to the Commercial Core,
which provides ideal access to shopping, transit, and
recreational opportunities.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee
housing produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The payment proposed will augment the Housing
Authority's efforts to purchase and develop several in -town sites
for deed restricted housing.
5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs.
Response: The Bank is not seeking any floor area bonus, which
requires provision of some housing on -site. No specific service
needs are identified with the Bank use. Conversely, the
applicant states that there is a security problem with
residential use of the bank building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of cash -in -lieu
mitigation for the Bank's affordable housing requirement. The
design of the addition was done in consideration of HPC's desire
to keep the height of the building consistent with the
surrounding structures, precluding an additional partial floor.
Due to the Bank's commercial need for the limited available floor
area and the constraints of an already developed site, it seems
reasonable to accept a cash payment for housing.
ALTERNATIVES: The applicant could build or purchase and deed
restrict the appropriate number of units to supply the housing
requirement. The applicant stated in the submission that they
would continue to explore these options.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution # , accepting
cash -in -lieu payment of $164,500.00 for 4.7 full time low income
employees, payable prior` to issuance of any building permi£s:
2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
•
Attachments:
Resolution # , accepting cash -in -lieu
Memo to Planning Commission dated 10.26.90
P &Z Resolution #90 for Special Review granting reductions in
parking and trash service area
•
jtkvj /pitco.ccmemo.hsg
•
3
sueN 'RN
RESOLUTION NO.
(Series of 1990)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN ACCEPTING A
CASH -IN -LIEU PAYMENT FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION FOR THE 1990
GMP APPLICATION FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY BANK ADDITION AT 534 E.
HYMAN (LOT 4, PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, September 15 of each year is established as the deadline
for submission of applications for commercial development
allotments within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on
November 6, 1990 to consider the growth management quota system
competition for commercial development, at which time the
Commission did evaluate and score two applications; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the Pitkin County Bank
successfully met the minimum threshold for individual and
combined categories for a total score of 31.48 points; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval by special
review, with conditions, for a reduction of parking and
trash /utility service area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to mitigate employee
housing with cash -in -lieu; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8- 109(J) of the Land Use Code,
City Council shall approve the method of housing mitigation and
having considered the request does approve the cash -in -lieu
payment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that in accordance with Section 8-109(J)
hereby accept a cash -in-
Use Code, City Council does time
of the Land
mitigation for 4.7 full
employee housing County Bank
lieu payment for b the Pitkin
employees as require of any
low income prior to the issuance
with the condition that P shall
in the amount of $164,500.00,
addition
building permits the payme
Director t h e mitigation
be made to the Finance Council that
BE IT FURT�R RESOLVED by the
pursuant to Section s -108
herein awarded shall expire P
approval r Code on the day after the third
h Co
24 of the Municipal site specific
of Chapter the approval of a of aof date and the
annivers
permit is obtained
development plan, unless a building P or extension of
project is developed,
or unless an exception from
the approval is obtained. 1990.
Dated: ,
1„ Stirling, Mayor
William do
and acting City Clerk .
Koch, duly appointed of that
Kathryn S a true and accurate copy
I ' is
that the foregoi City of Aspen,
Colorado at a meeting held
certify of th
uncil
1990.
resolutio
adopted by the City Co
Kathryn S.
Koch, City Clerk
c c.reso.pi tco.hsg
2
TO: M EMORANDUM
•
Planning and Zoning C ommission ohns
FROM: Kim J `
Johnson, Planner
' Pitkin
County Bank 1990 Co
for Reduction Bank
Parkin mmercial
DATE: October g and Tra h /Utlity Review
-- 26, 1990 nice Are
SUMMARY: o Thi ion plica seeks a 1990 mm __________________ _
bank building. of 2 ,240 se f.s Co
g• The applicant of net leasableal to the GMP allocating
apprvalarea a Special Reviewsalforre reduction and ofa tras h/utilit y ex
service
f recommends
Staff suggests In -lieu payment for parking reductio
requests for that the Commission ton.
Special Reviews, then b g n the scoring p cess project's
APPLICANT: coring process.
Aspen Bank Shares
Hunter 534 E. Hyman Ltd., represented by Sunny Vann
s.f, O Lot 4 E H Ave. (N.W.
lot area.)
Center Subdivisoner p o at
(approximates at S.
ZONING: CC - Commercial Core Y 6 ,020
A PPLICANTS
allotment for RE The a
added a pprovals foe ,240 s.f•baof. net liceas able seeks re Growth Bement
to existing leas Mana
added the building. square
Review are sought g Additionally, footage to be
Council In -lieu for parking. for tras h/utility
11 vested development The Y area r eduction applicant
pment rights applicant will lon and
for a period of three from City
C "A "..
main eri n included
All referral REFERRAL Years.
agenAttachmency comments are as
e Chuck
regarding parkin Roth reviewed
the drainage /d g in the alley and the proposal
theements. Chuck need for ell system, and the the site, ptw operability rof
are appropriate) feels that trash a
Y provided, utility area two utility
Fire M arshall: re quirements
of the comments Wayne V andemark a
requires application, and also Braes with
an a utomatic t t atemen st n on
or manual fire alarm that 2- story page 33
H� This � system. �' office
proposal has received conceptual approval with
1
comments.
Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states that adequate line
and treatment capacity is available to service this expansion.
Payment of incremental tap fees will be required. Future
improvements to the Galena St. line will require a prorated
system impact charge.
Housing Authority: Yvonne Blocker forwarded comments.
The applicant will mitigate for 4.7 full time employees based on
a generation factor of 3.5 employees per 1,000 s.f. of net
leasable area (7.84 employees.) The minimum threshold is 60% of
generation, or 4.7 employees in the low income category. The
recommended dollar amount to be paid prior to issuance of any
building permits is therefore $164,500.00.
A statement in the application indicates that the area of
expansion will be used only for current staff levels. However,
the Housing Staff requests clarification of another of the
applicant's statements that 1,430 s.f. might be tenant rental.
PROPOSAL: This application seeks to add a second floor to the
existing bank building. Interior remodeling of the first floor
is also included in the project. A presentation is made that the
building will be solely used by Pitkin Co. Bank and Trust, making
no provisions for tenant lease space. But as mentioned above,
the application also stated that an interpretation will be
requested regarding the limit of 12,000 s.f. of "gross floor
area."
STAFF COMMENTS:
site size: 6,020 s.f. allowable FAR: 1.5:1 (9,030 s.f.)
proposed Floor Area: 8,850 s.f.
Representative Sunny Vann has submitted to Amy Margerum a request
for interpretation of the language in code Section 5 -503. In
this section, financial institutions are limited to 12,000 s.f.
of "gross floor area." This term is not defined in the code, but
other terms such as "floor area ratio" and "allowable floor area"
are defined or used elsewhere in the text. Zoning Officer Bill
Drueding maintains that this references the building's gross
square footage as opposed to floor area of a particular use.
The proposed addition will bring the gross square footage of the
structure up to 13,430 s.f. This is 1,430 over the 12,000 s.f.
limitation for financial institutions if Mr. Drueding's
interpretation is upheld by the Planning Director. If this is
so, the bank would not be able to occupy the entire structure.
It would have to lease out the overage to another tenant. While
this issue is important to the Bank's operation plan, it has no
specific bearing to the competition or mitigation required of
this project. Mitigation and impact calculations are based on
2
f
net leasable square footage. The impacts of the entire structure •
have be determined and mitigated as discussed in this memo.
It should be mentioned here that staff feels that some on -site
housing would be helpful to this project. This location is
suitable for a mixed use structure. The Bank should explore this
idea, especially depending on the outcome of the Planning
Director's interpretation of "gross floor area."
Review Process: Staff recommends that prior to scoring this
project, the Commission review the entire proposal including the
Special Reviews for parking reduction and reduction of
trash /utility area. Please see staff's recommended scoring
attached under a separate memo.
Special Reviews:
Parking Reduction / Cash -in -lieu Section 7 -404 B. allows the
Commission to grant a reduction of required off- street parking.
In the CC zone, a cash -in -lieu payment of $15,000 per parking
space, at the option of the Commission, must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Commission shall take into
consideration the practical ability to place parking on -site,
whether parking needs of the development have been adequately met
on -site, and whether the City has [plans for] a parking facility
which meet the needs of the community.
Response: No parking is provided on -site for the original part of
the building or the proposed expansion. The applicant . is
requesting the Commission approve a payment in -lieu for 4 spaces
based on added net leasable area of 2,240 s.f. The requirement
of 2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. calculates to 4.48 spaces. The code
specifies that fractional spaces below 1/2 space be disregarded.
The applicant proposes payment of $60,000.00 for four spaces.
Special Review: Trash and Utility Service Area Reduction
In order to qualify for reduction in the service area, the
applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following
criteria:
1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and
its total square footage, the utility /trash service area proposed
to be provided will be adequate."
The applicant proposes to keep the 9' x 21' configuration of
the existing trash /utility area. The Code requires an area
10 feet deep by 21 feet long for 7,700 s.f. of net leasable
area. BFI has written that the area as proposed will be
satisfactory to meet capacity and pick -up needs.
2. "Access to the utility /trash service area is adequate."
3
A-.
The service area will not have parking in front of it along
the alley.
3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable by trash personnel."
A letter from BFI states that the expansion plans will not
have any effect on trash removal.
4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are
provides by the proposed development and measures are taken to
encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block."
The applicant has indicated that standard dumpsters will be
used rather than a compaction system.
5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement'of utilities."
The Applicant's Engineering report by Schmueser Gordon
Meyer, Inc. states that the adjacent utilities are
underground in the alley and existing transformers and
pedestals are elsewhere in the alley. Additional
installations will not be required.
6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the
construction of the access area."
This does not apply as the utility /trash area currently
exists in its proposed configuration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval
with conditions of the Special Reviews for Reduction of
Trash /Utility Service Area and Reduction of Required Parking.
The conditions of approval for these reviews are:
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
1. The applicant shall make Payment -in -Lieu for 4.48 parking
spaces ($67,200.00) to the Building Department for transfer to
the City Finance Department.
2. The applicant shall make an Affordable Housing Impact Fee
payment of $164,500.00 to the City Finance Department to mitigate
for 4.7 low income category employees.
3. Assessment of the capacity and function of the drywell system
shall be made and reviewed by the City Engineering Department.
Any required improvements shall be made prior to issuance of any
Building Permits.
4
n\
4. A six foot by ten foot transformer easement and a four foot by
four foot pedestal easement approved by the Engineering
Department shall be granted and filed with the Pitkin County
Clerk's Office.
Attachments: "A" - Agency Referral Memos
Application Booklet Compiled by Sunny Vann
jtkvj /pitcobank.memo
5
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTIONS OF REQUIRED
PARKING AND TRASH /UTILITY SERVICE AREA FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY
BANK EXPANSION, 534 E. HYMAN (LOT 4 PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION)
Resolution No. 90-00
WHEREAS, Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd. represented by Sunny Vann
submitted an application pursuant to Growth Management
competition for Special Review in order to expand their existing
structure by 2,240 square feet of second level floor area; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Bank is located in the CC
Coma rcial Core zone district; and
WHEREAS, Section 7 -404 B. of the Aspen Land Use Code
(revision date August 1989) allows the Planning Commission to
grant reduction of required off - street parking in the CC zone
with a cash -in -lieu payment of $15,000.00 for each space reduced;
and
WHEREAS, Section 7 -404 C. of the Aspen Land Use Code allows
the Commission to grant reduction of required trash /utility
service area; and
WHEREAS, the parking reduction requested by the applicant is
for.four (4) spaces, based on a generation rate of 2 spaces per
1,000 square feet (4.48 rounded down to 4); and
WHEREAS, at the time of application there was no on -site
parking and the trash /utility service area was already
dimensionally non - conforming by one foot in depth; and
WHEREAS, taking into consideration that no space is
available on -site to accommodate any parking spaces or increased
trash /utility-service area; 'and
WHEREAS, upon review of the referral comments submitted by
the Engineering Department, the Fire Marshal, and the Sanitation
District, the Planning Office recommended to the Commission
approval of the Special Reviews with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission heard presentations by the Planning
Office and the applicant at their regular meeting of November 6;
and
WHEREAS, by a vote of 5 -0 the Commission approved with
conditions the Special Reviews for reduction of four (4) required
on -site parking spaces and reduction of trash /utility service
area to an area of 9 ft. by 21 ft.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: that it
does hereby grant approval for Special Reviews for reduction of
four on -site parking spaces and trash /utility service area (at
9'x21') for the Pitkin County Bank Expansion of 2,240 square feet
with the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
1. The applicant shall make Payment -in -Lieu for 4.0 parking
spaces ($60,000.00) to the Building Department for transfer to
the City Finance Department.
2. In the event that a transformer easement and /or a pedestal
'easement is required by Engineering, it shall be submitted and
approved by the Engineering Department and then filed with the
Pitkin County Clerk's Office.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on
Nr•vember 6, 1990.
. 13
Welton Anderson, Chairman
•
7.;_I C1 rney, Deput/ ity Clerk
jtkvj /pitco.reso
r Th
PZM11.6.90
•
Kim Johnson: This specific project for the Pitkin County Bank &
Trust Bldg is requesting 2 special reviews. The special review
requested relating to the proposed addition of 2,240sgft of net
leasable is the reduction of trash and utility service area and
also cash -in -lieu payment for parking reduction. This project is
in the commercial core zone and is specifically thinking these 2
reviews.
Basically the Planning Office recommend approval of these 2
reviews with conditions.
Regarding the parking issue - -there is certainly no parking on
site. And the added parking that will result from this expansion
if this project receives it's allocation the parking will take
the form of payment -in -lieu will be for 4 spaces. That
translated at $15,000 a space to $60,000. The point I need to
make a change in my conditions.
There is an error on page 4 in condition #1. Change 4.48 spaces
to 4.0 spaces and the dollar figure is reduced to $60,000.
As the code states the Commission needs to take into
consideration the practicability to place any parking on the
site. And whether parking needs have been adequately met on site
or whether the City has plans for but in the case now we have the
parking facility which is geared towards meeting their needs for
a facility.
The cash -in -lieu payment would go into the parking fund which in
effect helps re- imburse the cost of the parking garage.
The Planning Office recommends that the Commission approve that
special review as there is not available parking on sit and the
applicant proposes to pay the cash -in -lieu of $60,000.
The trash and utility service area special review - -the specifics
are that the existing trash and utility service area is 9ft by
21ft on the alley behind the building. The increase of this
building requires and area of 10ft by 21ft. What happened
evidently was that when it was originally constructed it wasn't
to current standards of the loft minimum depth. So the are
keeping the exact same trash and utility service area but the
building is expanded not in effecting the length of the trash
service area but because there is a non - conformity already in the
depth they have to go through this special review to allow that
to continue.
BFI doesn't have any apparent problems and feels that their
expansion won't have any affect on trash removal area. The
Planning Office recommends approval of this special review also.
17
PZM11.6.90
So there are 4 conditions of approval including the cash -in -lieu
payment for the parking payment -in -lieu. The other conditions as
you see are related to the project as a whole including housing
mitigation, dry well and easement requirements that the
Engineering Office is looking at.
Jasmine: Does the applicant have any problems with the
conditions of approval?
Sunny Vann: We have no problems with the conditions in general.
I have spoken to Kim in regard to condition #3. And also the
City Engineer regarding #3 and #4 and we have a slightly modified
language which we would like to suggest.
Condition #3, the Engineering Dept wants us to provide them with
existing drywell which is on site which is fine. If there are to
be additional improvements that we will undertake them. The only
problem that we have with the condition is that we cannot make
those improvements prior to issuance of the building permit or
actually subsequent to it. So I would like to suggest the
following language:
Jasmine: Why not?
Sunny: Because we are going to submit plans for the addition
which would include any improvements to drywell to handle the new
addition. Once we got a building permit we would then be
authorized to build the addition and to correct the deficiencies
in the existing system. So what Chuck has suggested was that the
assessment of the capacity and function of the drywell be made
and reviewed by the City Engineering Dept prior to the issuance
of the building permit.
Jasmine: Sot the assessment be made prior - -OK.
Sunny: And that any required improvements shall be depicted on
the plan submitted for building permit and completed prior to the
issuance of CO.
Jasmine: So condition #3 would read: Assessment of the capacity
and function of the drywell system shall be made and reviewed by
the City Engineering Dept prior to issuance of a building permit.
and the second sentence would say: Any required improvement
shall be made prior to issuance of a CO.
Sunny: Right.
The other condition has to do with a couple of easement which the
City may require. Since there is a very small area in which we
18
.-
PZM11.6.90
can provide an additional easement. We are happy to do so. What
Chuck and I came up with as a condition reads: In the event a
transformer or pedestal easement is required by the City
Engineering Dept, they shall be conveyed to the City by the
applicant prior to the issuance of a building permit. That will
provide the Engineering Dept time to review it and get a feel
whether they really want this easement or not and what shape it
should take. If he decides he wants a 2 by 6 or and 8 by 12 we
will convey that cough building permit.
MOTION
Jasmine: Assuming that the amended language has made it into the
tape I would entertain a motion to recommend approval with the
conditions as amended.
Bruce: I so move.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine asked for public comments on the Pitkin County Bank's
special review. There was none.
409 EAST HOPKINS PRESENTATION PRIOR TO SCORING
Jasmine reminded that brevity was important. "The words of
wisdom are more important than the hours it takes to utter them."
Bill Poss, Architect: We have worked out with HPC the sating of
the building. There were several presentations that were made
beforehand to the HPC on open space which required the building
be 3 stories. And in working with the guidelines and moving the
building forward allowed us to put more flurry on the street
front and reduce the height of the building.
Basically what we would life to point out in the architectural
design is that we have a 2 story building of approximately
between 27ft and 29ft high. It is 2 story and relates - -we tried
to keep it lower and it is set back -- stepped back slightly to
allow the 2 historic structures on either corner to have more
prominence.
Basically what we are doing is using similar materials that are
downtown that you see around of sandstone and brick in a similar
manner on this building. But you also find details onto historic
structures on either corner.
Basically it has commercial space on the street level. On the
second level because it is a 1 and 1/2 floor area to 1 we have
used an interior courtyard between to either commercial or office
19
PZM11.6.90
spaces to fill out the building. There is an out parcel here and
limits some of our window exposure so we used the courtyard to
offer window exposure to the other internal uses that will be
used there.
Also the basement will be used for tenant storage on site.
In the site design what we are attempting to do is complete the
streetscape that is started by the Brand Building on the corner
of Galena and Hopkins and the Collins Block which is on Mill and
Hopkins. And that way what we do is align the trees out at the
street line incorporating some benches and bike racks that are
typical around the downtown core.
One of the pictures that we wanted to show is that we would have
night time lighting that highlights the streetscape as you walk
by the individual store fronts.
Joe: Went through all of the categories where he digressed on
the various reasons for obtaining a higher score from the
Commission.
Leslie: Staff had interpreted that the application be predicated
on the code amendment. Upon clarification with Joe on Friday
Staff did concur with regard to the affordable housing section.
That was very clear that they would commit a full 60 %. On the
memo that you got on Friday the applicant had only scored 7.2 in
the Affordable housing section. And so we did re -score the
affordable housing section.
Staff does not concur with the applicant that it was absolutely
clear about the parking and the open space and therefore we did
not change our score on -the - parking and the open space.
Staff's opinion on the application is that the application is
what we get. We score on what we get. You have the ability to
clarify. You don't really have the ability to change what you
have submitted.
On the trash and utility access areas the gates and entryways and
things like that were not evident on the plans that were
submitted in the application. The score reflects that and again
we feel that this is really a bad alley and to warrant an
excellent design the applicant should go out of their way to
improve the situation. This is an acceptable design. It is a
standard design. We agree with the special review for the trash
reduction area and they have committed to pay the width of Lot F
across the alley to repave that portion. But as far as taking
into account all the other problems within the alley as Roger and
20
PZM11.6.90
Jasmine have pointed out we don't think they went out of their
way to do that.
And in my discussions with the Engineering Dept whom I rely
heavily on as far as the availability of public services, their
opinion is you identify your problem and you fix the problem.
The committing of money is fine. But we have no way to judge how
far that money is going to go to fixing a certain problem within
the area or right on the parcel. So that is why our scores were
not as high as the applicant desired with them offering to
provide money to certain facilities to upgrade those facilities.
Joe: With regard to the trash and utility access areas: There
is a very clear statement in the application that a gate will be
provided as a screen of the trash area.
PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST
Sunny Vann: This project could be categorized as a very modest
addition to the existing bank. It is only 2,240sgft of net
leasable. The resulting floor area of the building will still be
less than the 1 and 1/2 to 1 allowable FAR in the zone district.
The applicant is not requesting to use bonus FAR since sufficient
square footage is available to accommodate our needs with this
proposal.
The project is intended to alleviate a serious problem of
overcrowding which currently exists. It is designed to be
occupied solely by the bank personnel and not subleased to other
tenants. We intend to move the loan dept which is currently
sitting on top of each other in the basement to the upper levels
of the structure.
While there is no increase in project employment as a result of
this proposal we do recognize that the additional square footage
does provide the opportunity for additional employees and we have
committed to meet the 60% requirement of the theoretical
generation of this addition.
We are proposing to do that through an affordable housing impact
fee. In this particular case it is not feasible for us to house
the employees that are generated on site. The primary reason for
that are security related issues between the housing that is
there and the bank itself. There are also design considerations.
To achieve the employee housing would require additional FAR
which in this case would require at least a partial other floor.
We have worked with HPC to make this consistent with the
neighboring buildings and in this case a 3rd floor would not be
appropriate.
21
PZM11.6.90
While the building looks like it is 3 stories in height it is
actually 2. The existing building is 1 large story with a
mezzanine and a full basement. We are proposing to add a partial
second floor to the existing bank building.
This proposal complies with all the requirements of the
underlying CC zone district. It also complies with all the
provisions of impact mitigations requirements of the City's
Commercial Growth Management process. There are no variances of
any kind to be the dimensional requirements or the impact
mitigation requirements required by this project and none are
being requested.
Dave Gibson, Architect: Using site sketches described the
project.
Sunny Vann: Made arguments regarding scoring.
Jasmine asked if there were comments from the public. There were
none. She then closed the public hearing on both of the public
hearings.
The Commissioners then did their scoring on the projects.
Jasmine: Both projects have met minimum threshold.
The Pitkin County Bank expansion has a total score of 31.18.
The 409 East Hopkins project has a total score of 28.73.
We will forward these scores to Council. We also have the option
as to whether or not the Council shall allocate future year --
since there are only 8,000sgft of net leasable available, the 2
combined projects have a total of 9,063sgft.
We can either make them a recommendation or not make a
recommendation. I will leave that up to the members of the
Commission.
One thing I neglected to do in the 409 East Hopkins proposal was
to - -in the special reviews to make sure that the conditions of
approval that were listed in the memo are a part of the special
review approvals. So we need to put that on the record of that.
MOTION
Roger: I make a motion to include all the conditions of approval
for 409 East Hopkins as part of the special review approval.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
22
PZM11.6.90
MOTION
Roger: I move to forward the scoring to the City Council and
noting that both projects met minimum thresholds and that the
Pitkin County Bank scored higher.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Roger: Concerning allocation I move to recommend to City Council
seeing as how there 1,063sgft overage of both projects and given
the closeness of the scoring of both projects that we recommend
that that 1,063 come out of future allocations and both projects
be approved for building. That the allocation come out of 1991
for the 1990 approvals.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15pm.
Janice M. Carney, Deputy City Clerk
23
op,� P.O. Box 2155
SCHMUESEH GORDON MEYER INC. Ar,��\\t Aspen, Colorado 81612
In pegs (303) 925 -6727
p�►s n ■1
wit, 1V
"`
November 6 , 1990 •"! 8 `� CONSULTING ENGINEERS SURVEYORS/
-wire
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, Co. 81611
RE: Fire Hydrant, Pitkin County Bank Expansion
Dear Sunny:
A brief clarification regarding use of the fire hydrant replacement
in front of the Pitkin County Bank for growth management points in
both the water and fire protection categories.
Briefly stated, the installation and maintenance of fire hydrants in
the City of Aspen is the responsibility of the City Water
Department. The Water Department, through the City water fund
revenues, incurs all expense for the installation and maintenance of
the public fire protection system. Replacement of numerous out -
dated fire hydrants is an on -going priority as time and funding
permits. The replacement of hydrant #784, while not necessary to
construct the bank expansion, represents a needed improvement to the
water system and provides a benefit to the neighborhood at no
expense to the City.
In discussing this proposed replacement with John McD rm tt of the
City Water Department, and Aspen Fire Marshal Wayne Vandemark, they
both expressed the opinion that the replacement of hydrant #784
would represent a neighborhood improvement with ''t regard to their
respective interests. . Z Ioop , oo (b(�,++,b�,� W A,
I am not aware of anything within the GMQS code requirements that
would preclude a single improvement from having a beneficial impact
in more than one scoring category. Call me if we need to discuss
this further.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
clY1 W. clAcs.
ay W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal -Aspen Office
cc: John McDermott
Larry Ballenger
Wayne Vandemark
1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 0(303)945-1004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson and 'Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: 1990 Commercial GMP Scoring
DATE: October 29, 1990
Attached for your review is the recommended scoring for two
Commercial GMP projects. The Planning Office staff met to review
these recommendations and provides them to you as a consensus of
the Office.
The two Commercial GMP applications are as follows:
Name Net Leasable Square Footage
Pitkin County Bank Expansion 2,240 increase
409 E. Hopkins 6,823 new construction
8,000 square feet of net leasable is the cumulative annual
allotment in the CC and C -1 zones. Both projects as proposed
equal 9,063 s.f., so both cannot receive a full allotment even if
all minimum thresholds are met.
To summarize the review process, the Planning Office recommends
that the "auxiliary" reviews for each project take place first,
followed by the GMP scoring for each project. For your
information, we have included a table summarizing the staff
recommend scores of both projects.
Scoring Minimum Pit.Co.Bank 409 Hopkins
Categories Threshold Points
Categories 1 & 2 16.8 (60 %) 18.5 17.0
(arch. design, site design,
energy cons.,amenities,
visual impact, trash areas)
Category 1 7.2 (40 %) 13.0 13.0
Category 2 4.0 (40 %) 5.5 4.5
Category 3 10.0 (60 %) 10.0 10.0
(Affordable Housing)
Bonus Points
(given only by Commission)
Total Points 38.0 47.0 44.5
Pursuant to Section 8 -106 E.(5) a development application shall
be required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
categories to be eligible for an allocation.
Attachments: Scoring sheets reflecting Staff consensus for the
Pitkin County Bank and 409 E. Hopkins Commercial Building
lj1 /cover9Ogmp
2
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: 409 East Hopkins DATE: 11/06/90
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: The Applicant has designed a building that
is very compatible with the surrounding developments
and is lower than the two corner buildings. The
applicant has worked diligently with the Historic
Preservation Committee to create a new building that is
compatible with historic downtown.
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING: 1.5
I
•
•
COMMENTS: The only landscaping provided by the
Applicant is internal, on the second floor. Provisions
for service area and snowmeltinq are adequate. It is
difficult given the submitted plans to closely examine
the service area for efficiency.
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy conservation.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: The Roaring Fork Energy Center commends the
Applicant for "very adequate" insulation and "goals"
for an "effective" and efficient mechanical system. but
a level of detail is missing to ensure that these
systems will. in fact. be installed or determine how
superior their proposals area.
d. AMENITIES (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: Althouqh the Historic Preservation
Committee has recommended pulling the building up to
the sidewalk. there are very few amenities proposed and
the plans do not indicate feature amenities included in
the facade treatment. If the Applicant were offering
2
,
the payment -in - lieu for open space, staff would have
awarded this category more points.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Although the Jerome Hotel viewplane passes
over this parcel, the height of the building is well
below that viewplane.
f, TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points)
.1-- ►► -�d� Considering the extent to which required trash and
.�` utility access areas are screened from public view; are
IJJ sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
a to' provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
< \Z personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
I h compaction or other unique measures.
RATING: 2
C St i COMMENT: This alley is considered by many one of the
worst in the downtown area. The Applicant had an
opportunity to spearhead a corrective effort, but has
not. Although Special Review is necessary, the
proposed trash and service area is more than adequate
and designed in an efficient manner.
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public .
expense.
3
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
4 ; protection district to provide services according to
A established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
16,044, applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development.
• RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Water Department and Fire Department
have indicated there are adequate facilities to service
the proiect. The Applicant has offered to commit
$5,000 toward the installation of main interconnect
--SC:\Nt>0 between Hopkins Avenue and Main Street water lines and
a hydrant. If. however, the Applicant proposed to
install these improvements, then the score would
reflect that public improvement.
•
b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
4
AX
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
indicated that there is sufficient line and treatment
• capacity for the project, but small system upgrades are
necessary. The Applicant has committed to pay for the
two minor repairs to hook onto the system. The
Applicant has also committed $3,000 toward additional
repairs. It is unclear from the Applicant how
•
extensive the commitment is and it will not cover the
costs incurred by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas to
relocate a gas main before the Sanitation District can
commence their repairs. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
estimates a $5,000 to $6,000 range.
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENT: The project' is conveniently located within
close proximity to the garage, Rubey Park and several
bus routes. The Applicant has committed to repave the
5
full width of the alley along the rear property line
adiacent to Lot F.
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The proposed development may be handled by .
existing public facilities. The Applicant has proposed
•
dry wells and 55,000 toward storm drainage
improvements, however. if the Applicant would propose
the installation of a larger dry well to accommodate
historical runoff. then the score would reflect this
improvement.
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or
residential needs of the proposed development as
required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
• of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
• impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
RATING: 0
COMMENTS: The payment -in -lieu offer is predicated on
a proposed text amendment that would reduce the amount
of mitigation required. Staff cannot support the text
amendment.
•
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE ROUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
6
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Secc 8 -109.
Points shall be awar as • ows:
•
Zero (0 %) to Si (60 %) p cent of the additional
employees generated " " the pr■oosed development: One
(1) point for each six's ?- •er•- \t housed;
Sixty -one (61 %) to one hun• - - d 00 %) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full -time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5.25 employees /1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C -1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
and Service Comer.
Industrial. (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One- bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
RATING: 10
7
COMMENT: The Applicant is proposing to mitigate 60% of the
employees generated. A text amendment to reduce the
mitigation fee for employees has been proposed. Staff
cannot support the text amendment.
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved, an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENTS: Staff does not give bonus points.
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN 13
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 4.5
SERVICES
3. COMBINED SCORES OF 1 AND 2 17
4. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
5. BONUS POINTS 0
TOTAL POINTS: 44.5
Name of P &Z Commission Member:
8
409 East Hopkins
Threshold Points Proiect
Category 1 @ 40% = 7.2 13.0
Category 2 @ 40% = 4.0 4.5
Category 3 @ 60% = 10.0 10.0
Categories 1 & 2 @ 60% = 16.8 18.0
44.5 Total Points
9
I ( Ii MEMORANDUM
TO: - -' Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Pitkin County Bank 1990 Commercial GMQS, Special Review
for Reduction of Parking and Trash /Utility Service Area
DATE: October 26, 1990
SUMMARY: This application seeks a 1990 Commercial GMP allocation
for the addition of 2,240 s.f. of net leasable to the existing
bank building. The app scant also requests, and Staff recommends
approval of Sp ial Reviews for reduction of trash /utility
Service area cash -in -lieu payment for parking reduction.
Staff suggests that the Commission first consider the project's
requests for Special Reviews, then begin the scoring process.
APPLICANT: Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd., represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 534 E. Hyman Ave. (N.W. corner of E. Hyman at S.
Hunter); Lot 4 Pitkin Center Subdivision (approximately 6,020
s.f. lot area.)
ZONING: (11,- Commercial Core
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks Growth Management
allotment for 2,240 s.f. of net leasable square footage to be
added to the existing bank building. Additionally, Special
Review approvals are sought for trash /utility area reduction and
payment -in -lieu for parking. The applicant will seek from City
Council vested development rights for a period of three years.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are included as
Attachment "A ".
Engineering: Chuck Roth reviewed the proposal and had concerns
regarding parking in the alley and on the site, operability of
the drainage /drywell system, and the need for two utility
easements. Chuck feels that trash and utility area requirements
are appropriately provided.
Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark agrees with statements on page 33
of the application, and also comments that 2 -story office
requires an automatic or manual fire alarm system.
HPC: This proposal has received conceptual approval with
c^ nG
comments.
Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states that adequate line
and treatment capacity is available to service this expansion.
Payment of incremental tap fees will be required. Future
improvements to the Galena St. line will require a prorated
system impact charge.
Housing Authority: Yvonne Blocker forwarded comments.
The applicant will mitigate for 4.7 full time employees based on
a generation factor of 3.5 employees per 1,000 s.f. of net
leasable area (7.84 employees.) The minimum threshold is 60% of
generation, or 4.7 employees in the low income category. The
recommended dollar amount to be paid prior to issuance of any
building permits is therefore $164,500.00.
A statement in the application indicates that the area of
expansion will be used only for current staff levels. However,
the Housing Staff requests clarification of another of the
applicant's statements that 1,430 s.f. might be tenant rental.
PROPOSAL: This application seeks to add a second floor to the
existing bank building. Interior remodeling of the first floor
is also included in the project. A presentation is made that the
building will be solely used by Pitkin Co. Bank and Trust, making
no provisions for tenant lease space. But as mentioned above,
the application also stated that an interpretation will be
requested regarding the limit of 12,010 s.f. of "gross floor
area."
STAFF COMMENTS:
site size: 6,020 s.f. allowable FAR: 1.5:1 (9,030 s.f.)
proposed Floor Area: 8,850 s.f.
Representative Sunny Vann has submitted to Amy Margerum a request
for interpretation of the language in code Section 5 -503. In
this section, financial institutions are limited to 12,000 s.f.
of "gross floor area." This term is not defined in the code, but
other terms such as "floor area ratio" and "allowable floor area"
are defined or used elsewhere in the text. Zoning Officer Bill
Drueding maintains that this references the building's gross
square footage as opposed to floor area of a particular use.
The proposed addition will bring the gross square footage of the
structure up to 13,430 s.f. This is 1,430 over the 12,000 s.f.
limitation for financial institutions if Mr. Drueding's
interpretation is upheld by the Planning Director. If this is
so, the bank would not be able to occupy the entire structure.
It would have to lease out the overage to another tenant. While
this issue is important to the Bank's operation plan, it has no
specific bearing to the competition or mitigation required of
this project. Mitigation and impact calculations are based on
2
net leasable square footage. The impacts of the entire structure
have be determined and mitigated as discussed in this memo.
It should be mentioned here that staff feels that some on -site
housing would be helpful to this project. This location is
suitable for a mixed use structure. The Bank should explore this
idea, especially depending on the outcome of the Planning
Director's interpretation of "gross floor area."
Review Process: Staff recommends that prior to scoring this
project, the Commission review the entire proposal including the
Special Reviews for parking reduction and reduction of
trash /utility area. Please see staff's recommended scoring
attached under a separate memo.
Special Reviews:
Parking Reduction / Cash -in -lieu Section 7 -404 B. allows the
Commission to grant a reduction of required off- street parking.
In the CC zone, a cash -in -lieu payment of $15,000 per parking
space, at the option of the Commission, must be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The Commission shall takes into
consideration the practical ability tb place parking on -site,
whether parking needs of the development have been adequately met
• e, • - er e City has [plans for] a parking facility
which meet the needs of the community. gyp, / i de
Response: No parking is provided on -site for the original part of
the building or the proposed expansion. The applicant is
requesting the Commission approve a payment in -lieu for 4 spaces
based on added net leasable area of 2,240 s.f. The requirement ,
of 2 spaces per 1,000 s.f. calculates to 4.48 spaces. The co ' q
specifies that fractional spaces below 1/2 space be disregard d. �t
The applicant proposes payment of $60,000.00 for four spaces. ppp //}��� `'
Special Review: Trash and Utility Service Area Reduction 1 r
�D�
In order to qualify for reduction in the service area, the
applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following
criteria:
1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and
its total square footage, the utility /trash service area proposed
to be provided will be adequate."
The applicant proposes to. kee ' x 21' configuration of
- existing trash /utility area. The Co a requires an area
0 eet deep by 21 feet long for 7,700 s.f. of net leasable
fl a. ^" proposed will be
satisfactory to meet capacity and pick -up needs.
2. "Access to the utility /trash service area is adequate."
3
The service area will not have parking in front of it along
the alley.
3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable • asl, irsonnel."
A letter from : taiCes� that the expansion plans will not
have any effec' trash removal.
4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are
provides by the proposed development and measures are taken to
encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block."
The applicant has indicated that standard dumpsters will be
used rather than a compaction system.
5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement of utilities."
The Applicant's Engineering report by Schmueser Gordon
Meyer, Inc. states that the adjacent utilities are
underground in the alley and existing transformers and
pedestals are elsewhere in the alley. Additional
installations will not be required.
6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the
construction of the access area."
This does not apply as the utility /trash area currently
exists in its proposed configuration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval
i of the 28pecial Reviews for Reduction of
Trash /Utility Service Area and Reduction of Required Parking.
The conditions of approval for these reviews are:
Prior to issuance of any building permits: 400
1. The applicant shall make Payment -in -Lieu for -4-e -- parking
spaces ('6 - 7 . 7 94) to the Building Department for transfer to
the Cit Finance Department.
V (Q010O0
2. The applicant shall make an Affordable Housing Impact Fee
payment of $164,500.00 to the City Finance Department to mitigate
for 4.7 low income category employees.
3. Assessment of the capacity and function of the drywell system
shall be made and reviewed by the City Engineering Departmentroij F
Any required improvements shall be •• --- _ _ an
Building Permits a� e t u e „�m� ti k
•
l IQ
4. n f b t n ,.,,+_ F transfgrmdr easement and. f�
-- a e+h_ t ��.
t.
Tour fsaclestal easement ¥approved by the Engineering
Department shall be granted and filed with the Pitkin County
Clerk's Office.
r!'
� I
0
Attachments: "A" - Agency Referral Memos
Application Booklet Compiled by Sunny Vann
jtkvj /pitcobank.memo
5
A t-Ac4}MuT A"
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C%-
Date: October 19, 1990
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust 1990 Commercial GMQS
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made
a site inspection, the engineering department has the following
comments:
1. Apparent, possible discrepancies:
a. Page 4 - "...building contains approximately 4,700
square feet of floor area." "...net leasable square footage
totals ... 5,460 square feet."
b. Page 4 - "No parking provided on- site." At the time of
site inspection, there were three cars parked in alley next
to building and two cars parked on applicant's property
adjacent to alley.
2. As reported above, there is existing use of on -site area for
parking. It may be appropriate to designate those spaces in a
formal fashion as existing on -site spaces and not to deduct the
number of spaces (two) from additional requirements and cash -in-
lieu.
3. Concern is expressed about the use of the alley for parking
by bank customers. A few months ago, when there were five
"banks" in town, three of the banks had either drive through
facilities and /or extensive on -site parking. It is unknown at
this time if future development by the other bank which does not
have on -site parking will provide on -site parking. The
seriousness of this question is evidenced by the current
inappropriate parking use of the alley.
4. Although storm drainage is discussed, it is not clear that
the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f have been met. This
might be a minor, technical detail which the consultant can
clarify. Since there is a system in place, we should also obtain
an assessment about the operability of the system. Drywell
systems may need to be cleaned out periodically in order to
function as designed.
5. The consulting engineer's letter quoted the electric
superintendent as indicating "that existing transformers in the
alley can probably handle the increased requirements."
Examination of the Pitkin Center Subdivision shows that no
conveyances were made at that time for utility easements. It has
been a policy of the city during recent years to obtain easements
during land use procedures, and by direct purchase during the
undergrounding project, in order to provide the full twenty foot
width of alleys to be available for emergency access, as required
by municipal code. It is suggested that a six by ten transformer
easement be obtained at the northwest corner of the parcel in
conjunction with any approvals as a minimum and also a four by
four easement elsewhere along the alley for utility pedestals in
the ideal case. This discussion is in variance of item 3 above.
6. Inspection of the trash and utility area demonstrated that
this function is appropriately provided for.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
•
CR /cr /memo_90.176
SEP 2 7 I9
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
;,Fire Marshal"
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
-7- : Kim Johnson, Planning Office
/0
RE: Pitkin County Bank & Trust 1990 Commercial GMQS
Parcel ID # 2737- 182 -13 -005
DATE: September 26, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Sunny Vann on behalf of Pitkin County Bank & Trust requesting
Commercial GMQS allotments.
Please return your comments no later than October 19, 1990.
Thank you.
/UD 60.910/N75 c?7/,'f'2 7,44 57n7 O.0 p.4-6b£ 53 fi ia)c 5n'.€ e Kc
ef f5 AA/ Ai 7 - 7,c 0 N7,fl' , ' .pe ALA/Pmt 5YS7G
Aspen Consol S anitation District OCT 2 2
cb
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925 -2537
October 19, 1990
Kim Johnson
Planning Office
130 S. Galena 7
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust
1990 Commercial GMQS
Dear Kim:
The applicant's engineer, Jay Hammond, has done an excellent job
of listing the District's concerns in exhibit 1 which is found in
appendix B of the application. In summary- ,-
. The District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity'°
to provide service to the project.
Expansion of the available office space within the structure will•'
require payment of incremental tap fees prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
The District, will require a prorated system - impact charge for
future improvements to the Galena St. line which will be,
coordinated with the implementation of the Trolley.
Sincerely,
%
`Bruce Matherly
District Manager
cc: Sunny Vann
10/29/90 12 0.@ k P H0UG l t 4G HJTH. 3e: 920 551E P. 01
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning
FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing
DATE: October 21, 1990
RE: Pitkin County Bank & Trust 1990 Commercial GMQS
Pe:rcel ID # 2737- 162 - 13-005
SUMMARY: Applicant requests a commercial growth management
quota system allocation for 2,240 square feet of net leasable area
to add 'a second floor to the existing Pitkin County Bank & Trust
Company and to remo°el s portion of the building's interior.
APPLICANT: Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd., 034 E. Hyman Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado
•
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann; `leer.. & Associates
LOCATION: Lot 4 of the Fitkin Center Subdivision, Lots R and
S, Bloek 94 City and Tcw'neits of Aspen
534 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado
ZONING: CC
REQUEST: Applicant requests GMQS allotment for the expansion of
the existing net leasable floor area of 5,460 sq. ft., which
consists of & 2 aq, ft. baaercent (bookkeeping area), ground
floor area of 2,630 sq, ft., Ind a mezeanine of 410 aq. ft. The
site contains approximately 6,020 square feet of lend area and is
zoned CC. The new sd.ditian will alleviate the overcrowding problem
in the existing loan department. The expanded space is to be
occupied solely by the existing bank personnel and no rental space
will be available for tenants pur.eosea.
Applicant prapo .As to increase the sur=4n` net leasable floor t0
7,700 sq. ft. to include the addition of a second floor of 1,910
. sq. ft., and t * in aretee the mezzanine ±ioor area to 740 sq. ft.
Applics.n pr pc:oe? is .cittgate the enp.cyee - generated by this
pr0posa' balsioe4 on a calculeethn of 3.5 em loy e3 /1,000 sq. ft. of
net leasable speee., '.J'pcv apelic5tnt states that tWe would require
a r.;±t..ca ion cf eight (.a) fullt-i'it1 eq4 ,glen' employees.
2,240 e.f. /2,O0O s.f. c 2.24
2.24 x a.5 em ./ 1,000 s.f. e 'Lee ere,
•
•
Applicant aie3o etstee, °' the proposed addition is designed to
alleviate existing overcrowded conditions at the bank and to
accommodate the ba;Ak'n existing twenty -eight to thirty full time
equivalent employees. Sinoe it can be argued, however, that the
proposed addition does not preclude a future increase in the bank's
employment, the Applicant will mitigate a percentage of the new
additions theoretcal employee generation."
The 1 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines require that
professional /offi.ee net leasable square footage is required to
mitigate 3.5 to 5.25 emp. /1,000 e.f. and would require the
applicant to mitigate a total of 7.84 to 11.76 amp.
2.24 x 3.5 emp. /1,000 nq. ft. u 7.84 employees
2.24 x 5.2f emp, /1,000 sq. ft. e 11.76 employees
Applioant proposes to pay 60% of employees generated by expansion
of existing Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company building times low
•
•
•
income guidelines per employes.
2.24 x 3.5 ernp. /1,040 s.f. x 60% a 4.7 low income employees
2.24 x 5 emp. /1,000 s.f. x 60% a 7.05 low inaone employees
Cash -in -lieu payable by applicant prior to issuance of any building
permits would be 4.' to 7.05 employees x low income guidelines in
effect prior to issuance of building permit e $164,500 to 246,750
(1990 Sow income guidelines).
Upor further inZori; ticn derived from other financial institutions
within the cc'nmunity it was determined that the employees per 1,000
sq.ft, was 1.A /1,000 to 3.25/1,000 which does include all common
areas; i.e., lobby, veuits, etc.
Currently the appl icant provides a total of 188.27 sq. ft. /employee
at 29 employees or 5.71 ump. /1,000 eq.ft.
Housing staff propo ez that applicant mitigate 3.5 amp. /1,000 sq.
ft. to alleviate eons of the "overcrowding" and to recognize that
there may possibly be future employees added tc payroll with this
expansion.
Housing staff has noted the concern ederessee by Bill Drueding,
Zoning Official, for this application as to Section 5 -503.D for the
regulations of limited maximum "gro s floor are&" of 12,000 sq.ft.
for financial institutions.
Applicant has stated that an interpretation by the Planning.
Director is requeeted and will he provided for by section 11 -101
of the Regulations.
• The Housing :3te,ff f u oon icrned with the eor,f11cting statements that
applicant " will designate a minimum on 1,430 eq. ft. of the
•
•
10/29/90 12:01 H P 0 HCi_S f NG RUTH. 503 920 5580
building's gross square footage for rental purposes in the event
a more favorable cede interpretation and /or amendment is not
obtained." Th1x statement by applicant offsets the initial
proposal to have the "expanded structure to be occupied solely by
existing bank personnel and tto rental space will be available for
tenant purposes."
Housing woull like to see this issue resolved prior to approval of
this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this
application based on the following conditions:
1. Determination by Planning Director an to Section 11 -101 as to
allowed square footage of a financial institution.
2. Applicant will pay a payment -in -lieu fee in the amount
$164,500 calculated at a total of 4.7 employees times the low
income guidelines in effect prior to issuance of any building
permits. Housing accepts payment -in -lieu for this proposal for the
development of affordable housing for the Austin, Fast and West
Hopkins properties in the City.
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963 -0311
22
October 17, 1990
TO: Kim Johnson - Planning Office
FR: Steve Standiford - Director
RE: Energy Comments on Pitkin County Bank GMQS Application
We have listed our comments below on the Pitkin County Bank
and Trust Company's commercial GMQS application.
Passive Conservation: The project is sensitive to the
potential of passive solar gain and thermal mass storage for
helping with space heating. Although, if the glazing is
triple glazed filled with argon gas, this will significantly
reduce the solar transmittance during the day when'the heat
will be used. Further, we have seen problems with argon gas
filled glazing units in the valley because the seals leak and
the promised R values are not realized. There are more
reliable types of glazing available on the market that we
feel the project developers should consider.
There is no mention of the insulation levels to be achieved
in the walls and roof. We would like .to see at least R -27 for
the walls and R -38 for the roof sections.
Active Conservation: We are glad to see that the existing
gas fired boiler will be replaced with a new high efficiency
boiler. This will help greatly with conserving energy.
Other Comments: There is no mention of the use of efficient
lighting products. We recommend that they look at the
potential of saving energy with the lighting that is
specified. The project deserves praise for its committment
to an efficient heating system and to good glazing but the
rest of the project needs a lot more detail before we can
comment on the overall energy efficiency.
ALAN M. RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
1015 East Hyman Avenue Suite 5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -4122 303-925-7634
October 25, 1990 -
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny,
You have asked me to examine Section 5 -503 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, Use
Square Footage Limitations, so that I might recall the changes made to this provision
during the re- codification of the former zoning and subdivision regulations.
In reviewing this section of the Code, it is my recollection that the only change which was
made was to eliminate the Planning and Zoning Commission's ability to grant variations
from these standards. The consultant felt that granting variances was not within P &Z's
powers, which, conveniently, allowed us to eliminate one of Aspen's many review
procedures.
It is my recollection that no consideration at all was given to the term "gross floor area ".
It was never brought to our attention that the term was not defined. Moreover, had we
thought about the term, we might have instead used "net leasable floor area ", a term
which is already used in connection with other provisions regulating commercial uses.
I would suggest that if the term "net leasable floor area" were ever to replace the term
gross floor area in this section, then the square footage limitations themselves might need
to be re- calculated. Based on research we conducted during the Code revision process,
the limitations should be reduced by a factor of 0.85, to reflect net leasable versus total
floor area of a commercial building.
I hope this information clarifies your understanding of the actions taken with respect to
this provision.
Very truly yours,
ALAN M. RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
• Alan M. Richman, AICP
OCT 2
VANN ASSOCIATES INC.
Planning Consultants
October 24, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Amy Margerum
Planning Director
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company /1990 Commercial GMQS
Application
Dear Amy:
Please consider this letter a formal request for an interpre-
tation of the language of Section 5 -503 of the Land Use
Regulations. The request is submitted pursuant to the
provisions of Section 11- 101.C.1.
Background
The Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company has submitted an
application for a GMQS allocation in the 1990 commercial
growth management competition. The requested allocation is
for two thousand two hundred and forty (2,240) square feet of
net leasable area which will be used to add a partial second
floor to the existing bank building. The addition is to be
occupied solely by bank personnel, and is necessary to
alleviate existing overcrowded conditions. The effect of the
addition on the building's existing gross square footage,
floor area, and net leasable area is summarized below.
Table 1
Development Data
Existing Proposed Increase
Gross Building Area 9,240 13,430 4,190
Floor Area 4,700 8,850 4,150
Net Leasable Area 5,460 7,700 2,240
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958
Ms. Amy Margerum
October 24, 1990
Page 2
1 All numbers rounded to nearest ten (10) square feet.
2 The sum of the gross horizontal areas of each story of
the building.
3 The building's basement has been excluded as it is
located one hundred (100) percent below grade.
4 Excludes areas dedicated to bathrooms, stairways,
circulation corridors, mechanical areas and storage
areas.
Interpretation
Pursuant to Section 5- 503.D. of the Regulations, financial
institutions are limited to a maximum of twelve thousand
(12,000) square feet of "gross floor area ". Although the
Regulations contain a definition for the term "floor area ",
and provide direction as to how floor area is to be measured
for "floor area ratio" and "allowable floor area" purposes,
Bill Dreuding of the Zoning Department has taken the position
that the term "gross floor area ", as used in Section 5 -503,
refers to the building's gross square footage as opposed to
floor area.
While Bill's interpretation is arguably debatable; if
sustained, it would preclude the Pitkin County Bank & Trust
Company from occupying all of the proposed addition which is
the subject of their GMQS application. As Table 1 illus-
trates, the gross square footage of the expanded building
will be approximately thirteen thousand four hundred and
thirty (13,430) square feet, or one thousand four hundred and
thirty (1,430) square feet greater than the twelve (12,000)
square foot maximum limitation. The building's expanded
floor area, however, will be significantly less than the
maximum allowed. Given the obvious significance of the
Zoning Department's position, we hereby request a formal
interpretation of the relevant language.
Discussion
While the use square footage limitations of Section 5 -503
predate my tenure in the Planning Office, it has been my
understanding that they were not conceived as a bulk control
but rather as a means of regulating the relative size of
commercial businesses. At the time, the community was
apparently concerned about the possibility of someone
developing an unusually large commercial structure (e.g., a
K -Mart or a large grocery store). This understanding would
•••
Ms. Amy Margerum
October 24, 1990
Page 3
appear to be supported by the fact that it is possible to
maximize a structure's floor area while not exceeding the
various use square footage limitations. In other words, a
large building could contain multiple small commercial uses.
Unfortunately, as you may know, little if any public record
exists regarding the adoption of the zoning regulations in
which the use limitations originally appeared. The zoning
regulations in question were adopted, I believe, concurrent
with the city -wide rezoning which occurred in the early
seventies. As floor area was the standard measure of
building size at the time, I believe that the term "gross
floor area" as used in Section 5 -503 referred to floor area
and not gross building square footage.
Since the adoption of the original zoning regulations,
numerous changes have occurred in the way floor area is
measured. In addition, the new Aspen Land Use Regulations
have introduced the term "net leasable area ", which is the
standard for measuring impact for growth management and
affordable housing purposes. Floor area is now used solely
as a bulk control. If in fact the intent of the use limita-
tions was to control the relative size of commercial busi-
nesses, as opposed to building bulk, I believe that the
substitution of "net leasable area" for "gross floor area" in
the current code would more appropriately achieve this
objective. The use of net leasable area would, in my
opinion, permit a more accurate comparison of business size.
In discussing the preparation of the new Aspen Land Use
Regulations with Alan Richman, he indicated that the use
limitations of the old code were simply transferred to the
new regulations. Little, if any, discussion as to their
continued applicability apparently occurred during the
adoption process. Alan also indicated that the terminology
(i.e., gross floor area) of the limitations was not reviewed
for consistency with the language and definitions contained
in the new regulations. In hindsight, I believe he would
agree that this issue should have been addressed in connec-
tion with the adoption of the new Land Use Regulations. I
have asked Alan to summarize his comments regarding this
matter in writing; I will forward a copy of his letter upon
my receipt thereof.
Summary
While I believe that Bill has erroneously interpreted the
term "gross floor area" to mean gross building square
footage, the use of floor area for purposes of use square
r^
Ms. Amy Margerum
October 24, 1990
Page 4
footage limitations is, in my opinion, no longer appropriate.
Given the adoption of the term "net leasable area" for growth
management and affordable housing purposes, I believe that
the use limitations should also employ this measure to
regulate relative business size. This assumes, of course,
that such regulations are still considered necessary.
For purposes of our GMQS application, I would suggest that
the term "gross floor area" be interpreted to mean floor area
as presently defined in the Regulations. I believe, however,
that the Planning Office should also pursue a code amendment
that would substitute the use of net leasable area for floor
area for purposes of administering the use limitations of
Section 5 -503. Consideration of the use limitations contin-
ued applicability in light of current regulatory constraints
could occur as part of the code amendment process.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call. I am available
to meet with you to discuss this matter in more detail if you
think it would be helpful.
Very truly yours,
VANN A OCIATES, INC.
Sun y Van ICP
SV:cwv
cc: Kim Johnson
Charles Israel
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
3p
October 30, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Amy Margerum
Planning Director
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company /1990 Commercial GMQS
Application
Dear Amy:
Attached for your information is a letter from Alan Richman
regarding the adoption of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
the use square footage limitations contained therein. I
believe Alan's comments are accurately reflected in my letter
of October 24, 1990.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
VANN AS CIATES, INC.
Sunny Vann, ICP
SV:cwv
Attachment
cc: Kim Johnson
Charles Israel
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303 -6958
ALAN M. RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
1015 East Hyman Avenue Suite 5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 4122 303- 925 -7634
October 25, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny,
You have asked me to examine Section 5 -503 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, Use
Square Footage Limitations, so that I might recall the changes made to this provision
during the re- codification of the former zoning and subdivision regulations.
In reviewing this section of the Code, it is my recollection that the only change which was
made was to eliminate the Planning and Zoning Commission's ability to grant variations
from these standards. The consultant felt that granting variances was not within P&Z's
powers, which, conveniently, allowed us to eliminate one of Aspen's many review
procedures.
It is my recollection that no consideration at all was given to the term "gross floor area ".
It was never brought to our attention that the term was not defined. Moreover, had we
thought about the term, we might have instead used "net leasable floor area ", a term
which is already used in connection with other provisions regulating commercial uses.
I would suggest that if the term "net leasable floor area" were ever to replace the term
gross floor area in this section, then the square footage limitations themselves might need
to be re- calculated. Based on research we conducted during the Code revision process,
the limitations should be reduced by a factor of 0.85, to reflect net leasable versus total
floor area of a commercial building.
I hope this information clarifies your understanding of the actions taken with respect to
this provision.
Very truly yours,
ALAN M. RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
Alan M. Richman, AICP
OCT
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
October 22, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company /1990 Commercial GMQS
Application
Dear Kim:
Leslie Lamont has informed me that you have been assigned
our 1990 commercial GMQS application. I look forward to
working with you again in the review process.
The purpose of this letter is to revise two (2) numbers
contained in Table 1, Development Data, on page 9 of our
application. As you know, Section 8- 107.B.1. of the Land
Use Regulations permits revisions to GMQS applications which
are intended solely for purposes of clarification or
technical correction. Please note that the open space
numbers contained in items 12. and 13. of the table are
incorrect.
The open space numbers were incorrectly calculated as a
result of various misunderstandings which occurred during a
meeting between the project architect and Bill Dreuding of
the Zoning Department. Further discussions between the two
individuals, however, have clarified the applicability of
the City's open space regulations. The correct number for
the project's existing open space is fourteen hundred and
seventy (1,470) square feet. Similarly, the proposed open
space should be fifteen hundred and ten (1,510) square feet.
The building's existing open space, therefore, is presently
non - conforming, but will become conforming as a result of
the proposed project.
I would also like to take this opportunity to update you
regarding the code interpretation problem referred to on
pages 10. and 11. of our application. It is our intention
to submit a formal request for an official interpretation of
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303'925 -6958
Ms. Kim Johnson
October 22, 1990
Page 2
the relevant language of the Regulations prior to the P &Z's
consideration of our application. Hopefully, this will
allow resolution of the issue concurrent with the review of
our application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sunny Va AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Charles Israel
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshal
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin County Bank & Trust 1990 Commercial GMQS
Parcel ID # 2737- 182 -13 -005
DATE: September 26, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Sunny Vann on behalf of Pitkin County Bank & Trust requesting
Commercial GMQS allotments.
Please return your comments no later than October 19, 1990.
Thank you.
b A L (
Jc'�
r ..
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
?l +
PROJECT: rin (oa4 t DATE: 42.4/94
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design.
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2's
- F AS COMMENTS: K ' , • � ;.. / ��.�' - u 2 .chil .'.v ri D (
p r
/ ..
• _1sau.: ' 1L, •f_ =1'� ��:.! << Ls: Lam/. $e/tq,
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
,/ RATING:
COMMENTS: ' N e .. b �o . ._ ,._,.. I. ',.. •' , ww, IL
,..s� acry m. • J aq ", f s
c. ENERGY CO SER�ITION - ( a lmu 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation 1O " 4 t/M.
La
42 eEJ
.
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in eEe conservation.
n? i l �" °` L RAT - N D G: Z
COMMENTS : 0- Y.,N� °� l n a -h 02 'rd Cow4vrx C
a m cwt £ q �a�i . ,q ' ' Wa a ivN,a,4 r
d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
BB//�� RATING: 2-
COMMENTS: ! r¢atoe " � 4 I. L. 7 4U4 A-Lej
a / W . . hei:vii a cre' 4c ±Ce -,/ she / Li . i ' A t4 rehlfrut
e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Cons the
scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: crn Abed 7" J 14 vettad,
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points)
Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are
sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
to provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
compaction or other unique measures.
2
RATZ 2—
COMMENT: 1 Vii' u
/ 4..... r_ •• &6. .,n..' 4... L •
�nta / p � ^e f d �e i I . >
2. AVAILABI 0 � y LIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a.' WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
protection district to provide services according to
established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development.
�J // �n RATING: '
COMMENT: Ira 4c4f l nn.P2 &n TWn� •
3
I !� // !`
b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
ff �� J RATING: /
COMMENT: 4sc.a l/( • �J 4-x GAr- Co arat— g
144 1 44 W-Si '0111 ` tr72-
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING: /
COMMENT: ,'244 kf% ..i,r�•s- = - - ' ' , / al Sas' - -
/
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term.
RATING: /
4
. .
COMMENT: - 494.4 . 14± 0k-ice/C-n 04-414
c-
&cif , • A.? . eed44-.4'
•
1 d s
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or
residential needs of the proposed development as
. required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENTS: L rie-4t 7 4CC / 2414 -Li t art"i ' t4:4 1 1 . 46 ,0401.
/ / _ . .1
A_ /Ades' se le —41. Leal 't
4-egthanta , - • '
• / - 15,AMY
p- • et. ) osj se etA
14 , , / • / /
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Sec. 8-109.
Points shall be awarded as follows:
7 Zero (0%) to Sixty (60%) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One
(1) point for each six (6%) percent housed;
Sixty-one (61%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8%) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C-1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
and Service Commer.
Industrial (S/C/I):
5
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
RATING: / V
COMMENT: � �L.L2 i ��a� • � �,��.
wsr. � �
1 ,r'
02(9-`10 . POD = a (9.� X 3,s ep i. _ 7 7gsu x.490 = I/ 7
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
6
•
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN '
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & S'
SERVICES
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING /0
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
4. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: 2.6 , 3
Name of P &Z Commission Member:
ifis4
1
15,3
e + 0 7 0 7.2--
5 5
� QGot _ 10 �0
7
CITY OF ASPEN
COMERCIAL C n 1R P PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - 'DULY SHEET
Project: / CO 1J V- PTA 1 roc\ Date: ///!�//
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS FT Jasmine gpr CYdaie Bruce .' • Sala Rh. •, • 2.
1. Quality of Design
(18 si
a. Architectural Design 3 aii- Ri S lc a,S
b. Site Design L I. a,D 2,o a
c. Energy Consexv. :., 5 AS &a ,2, I a
d. Amenities 3 Qs 2,5 aid a,a5
e. Vi in1 Impact 3 3 3 a,q 3
f. Trash & Util. 3.is' 5 a ,a,a a
SUBTVTAL CATEGORY 1
MINIMUM I ID-7.2 FT 17 01,X Pi a 13.9 /3,75 1 1 1 ,( D 2-
2. Avail. of Public
Facile & Services
a. Water Supply/Fire LS t . R-S b5 S I. 7 1
Protection
b. Sanitary Sewer I I 1 1 . 7 /Jots'
c. Public Trans/Roads 1
d. Storm Drainage narge It 1 1 / 2 1
e. Parking I` I — 7 — / . a _I
63-5 Co ,1(a
SUBTOTAL CATEOZIIZY 2 7 � ,�
MINIMUM TH[ OID-4 PTS . . S , 7, 3 St °`�
SUBBYT L CATEGORIES 1 +2
MINIMUM THRESH0LD = 16.8 aa, S :2o /3q ,/.2 19 Z. VS
3. Provision of Afford.
Housing (15 pts
MINIMUM T1 ?era -zo FP 10 /0 10 /0 10
4. BONDS POINTS 0 0 • S o2 ( , 7
,
T>JTAL POINTS: 3as .30.o 30•a 33.2 ,
Ls I y
1
\k% r 0
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Pitkin County Bank DATE: 11/06/90
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING: 2 , O
COMMENTS:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. o �
RATING: a. ^
COMMENTS:
d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
RATING: �
COMMENTS:
2
e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
• RATING:
COMMENTS: • -
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points)
Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are
sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
to provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
compaction or other unique measures.
RATING: d�
COMMENT:
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
• facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
3
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
protection district to provide services according to
established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development.
RATING: I: s
COMMENT:
b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
4
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or
residential needs of the proposed development as
required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
RATING: / •
COMMENTS:
5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Sec. 8 -109.
Points shall be awarded as follows:
Zero (0 %) to Sixty (60 %) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One
(1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed;
Sixty -one (61 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full -time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5:25 employees /1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C -1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
• and Service Commer.
Industrial (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two - bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
6
•
RATING: /0
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS: .15
COMMENTS: Cn2Uan _ PA-ft.
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 5,5
SERVICES
3. COMBINED SCORES OF 1 AND 2 1 ? i
4. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
5. BONUS POINTS •�
TOTAL POINTS: 3 a
Name of P &Z Commission Member:
7
Pitkin County Bank
Threshold Points Proiect
Category 1 @ 40% =
Category 2 @ 40% =
Category 3 @ 60% =
Categories 1 & 2 @.60% =
Total Points
8
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Pitkin County Bank DATE: 11/06/90
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: '`
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy conservation.
RATING: CR
COMMENTS:
d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
RATING: 02' 25-
COMMENTS :
2
e. VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 3 points) Considering the
scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points)
Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are
sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
to provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
compaction or other unique measures.
RATING: at
COMMENT:
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
3
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
protection district to provide services according to
established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development.
RATING: /.,Y
COMMENT:
b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
RATING: / .S
COMMENT:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
4
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING: / 25--
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term. /
RATING: /
COMMENT:
(((
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions .
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or
residential needs of the proposed development as
required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
h i
RATING: ti
COMMENTS:
5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with .
the provisions of Sec. 8 -109.
Points shall be awarded as follows:
Zero (0 %) to Sixty (60 %) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One
(1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed;
Sixty -one (61 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full -time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5:25 employees /1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C -1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
- and Service Commer.
Industrial (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
6
•
RATING: l
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined, that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS: /
COMMENTS:
•
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES �JNT :
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & V 7,5"
SERVICES
3. COMBINED SCORES OF 1 AND 2 .0 5 a ✓ d
/
4. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING / 0
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
5. BONUS POINTS /
TOTAL POINTS: 3�
Name of P &Z Commission Member:
•
7
Pitkin County Bank
Threshold Points Project
Category 1 @ 40% =
Category 2 @ 40% =
Category 3 @ 60% =
Categories 1 & 2 @ 60% =
Total Points
8
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Pitkin County Bank DATE: 11/06/90
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2- 5
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING: 'a
COMMENTS:
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy -7 conservation.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
RATING: 2. ?/
COMMENTS:
2
e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
RATING: Z.
COMMENTS:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points)
Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are
sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
to provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
compaction or other unique measures.
RATING: Z ∎ 7i
COMMENT:
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
3
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
protection district to provide services according to
established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development. /7
RATING: /f
COMMENT:
b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
RATING: 1 '7
COMMENT:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
4
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING: I •5
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term.
RATING: /-
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or
residential needs of the proposed development as
required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
RATING: �
COMMENTS:
5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Sec. 8 -109.
Points shall be awarded as follows:
Zero (0 %) to Sixty (60 %) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One
(1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed;
Sixty -one (61 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full -time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5:25 employees /1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C -1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
and Service Commer.
Industrial (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two - bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
6
RATING:
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN i3./
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 7.3
SERVICES
3. COMBINED SCORES OF 1 AND 2 2/. Z
4. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING /0.00
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
5. BONUS POINTS 2.0
TOTAL POINTS: . /
Name of P &Z Commission Member: W # /'(
7
Pitkin County Bank
Threshold Points Project
Category 1 @ 40% =
Category 2 @ 40% =
Category 3 @ 60% =
Categories 1 & 2 @ 60% =
Total Points
8
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Pitkin County Bank DATE: 11/06/90
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the •quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: i
COMMENTS:
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas. /
RATING: ((-
COMMENTS :
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy conservation.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
RATING: 7,
COMMENTS:
2
•
e. VISUAL IMPACT - . (maximum 3 points) Considering the
scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS — (maximum 3 points)
Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are
sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
to provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
compaction or other unique measures.
• RATING: c r -6-;
COMMENT:
•
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following standards
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
3
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
protection district to provide services according to
established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development.
RATING: (r1t i
COMMENT:
b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
RATING: '
COMMENT:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
4
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING: 1
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or
residential needs of the proposed development as
required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
RATING: I
COMMENTS:
5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Sec. 8 -109.
Points shall be awarded as follows:
Zero (0 %) to Sixty (60 %) percent of the additional
• employees generated by the proposed development: One
(1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed;
Sixty -one (61 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full -time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5:25 employees /1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C -1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
• and Service Commer.
Industrial (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two - bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three- bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
6
RATING: I O
COMMENT:
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS:
A
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN trZ 7
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 3r77
SERVICES
3. COMBINED SCORES OF 1 AND 2 1 t t0£)
4. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING /
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
5. BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS: All r
Name of P &Z Commission Member: t N l
7
Pitkin County Bank
Threshold Points Proiect
Category 1 @ 40% =
Category 2 @ 40% =
Category 3 @ 60% =
Categories 1 & 2 @ 60% =
Total Points
8
•
■) 513API
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Pitkin County Bank DATE: 11/06/90
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development
Application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned
points according to the following standards and
considerations.
0 -- A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 -= An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly.
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering
the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms
of scale, siting, massing, height, and building
materials) with existing neighboring developments.
•
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: S / 1 / /
i mprU v t d n t -cam 04J Sr"))4
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and
open space areas, the amount of site coverage by
buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the
arrangement of improvements for efficiency of
circulation, including access for service, increased
safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
�� RATING: 3
COMMENTS : ttcc c J V cYY l ' p U
/ 9 � ♦ " , , JO lit_ e- Oh tea Y76r
c. ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points) Considering
the use of passive and /or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed
development, including but not limited to insulation,
glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating
and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the
extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting
energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be
expected to reasonably result in energy conservation.
RATING: 2. S
COMMENTS: L On 41TM- r Y) ( . S
As /4/ Pi
d. AMENITIES (maximum 3 points) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle
ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other
common areas for users of the proposed development.
RATING:
COMMENTS : Cher) 5 7r i S D w
2
•
e. VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 3 points) Considering the
• scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated
scenic viewplanes.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: •
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points)
Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are
sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and
to provide for public utility placement; can be easily
accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service
personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash
compaction or other unique measures.
,�,,�// RATING: 2 ' S
•
COMMENT: 4:44-j6 (D') 1,04 dJ 7
/ I4)., ALd
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by
the assigning of points according to the following
and considerations.
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense.
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or
service improvements made by the applicant benefits the
proposed development only, and not the area in general
3
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made be
averaging the scores for each feature.
a. WATER SUPPLY /FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to
serve the proposed development and the applicant's
commitment to install any water system extensions or
treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to
serve the proposed development. Fire protection
facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire
protection district to provide services according to
established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of
available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities
which may be necessary to serve the proposed
development.
RATING: 7 S
COMMENT:
b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points) Considering the
ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to
install any sanitary system extensions or treatment
plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the
proposed development.
RATING:
COMMENT:
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION /ROADS - (maximum 2 points)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to
be served by existing public transit routes. The
4
review shall also consider the capacity of major
streets to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a
need to extend the existing road network and consider
the applicant's commitment to install the necessary
road system improvements to serve the increased usage
attributable to the proposed development.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the
degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain
historic drainage patterns on the development site. If
the development requires use of the City's drainage
system, the review shall consider the commitment by the
applicant to install the necessary drainage control
facilities and to maintain the system over the long-
term.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions
of parking spaces to meet the commercial and /or
residential needs of the proposed development as
required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design
of the parking spaces with respect to their visual
impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and
safety.
RATING: i
COMMENTS:
5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each
Development Application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Sec. 8 -109.
Points shall be awarded as follows:
Zero (0 %) to Sixty (60 %) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One
(1) point for each six (6 %) percent housed;
Sixty -one (61 %) to one hundred (100 %) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8 %) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the
number of full -time equivalent employees generated by the
proposed development:
Commercial Core 3.50 to 5:25 employees /1,000 sq.ft.
(CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the
Commercial (C -1): City Council's housing designee:
Neighborhood 2.30 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial (NC) (net leasable);
-and Service Commer.
Industrial (S /C /I):
Office (0): 3.00 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(net leasable);
Commercial Lodge 3.50 employees /1,000 sq. ft.
(CL) and other: (net leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15)
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing,
the Commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One- bedroom: 1.75 residents;
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit
space.
6
RATING: (
COMMENT:
•
4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be
assigned when it is determined that a proposed development
has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-
106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions
of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points
shall not exceed ten (10 %) percent of the total points
awarded under Sec. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written
justification of that award for the public hearing record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENTS:
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES POINTTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN l J
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 5 S
SERVICES
3. COMBINED SCORES OF 1 AND 2 - 2
4. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
(LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE)
5. BONUS POINTS v
TOTAL POINTS: �
/ X r
Name of P &Z Commission Member: U
1
7
A
Pitkin County Bank
Threshold Points Proiect
Category 1 @ 40% =
Category 2 @ 40% =
Category 3 @ 60% =
Categories 1 & 2 @ 60% =
Total Points
8
r
PITKIN o3uhrry = A1sJK TLUST 0
IMM
A �
PIMP
19
w
COIVIMERCIAIr. G GS APPLICA a
PEI
w
r
✓
r
r
'i
OPE
r
w
'4 • .• •
a
r
r
MR
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Ccnsuitants
September 15, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
r
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company Commercial GMQS
Application
Dear Leslie:
Attached for the Planning Office's review are twenty -one (21)
AEI copies of the referenced application and a check in the
amount of $3,250.00 for payment of the application fee.
Please note that the check also provides for the applica
tion's anticipated referral costs. Should additional
referrals be required, we would be pleased to provide the
appropriate fee.
Should you have any questions regarding our application, or
if we can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call. On behalf of Vann Associates and the
✓ Applicant, thank you for your assistance in the preparation
of our application.
✓ Very truly yours,
VANN CIATES, INC.
0.
AO
Sunny Va , AICP
SV:cwv
7
Attachment
m. EaS F"LDK ^S ■venue oraco 316'' • 303 925 -6958
a
ti
a
A COMMERCIAL
r
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
ti
FOR AN ADDITION TO
THE PITKIN COUNTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY BUILDING
w
M
Submitted by
r Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd.
534 East Hyman Avenue
• Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -6700
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
r (303) 925 -6958
and
rr
GIBBON & RENO ARCHITECTS
418 East Cooper Avenue, Suite 207
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -5968
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
section Page
6. Trash and Utility Access Areas 32
B. Availability of Public Facilities 32
and Services
1. Water Supply /Fire Protection 33
2. Sanitary Sewer 33
3. Public Transportation /Roads 33
4. Storm Drainage 34
5. Parking 34
C. Provision of Affordable Housing 35
D. Bonus Points 35
IV. ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 36
A. Special Review 36
1. Off - Street Parking 36
2. Trash and Utility Access Area 38
B. Vested Property Rights 38
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Land Use Application Form
Exhibit 2, Pitkin County Bank & Trust
Company Ownership Letter
Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent
Exhibit 4, Adjacent Property Owners
TABLE OF CONTENTS
a
Section Page
B. Exhibit 1, Schmueser Gordon Meyer
a Engineering Report
Exhibit 2, Pitkin County Bank & Trust
Employment Letter
' C. Exhibit 1, BFI Waste Systems Letter
a
I. INTRODUCTION
The following application requests a commercial growth
management quota system allocation for two thousand two
hundred and forty (2,240) square feet of net leasable area
which the Applicant proposes to add to the existing Pitkin
County Bank & Trust Company building which is located at 534
East Hyman Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado. In addi-
tion, the application requests special review approval for a
a payment -in -lieu of parking, a reduction in the proposed
r
development's trash and utility access area requirement, and
.. vested property rights status (see Land Use Application Form,
Exhibit 1, Appendix A).
The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 8-
— 106.F. and 7- 404.B. and C. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
by Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd., a co -owner of the property and the
existing bank building (see Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company
Letter, Exhibit 2, Appendix A). The Applicant's representa-
tive is Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consul-
t tants (see Permission to Represent, Exhibit 3, Appendix A).
A list of property owners within three hundred (300) feet of
the project site is attached as Exhibit 4, Appendix A.
The application is divided into four (4) parts. The
first part, or Section II. of the application, provides a
r
brief description of the project site, while Section III.
IMP
describes the Applicant's proposed development. The third
1
part, or Section IV., addresses the proposed development's
compliance with the growth management review criteria of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations. Section V. discusses the special
review approvals which are also required to develop the
project. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent sup-
porting documents relating to the project are provided in the
various appendices to the application.
While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant
provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and to provide
sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
application, questions may arise which require further
information and /or clarification. The Applicant would be
pleased to provide such additional information as may be
required in the course of the application's review.
II. PROJECT SITE
As the Vicinity Map on the following page illustrates,
the project site is located at the northwest corner of Hunter
Street and Hyman Avenue near the periphery of the City's
downtown commercial area. The site is legally described as
.. Lot 4 of the Pitkin Center Subdivision, and consists of Lots
R and S, Block 94, City and Townsite of Aspen. The lots are
in single ownership and are deemed to have merged pursuant to
Section 7- 1004.A.5. of the Regulations. The site contains
+ approximately six thousand and twenty (6,020) square feet of
+ land area and is zoned CC, Commercial Core.
2
'7 .1'� Ui(..i p! U t ' ir^L''I} }�`/� k 1 0 7� 1 ‘J " !1, iAA 1 l- t ,r o
f Y ,y i l l I I `�.- o ' 9. I I —.� � . �`j/ � {,, I r' 6-.7- •
', T 7 ; 1 / 1,...-,„.., l 3. �_ j a /.____, ; !
I \. •
; — — i . 3 P'
l .coo -` _ � f __ 3 } I
I ?r r _p 1 } 1 !r
~ , l _
.
i �
1 1,
I -- m f — - t f�
_ e r - -- -� 1 p -
L
1 �� �� 1 __ I b •
' i �' 1I II 'il •e i___17,7 r 1 ' ., . I ri • F 1
.5-- f - - - ti t ir y _ f ..
1
+r � k _ f F'
II -� 15 1 } / / F 'I" :7
s _ J• ' __, C "\ II
` a � l
. J 4 C ,
\ F 4 P — - / .-N
VICINITY MAP PITKIN COUNTY BANK
GIBSON E. RENO • APO—In—EMS
r \ - 4OO' CN L CO MM, MWW S • SOK CCOrm OM
enP1
Man -made improvements to the project site consist of the
existing Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company building which
contains approximately forty -seven hundred (4,700) square feet
of floor area. The one (1) story structure contains a ground
floor, a mezzanine and a full basement. The building's
existing net leasable square footage totals approximately five
thousand four hundred and sixty (5,460) square feet. No
parking is presently provided on -site.
As the Survey on the following page illustrates, the
project site is essentially flat. Existing vegetation
includes numerous crabapple trees, which are located along the
western property line and within the Hunter Street and Hyman
Avenue right -of -ways, a large spruce tree, which is located
within the open space area adjacent to the building's en-
trance, and a variety of seasonal flowering plants and shrubs.
The project site is served by all utilities (see Engi-
neering Report from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Consulting
Engineers, Exhibit 1, Appendix B). A twelve (12) inch water
main is located in both Hunter Street and Hyman Avenue. An
_ eight (8) inch sanitary sewer and a four (4) inch natural gas
line are located in the adjacent alley. The area's existing
electric, telephone and cable TV service has been relocated
underground, and is also available in the alley. Fire hydrant
number 784 is located immediately in front of the building at
the northwest corner of Hunter Street and Hyman Avenue.
or
.. 4
Ow
1
I $i
Y
1
ea
1i
*m
J
L
O
M n
V C
K
2
W
V S
K _ U <
`Ti �Yi
g
t .. ' COC
a
r
MI
a/
.q
mow
1
♦ 43 l 8 -nu
rag
.4.
i a Y
am
i ..
11
gg
—
gr
i
• 1
9 _ i ! J
p
✓
e i 6 Z 1
w+ W
..7-
Y
1 Ail
a la
III
di
IC
JS
lil
9
MI
1
MI
i
lit
J qi
ill
iI
an
fi „
was
i '.
.m
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4
The Applicant proposes to add a second floor to the
existing Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company building and to
remodel a portion of the building's interior. The addition is
intended primarily to accommodate the bank's loan department
which will be relocated from its present position in the
basement. The new addition will alleviate a serious over-
crowding problem which currently exists at the bank. As the
expanded structure is to be occupied solely by existing bank
personnel, no rental space will be available for tenant
purposes. A more detailed description of the Applicant's
.. proposed development is provided below.
A. Water System
Water service to the proposed development will be
provided via the existing twelve (12) inch main located in
Hyman Avenue. A four (4) inch service line presently provides
water to the building for domestic and fire protection
., purposes. The Aspen Water Department has indicated that the
building's existing service line is sufficient to accommodate
the proposed addition, and that the municipal water system has
sufficient capacity to serve the development (see Engineering
Report, Exhibit 1, Appendix B,). No improvements to the
existing water main, service line, or treatment plant will be
required as a result of the Applicant's proposed development.
,• 6
B. Sewage System
The proposed development will be served by the
existing eight (8) inch sanitary sewer located in the alley
behind the project site. The building's existing four (4)
inch service line is sufficient to accommodate the proposed
addition. According to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, anticipated flows can also be accommodated with no
improvements to existing sewer lines or to the treatment plant
4
(see Engineering Report, Exhibit 1, Appendix B).
C. Drainage
Stormwater runoff from the existing building's roof
areas is presently collected in an on -site drywell. As the
proposed second floor addition will not increase the build-
a.
ing's footprint, nor the amount of impervious site area,
historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and
groundwater recharge will be maintained (see Engineering
r
Report, Exhibit 1, Appendix B).
D. Fire Protection
Fire protection will be provided by the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department. The project site is located
approximately two and one -half (2 -1/2) blocks from the fire
station, resulting in a response time of approximately three
(3) to five (5) minutes. The Applicant will replace the
r existing hydrant located in front of the bank with an updated
rag
model which will enhance fire protection in the immediate site
area (see Engineering Report, Exhibit 1, Appendix B). As
- noted previously, a four (4) inch service line presently
provides water for the building's sprinkler system. The
Applicant will install sprinklers in the proposed addition to
�. further enhance fire protection.
r
E. Development Data
As Table 1 below indicates, the proposed addition
will increase the floor area of the existing building by
approximately four thousand one hundred and fifty (4,150)
square feet. The corresponding increase in the building's net
leasable square footage is approximately two thousand two
- hundred and forty (2,240) square feet. The resulting struc-
ture, however, is within the maximum allowable external floor
area requirement of the underlying CC zone district. The
maximum height of the remodeled building will be approximately
thirty -eight (38) feet, which is also less than the maximum
allowed. The building's existing open space presently meets
the minimum requirement, and will increase slightly due to the
proposed removal of the building's entrance canopy.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
w
1. Existing Zoning CC, Commercial Core
2. Total Site Area (Sq. Ft.) 6,020
8
� 3. Existing Gross Building Area (Sq. Ft.) 9,240
- Basement 4,540
Ground Floor 3,910
Mezzanine 790
4. Existing Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 4,700
m Basement None
Ground Floor 3,910
Mezzanine 790
5. Existing Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.) 5,460
Basement 2,220
Ground Floor 2,830
Mezzanine 410
6. Maximum Allowable Gross Building 12,000
Area (Sq. Ft.)
7. Maximum Allowable External Floor Area 9,030
@ 1.5:1 (Sq. Ft.)
w- 8. Proposed Gross Building Area (Sq. Ft.) 13,430
Basement 4,540
Ground Floor 4,140
Mezzanine 1,170
.. Second Floor 3,580
9. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 8,850
Basement None
dim Ground Floor 4,100
Mezzanine 1,170
Second Floor 3,580
.. 10. Proposed Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.) 7,700
Basement 2,220
Ground Floor 2,830
Mezzanine 740
Second Floor 1,910
✓ 11. Minimum Required Open Space 1,510
@ 25% (Sq. Ft.)
i 12. Existing open Space (Sq. Ft.) 1,510
13. Proposed Open Space (Sq. Ft.) 1,520
"' 9
w
14. Maximum Allowable Height (Ft.) 40
15. Proposed Maximum Building Height (Ft.) 38
16. Minimum Required Parking @ 2 Spaces/ 4
1,000 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable
17. Proposed Project Parking None
1 All numbers have been rounded to the nearest ten (10)
square feet.
.,
2 The sum of the gross horizontal areas of each story of
the building.
3 As the basement is one hundred (100) percent below
natural grade, it is excluded from the calculation of
„ floor area.
- 4 Pursuant to Section 5- 301.E., fractional parking space
requirements are disregarded when less than one -half
(1/2) space.
Pursuant to Section 5- 503.D. of the Regulations,
financial institutions are limited to a maximum of twelve
thousand (12,000) square feet of "gross floor area ". Although
the Regulations contain a specific definition for the term
o "floor area ", and provide direction as to how floor area is to
•. be measured for "floor area ratio" and "allowable floor area"
" purposes, Bill Dreuding of the City's Zoning Enforcement
Department has taken the position that the term "gross floor
area" as used in Section 5- 503.D. refers to the building's
a
gross square footage. While this interpretation is obviously
debatable; if sustained, it would preclude the Pitkin County
Bank & Trust Company from occupying all of the proposed
addition which is the subject of this application.
10
As Table 1 illustrates, the gross square footage of
the expanded building is approximately thirteen thousand four
hundred and thirty (13,430) square feet, or one thousand four
hundred and thirty (1,430) square feet greater than the twelve
thousand (12,000) square foot maximum limitation. Given the
significance of the Zoning Department's position, the Appli-
cant will request an official interpretation of the Planning
Director as provided for in Section 11 -101 of the Regulations.
While we believe that the use square footage limitations of
Section 5 -503 should more appropriately be applied to "net
leasable" square footage, the Applicant will designate a
y minimum of one thousand four hundred and thirty (1,430) square
feet of the building's gross square footage for rental
purposes in the event a more favorable code interpretation
and /or amendment is not obtained.
It also should be noted that the building's existing
trash and utility access area is arguably non - conforming with
respect to the dimensional requirements of the CC zone dis-
-
trict. Pursuant to Section 5- 210.D.6. of the Regulations, an
area twenty (20) feet in length, with a minimum depth of ten
(10) feet, is required abutting the alley for up to six
thousand (6,000) square feet of net leasable floor area.
While the existing building contains only five thousand four
hundred and sixty (5,460) square feet of net leasable area,
its existing trash and utility access area measures approxi
mately twenty -two (22) feet by nine (9) feet.
11
The proposed addition will increase the building's
net leasable square footage to seven thousand seven hundred
... (7,700) square feet. As each additional twelve hundred
(1,200) square feet of net leasable area requires that the
minimum twenty (20) foot length be increased by one (1) foot,
the expanded building would theoretically require a twenty -one
(21) foot by ten (10) foot trash and utility access area. As
the area to be provided by the Applicant will measure approxi
++ mately twenty -one (21) feet by nine (9) feet, special review
approval to reduce the minimum depth requirement by one (1)
foot is requested as part of this application. The specific
review requirements of the Regulations are addressed in
, Section IV.A.2.
A financial institution is a use permitted by right
r
in the CC, Commercial Core zone district. As the expanded
building is to be occupied by bank personnel, or other
permitted commercial and /or office uses, the proposed addition
r is consistent with the use requirements of Section 5- 210.B. of
IM
the Land Use Regulations. The proposed development's afford-
.
able housing requirement is to be met via a cash -in -lieu
.. payment. No residential use of the property, therefore, is
either required or proposed.
r
1.1 F. Traffic and Parking
The proposed development should have no adverse
,. impact upon the existing street system. Assuming a trip
12
1
generation factor of eight (8) vehicles per day per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable area, the
proposed addition would theoretically generate approximately
eighteen (18) additional vehicle trips, or thirty -six (36)
vehicles per day. According to the 1987 Transportation
Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, existing peak
traffic levels on Hunter Street and Hyman Avenue were two
thousand one hundred (2,100) and two thousand two hundred
(2,200) vehicles per day, respectively. As both of these
r. figures are substantially below the allowable capacity level
of five thousand (5,000) vehicles per day, the addition of
thirty -six (36) vehicles per day should have no significant
impact to the street system (see Engineering Report, Exhibit
1, Appendix B).
With respect to parking, the current requirement for
r' commercial uses in the CC zone district is two (2) spaces per
one thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable area. As no
parking is presently provided on -site, the existing building
is non - conforming. The building, however, was constructed
prior to the adoption of this requirement, hence no parking
was either required or provided for in the building's design.
As no parking can physically be provided on -site, the Appli-
cant will satisfy the proposed addition's parking requirement
via a payment -in -lieu as provided for in Section 7- 404.B. A
r
detailed discussion of the off - street parking requirement is
.. provided in Section V.A.1. of this application.
13
G. Affordable Housing
As Table 1 illustrates, the proposed addition will
increase the existing building's net leasable square footage
by two thousand two hundred and forty (2,240) square feet.
Based on an employee generation factor of three and one -half
(3 -1/2) employees per one thousand (1,000) square feet of
additional net leasable square footage (i.e., an appropriate
employee generation factor for office uses in the CC zone
district), the proposed addition would theoretically generate
-� approximately eight (8) new full time equivalent employees
calculated as follows.
2,240 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable /1,000 Sq. Ft. = 2.24
2.24 x 3.5 Employees /1,000 Sq. Ft. = 7.84 Employees
As the attached letter from the president of the
Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company indicates (see Exhibit 2,
Appendix B), no new employees will in fact be generated as a
result of the proposed development. As discussed previously,
the proposed addition is designed to alleviate existing
overcrowded conditions at the bank and to accommodate the
bank's existing twenty -eight (28) to thirty (30) full time
equivalent employees. Since it can be argued, however, that
the proposed addition does not preclude a future increase in
the bank's employment, the Applicant will mitigate a percent-
age of the new addition's theoretical employee generation.
14
The Applicant proposes to satisfy the affordable
housing requirement of Section 8- 106.F.(3) of the Regulations
via the payment of an affordable housing dedication fee, as
provided for in Section 8- 109.I.3., based on the formula for
such fees contained within the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing
Authority's 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines. More specifi-
r
cally, the Applicant proposes to pay a dedication fee which is
equivalent to housing approximately 4.7 low income employees,
or sixty (60) percent of the additional employees theoretical-
..
ly generated by the proposed addition. The exact amount of
the dedication fee will be determined in cooperation with the
Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a building permit.
THe fee will be based on the Authority's guidelines in effect
at the time the permit application is submitted.
Pursuant to Section 8- 109.J. of the Regulations, the
City Council must approve the method by which the Applicant
proposes to satisfy the proposed development's affordable
housing requirement. In the event the Applicant is eligible
for a growth management allocation, and the proposed payment
of an affordable housing dedication fee is determined to be
unacceptable, the Applicant will provide affordable housing in
an amount consistent with the representations of this applica-
r
tion (i.e., sixty percent of the full time equivalent employ-
es ees generated by the proposed addition) via an alternative
method acceptable to the City Council.
a
15
As the Applicant would prefer to either construct
deed restricted housing, or to convert free market housing to
deed restricted status, we are actively pursuing alternatives
to the proposed payment of an affordable housing dedication
fee. In the event an acceptable alternative can be identified
prior to City Council review, the Applicant will amend this
application as may be required. As the percentage of employ-
*
ees housed is the relevant issue in the GMQS scoring process,
a the substitution of an alternative housing proposal which
houses an identical number of employees would be consistent,
we believe, with the provisions of Section 8- 107.B.1. of the
Regulations.
H. Stoves and Fireplaces
The proposed development will contain no wood
burning fireplaces or stoves. No gas fireplaces or devices
are proposed.
I. Location
m The project site is located near the periphery of
Aspen's downtown area. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area is located
— approximately two (2) blocks south of the property while
Herron Park is located approximately four (4) blocks to the
northeast. The City's commercial core area is conveniently
located less than a block to the west. Rubey Park, the hub of
the City's mass transportation system, is located approximate-
.
16
ly three (3) blocks to the southwest. Hunter Street, which
abuts the property, provides convenient access via Main Street
W and Highway 82 to the community's schools, Aspen Valley
Hospital and the Pitkin County Airport. As commercial
development is generally considered to occur in response to
growth in the residential population, no significant impact
upon the above facilities is anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
J. Impact on Adjacent uses
The project site is zoned CC, Commercial Core, as
are the adjacent areas located to the north, south and west.
The area east of the property is zoned C -1, Commercial.
Existing land uses in the immediate site area consist primari-
ly of retail commercial and /or business and professional
offices. The proposed addition is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the CC zone district and is compatible with
surrounding land uses. As a result, the functional character
of this mixed commercial /office area of the City will be
unaffected by the Applicant's proposal.
A. Construction Schedule
The anticipated date for commencement of construe-
. tion is the spring of 1991, with completion occurring by the
end of the year. Should circumstances permit, construction
could commence as early as the winter of 1991.
17
ar
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The following section addresses the various review crite-
ria against which the proposed development will be evaluated.
The information contained herein represents the Applicant's
best effort at compliance with both the letter and intent of
the criteria. We believe that in every category the proposed
development meets or exceeds the minimum applicable standard.
Based on our understanding of the various criteria, and the
project's compliance therewith, we have requested what we
believe to be an appropriate score in each review category.
Please reference as necessary the appropriate headings in
Section III. of this application for detailed information in
support of the Applicant's representations and commitments.
A. Quality of Design
The quality of the proposed development's building
and site design is discussed below. As the project site is
located within the Commercial Core Historic Overlay District,
Historic Preservation Commission approval of the project's
exterior architecture is required. Conceptual approval of the
proposed addition was granted by the Commission on August 22,
1990. The conceptual application was well received by the
Commission, as evidenced by the relatively minor conditions
which they attached to their approval. Final approval will be
r
obtained upon the successful receipt of a growth management
allocation and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18
1. Architectural Design. The proposed addition to
the Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company building provides a
unique opportunity to redress a number of weaknesses in the
building's design, to emphasize its existing strengths, and to
give the resulting composition a more pleasing and contextual
overall character. These objectives are to be accomplished as
described below.
a) Scale. The existing building can be
characterized as an uneasy blend of small -scale classic /victo-
-
rian elements such as individual window openings, sloping roof
forms and the use of common red brick, and large -scale
modern /international style elements such as vertical window
walls, asymmetrical fenestration, flat roofs and a lack of
brick detailing which conveys a monolithic aspect to the
building's brick surfaces. We propose to resolve this
juxtaposition of scale by preserving the building's existing
classic /victorian elements and revising the modern/internatio
nal style elements as follows:
1) The south elevation entry facade will
change from a two -story asymmetrical window wall to a symmet-
rical masonry wall modulated by horizontal masonry bands with
integrated window openings.
2) The prominent flat roof cornice lines
which presently mark the existing building's south and east
elevations will be replaced by symmetric, pitched gable ends.
19
li .. d I
Ii
— u° ...a IOC
. 1611E1I II Il
��••�i �6 � ' 9
\ ii 11111141 1111,1 se \ II �� l�I -.Its ' = 1
. Ib11tlIIIIIIIdI I; It 1 III IO1 N Wi.M 1 1
e MINI
.. I -- _me �1 IS
OIN1111 1 �: 'MIINIII
I II rr+ �uIF
—. il lUl ; MI 111M1. 11u I
I I I: �:.1
I IIU 1. .... Iwlum uil'
it NNNN i 1II .1 1 mi
ate -1 ;� a Z
I I u :: ,IN
rte• rl F
�' I III rte' .
„„ 111
� _ Na : n 1 •
■ _ 9 , � I „ � N 11 -6p I II •
m a
� '.
.1 I 1E11 II■wse
, i "� II� III i
MI I I ll I I I I�!III' y
11 I Is I N �. VIII I 111 iI
_.. Il1imi 1�ii 7
IIMI 11 000411. A 7 1. 7
MI 4■4Wir-
, r Winl w
d- I u ■IV a: Z 0
1 , —. m F
II 4 2
I ^ Ali 1 1 ' , , 111141 1111,111111111 11 I1110a= OM •
x i lliffil MI PI IMI MI ; I .1
... i II NOIN9IIIIInerdi i
I 1
I
a
a• III li
mr tit 111
3 y 3 i
sr
wm
ow
4 t 4 4
4
ffe I y 4
i
ri
- - — \ , . — li 1!1 1 :111141
I
j'I �
l lllli II I
......
I ■I: •I mill
'trill q
1 11 MN',111
n mlm.ld
I
NI: Ill ill' . ' 'I �
miuml H. , i
1 1I: ■ I u:I
NM '
■i°1 71
i
" _ Diu ■I. .H si
il r Ii
11(11 ■I . ,
' I�i: •I ..
III
- , Ul 1 I
211M 1
t INC ■I
4
: c
-I 1 ;
—
Eh ', '! .
Ei'' I.m a 1U I `
=1 t
I
I
moo
11 lfl
I fl w
II
=Ira
'i► c
.. 4
i ii Y
�li�i�l - z
plN■ Z a m
W ° " 13 i ).
F i , a1- z
�?" — I' U
1 —r 7 i d
_ — � I I = m y y 5 1 a
- ,....._. I I .1
C
I L
y / /(/� �.L ti. 0 . _
• arm RIWMM', lunnwmunrm i
/ rid 1 , 1 11 .": .. . :"----:-
Xfp111
11 NII I INI IWIPi NINIM
It �t♦.P : 'III INIIIP
I II I I 1 11`' 1 i
A 0 . I g rylIEEiInIIIIWW I
.. ■
_ . I .I�tlM ,
I']�MIIEMAIII -
� IIIWIWMI@='.. I � II III - I -- , MSS
1.I _ r:n1 I w
-�.
Ma. IX 4IIINM
mII�
.IIIMM11 IiINI
a ilu•` I� IIIIINI
,�VIIIIIIIIJ1l1�I
' I MMr I5 IIIIIIIWNW
��{ V i __
E r a
n —,, _ [.
w
� i � IYI f� ....__ a z
MI �,�� �= ' f
J
-1 .. T Z 2
Z'
OS t T J_
__, rrri Ec -
s ITT I 1_ 1 I
AO
LINE OP PO JACENT •lw_ONw
�-- I •wN�TV LM
.r41
EXERT . PAVEMENT TO / 1lLACIO ACID LANO•CAa
I
°
Now on RAGA l -
m ��` w — - -_•_
,, °' 744. MAIN I
f � I � . 1 foP.nl _ > O ∎ € .
j ��
— Z I. I �i i� r _ —� _ _ -
•xI•T. T.•• - -- �' i } G - 1 aFl90w MAW ACCOUNT. - --
•x1•T. Time TYP. / _ I r ✓ ^ 1
so I • ,� ^^- MINN
so
— —“ —�
LION? POLE -t'
'? — _ -� LION? POLE
- , I MAIN FLOOR PLAN
44 k AR•A TO •• 0 •O
^ .. .. O. w•MOO•L•O
M r
_ • •
i I
1
. \ OPFle• AREA
wpm
ow
oil A4"1
VAULT
LP
IP
a I
m
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
me
M.
Lial
no
r
r
__ mere
w..etw <
,..
.... 2ND L•VUL PLAN
+c so 3
woe
r
+n — (OPEN TO •SLOW)
M _� F t -- _• — L i t
OnlIc•
.. , te..•u
MEZZANINE PLAN
sn
1
3) The existing mono- chromatic brick color
will be enlivened by the use of quartzite accents in sills,
lintels and cornice work.
4) The monolithic running -bond brick wall
treatment will be given scale and definition through the
addition of brick detail work at soldier courses, heads,
sills, recessed bands, and projecting cornice areas.
5) A forty -five (45) degree "porch" has been
introduced on the corner of the second floor to help turn the
corner and to add human scale at this highly visible spot.
b) Siting. The building's existing footprint
will remain unchanged. The Applicant, however, proposes to
strengthen several good features of the present design,
including enhancing the accessibility of the corner open
space, removing the fixed awning over the entry area, and
introducing additional landscaping into the public sidewalk
area. These improvements are discussed in detail in Section
IV.A.2. of this application.
c) Massing. The massing of the existing
building may be characterized as two vertical masonry forms
which visually anchor the building's recessive low wall and
the horizontal sloping roof areas which step back in deference
to the corner and large spruce tree. The addition of the new
second floor will reinforce this portion of the building by
w
25
creating a stronger vertical masonry anchor at the end of each
street front elevation. This taller massing will more nearly
correspond to the size, height and character of the vertical
forms of the neighboring Pitkin Center buildings to the west,
and to the height of the masonry building to the north.
d) Height. The cornice line of the proposed
addition will match the cornice lines of both adjacent masonry
structures. At approximately thirty -four (34) feet, the
cornice at the building's west corner matches that of the
Pitkin Center building. Similarly, at approximately thirty-
- three (33) feet, the building's northeast corner matches the
average height of the building located across the alley. The
roof at the center of the building is set back from the
corner, and steps down to approximately thirty -two (32) feet
to allow the building's two ends to read as vertical masses as
discussed under "Massing ".
e) Building Materials. The commercial core
area in general, and the adjacent buildings in particular, are
constructed of red common brick with generous use of quarry -
faced quartzite for sills, lintels, cornices and decoration.
Although the existing building is also constructed of red
brick, it conveys a certain monotony and monolithic character
due to its present lack of detail. The Applicant proposes to
enrich the existing palette of materials by introducing
horizontal courses of red quartzite into the south facade and
a
°• 26
integrating quartzite sills, lintels cornice caps and gable
end decorative work into the new brick wall construction.
A similar treatment is proposed for the east gable
end, with a continuation of these elements on all facades of
the new second floor. Although the adjacent building to the
north is constructed of "jumbo" brick and contains few
details, the Applicant believes that the smaller brick and
- richness of material and detail which are to be utilized in
the proposed addition will make an attractive neighbor and
will respond well to the overall character of the City's
commercial core area. Based upon the above, we believe that
the proposed development's architecture represents an excel-
lent design which deserves the maximum score available in this
category.
Requested Score: 3 Points
2. Site Design. As the proposed development
consists of a second floor addition to an existing structure,
little or no opportunity exists to address basic site design
issues such as site coverage, building footprint, access, and
efficiency of circulation. The Applicant, however, proposes
to enhance the quality and character of the building's
existing landscaping and open space areas.
More specifically, the fenced and landscaped area
located at the southeast corner of the property will be
a
27
converted to a "mini- park" for the general public's use. In
addition to being a visual amenity, the park will provide an
inviting sheltered space beneath the existing spruce tree
outside of the main sidewalk area. As the landscape plan on
the following page illustrates, the mini -park will contain
several small benches, a stone pathway, and flowering plants
and shrubs.
In addition to the mini -park, the Applicant proposes
to reduce the expanse of concrete located at the southwest and
northwest corners of the building, and along the sidewalk
located adjacent to Hyman Avenue. These areas will be
replaced with sod, thereby enhancing the quality of the
building's open space and extending the "park- like" atmosphere
which exists in front of the neighboring Pitkin Center
buildings. The existing mature crabapple trees which parallel
the property's east, west and south boundaries will remain.
Two (2) additional trees will be planted in the area to be
sodded at the northwest corner of the building.
As discussed previously, the amount of existing open
will increase slightly upon the removal of the structural flat
roof located above the building's south entry area. The
existing canopy will be replaced with a retractable canvas
awning assembly. Given the Applicant's proposed site improve -
a
ments, a maximum score in this category is also warranted.
Requested Score: 3 Points
28
GIBSON & RENO • ARCHITECTS
ate E. COOPER AVENUE • taPel. COQ *CO dr
- (Night Deposit)
la , Wli 0 — Sandstone Path •
.,, lir I I II - ..!. ■. ` �� ` ` ,• Existing Spruce Tree
. •, , :. ,. • Benches
�� 14
- \ ' ' . . s t ) ) , r ) ) , -
a v..0 A - lat
.., \
. iew i
, N o r
4
r
Low Shrubs
�n ik • • .. ++ Stonework Si "SS
11.• Groundoover
�. ( 110111 � �1'',' i =� Rowers
_ • ,�► \� \� �� Sod
Sal.0 - � ' 1 14 \ al e /_, r Berm
- r * Cie - il • I; le' 4 t
- lir . 10 t# 1/2. * ' MI !
o ppavt....oriir--4 , + = i'_a,1 = Flowering Shrubs
� t1
snustt S , ` _ ' (Bank Sign
City Sidewalk
NEW CORNER PARK - PITKIN CO. BANK
s
0 5 10 zo' N
3. Energy Conservation. The proposed development
will meet all applicable energy related requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, and will significantly exceed normal
standards for commercial construction as follows.
a) Passive Conservation. The building's
existing entry area will be enlarged to include an elevator
lobby and stair foyer. The redesigned entry will serve as a
south facing passive solar receiving and storage area for both
winter heat gain and for summer heat buffering for the
interior main lobby space. All new glazing will be low -E
triple glazed, and will consist of Argon -gas filled units
whose U -value will equal 0.16. The equivalent R -value of
these units exceeds 6.0. The new windows exceed the existing
energy standard for double glazing by approximately two
hundred (200) percent.
b) Active Conservation. The building's
existing heating system utilizes a gas fired boiler of
approximately sixty -five (65) percent efficiency. While the
w existing boiler meets all present code requirements, the
Applicant proposes to install a new high- efficiency "Forced
Draft Combustion" type boiler which will be placed in series
with the existing unit. The new Power Combustion boiler has
an efficiency rating of ninety (90) percent, and will provide
heat for the entire building during all but the severest
weather conditions. As a result, energy consumption per
30
square foot of space for building heat will be reduced by
approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) percent. The Appli-
cant's commitments to energy conservation deserve, we believe,
the maximum score in this category.
Requested Score: 3 Points
4. Amenities. The proposed mini -park discussed
previously constitutes a valuable public amenity which will
provide a welcome respite for people looking for a place to
sit for a few moments away from the activity of the adjacent
sidewalk. As such, the park should be considered a positive
addition to the area's urban streetscape. A new bicycle rack
will be installed adjacent to the curb near the building's
entrance for bank patrons and users of the mini -park. The
federal express pick -up box will remain in its present
position at the southwest corner of the property.
Requested Score: 3 Points
5. Visual Impact. The proposed second floor
addition will have no impact on any designated scenic view -
plane. As discussed under "Architectural Design ", the new
addition will step back from the street corner, reinforce the
g+ two existing masonry forms which anchor the streetfront
0 facades, and match the height and cornice lines of the
r
adjacent structures. The resulting building will visually
complete and enhance the appearance of both the Hyman Avenue
•
31
and Hunter Street streetscape. Given the proposed addition's
lack of adverse visual impacts, and its positive contribution
to the streetscape, a maximum score in this category is
warranted.
,. Requested Score: 3 Points
6. Trash and Utility Access Areas. While the
proposed development's trash and utility access area is
approximately one (1) foot short of the minimum depth require-
-
ment, it is more than adequate to serve the needs of the
.. expanded Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company building. As no
�. new transformers or utility pedestals are required to be
- located in the trash and utility area, the entire area is
available for trash purposes (see Engineering Report, Exhibit
w. 1, Appendix B). The area will conveniently accommodate a two
(2) cubic yard dumpster, which is larger than the present
dumpster and more than adequate to accommodate the trash
generated by the expanded use (see BFI Letter, Exhibit 1,
Appendix C). Both the trash area and alley are paved, thereby
permitting convenient all weather access to collection
vehicles and personnel.
Requested Score: 3 Points
• B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services
The proposed development's impact upon public facil-
*N ities and services is described below.
32
1. Water Supply /Fire Protection. The Aspen Water
Department has indicated that the existing twelve (12) inch
main located in Hyman Avenue is adequate to provide domestic
service to the proposed development and that system upgrades
will not be required. The existing fire hydrant located
immediately in front of the bank, however, will be replaced by
the Applicant with a new model which meets current standards.
According to the Water Department and Fire Marshal, the
replacement of the hydrant will improve both the municipal
water system and enhance fire protection in the immediate site
area. The proposed development, therefore, improves the
availability of services and facilities in the area (see
Engineering Report, Exhibit 1, Appendix B).
Requested Score: 2 Points
2. Sanitary Sewer. The proposed development may
be handled by the existing level of service in the area. The
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated that the
existing eight (8) inch line located in the adjacent alley is
adequate to serve the project and that system upgrades will
not be required.
Requested Score: 1 Point
r.
3. Public Transportation /Roads. The proposed
development may be handled by the existing level of service in
_ the area. As discussed in Section III.F., the surrounding
33
street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed development. Rubey Park, the hub of the City /County
mass transportation system is located approximately three (3)
blocks to the southwest. A number of existing public transit
routes presently pass through the Hyman Avenue /Spring Street
intersection, which is located one (1) block east of the
property.
Requested Score: 1 Point
4. Storm Drainage. The proposed development may
be handled by the existing level of service in the area. The
project will maintain historic flow rates with respect to
surface water runoff and groundwater recharge, thereby
complying with the storm drainage design requirements of the
subdivision regulations and the City's Engineering Department.
No improvements to the City's stormwater drainage system are
required.
Requested Score: 1 Point
5. Parking. The proposed development may be
handled by the existing level of service in the area. As
discussed previously, no off - street parking was required when
the existing building was constructed, and no practical
ability presently exists to provide parking on -site in
connection with the proposed addition. The Applicant,
however, proposes to make a payment -in -lieu of parking as
34
provided for in Section 7- 404.B. of the Regulations. As all
w monies obtained via this provision are to be used for the
�. construction of parking structures and facilities within or
adjacent to the commercial core, and a new such facility has
been recently completed, the Applicant's payment -in -lieu
effectively mitigates the proposed addition's off - street
parking requirement.
Requested Score: 1 Point
C. Provision of Affordable Housing
As discussed in Section III.G., the Applicant
proposes to pay an affordable housing dedication fee which is
the equivalent of housing 4.7 low income employees, or sixty
(60) percent of 7.8 additional employees theoretically
generated by the project. Based on the Applicant's proposal,
and the provisions of Section 8- 106.F.(5)(c) of the Regu-
lations, the proposed development is entitled to ten (10)
points, calculated as follows:
60 Percent of Employees Generated Housed
='s 10 Points
.. 6 Percent Housing Factor
D. Bonus Points
The Applicant believes that the proposed development
r
has exceeded the minimum review criteria of the City's
.. residential growth management regulations in several catego-
35
ries and, as a result, has achieved an outstanding overall
design meriting the award of additional bonus points.
Specific areas in which we believe the project excels include
architectural design, site design, energy conservation,
amenities, and visual impact. Detailed discussions of the
project's merits in each of these areas are provided under the
appropriate headings in Section IV. of this application.
IV. ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
In addition to a commercial growth management allocation,
special review approval is required for the proposed develop -
ment's off - street parking and trash and utility access area.
Vested property rights status for the approvals granted
pursuant to this application is also requested.
A. Special Review
The Applicant requests special review approval to
satisfy the proposed addition's off - street parking requirement
via a payment -in -lieu and to reduce the dimensions of the
building's trash and utility access area. Each of these
requests is discussed in detail below.
1. Off - Street Parking. Pursuant to Section 7-
404.B. of the Regulations, the Planning and Zoning Commission
may approve a payment -in -lieu of parking in the CC zone
district. The relevant review criteria which the P &Z must
take into account are whether there exist practical limits-
- 36
tions to the provision of on -site parking, and whether the
Applicant's parking requirement may be met by an off -site
parking facility.
As discussed previously, the proposed development
consists of a second floor addition to an existing building.
As no off - street parking was required when the building was
constructed, no provision was made to accommodate such parking
in the future. As a result, it is physically impossible for
y the Applicant to meet the proposed addition's parking require-
ment on -site. Given the availability of the City's new
municipal parking garage, and the inability to provide on -site
parking, the Applicant's commitment to satisfy the proposed
addition's off- street parking requirement via a payment -in-
lieu would appear to be appropriate in this case. The
proposed addition's off - street parking requirement is four (4)
spaces calculated as follows.
2,240 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable /1,000 Sq. Ft. = 2.24
2.24 x 2.0 Spaces /1,000 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable = 4.48 Spaces
Pursuant to Section 7- 404.8.1., the Applicant will
make a one -time only payment -in -lieu of parking to the City of
fifteen thousand ($15,000.00) dollars per space, or a total
y payment of sixty thousand ($60,000.00) dollars. The payment
will be made upon receipt of a growth management allocation
and prior to issuance of a building permit.
37
2. Trash and Utility Access Area. Pursuant to
Section 7-404.C. of the Regulations, the P &Z may also approve
a reduction in the trash and utility access area requirements
of the CC zone district. The relevant review criteria include
the adequacy of the proposed area for trash and utility
purposes, accessibility, and convenience. As discussed
previously, the building's proposed trash and access area is
arguably deficient by approximately one (1) foot with respect
to the minimum depth requirement of the CC zone district. As
the area to be used for trash and utility purposes is more
than adequate to service the expanded building, the dimension -
al deficiency described above would appear to be irrelevant.
No additional utilities are required to be located within the
area, and more than sufficient space exists to accommodate a
two (2) cubic yard dumpster. Both the trash and utility
access area and the alley are paved, thereby providing
convenient access to trash collection vehicles and personnel.
B. Vested Property Rights
In order to preserve the land use approvals which
may be obtained as a result of this application, the Applicant
hereby requests vested property rights status pursuant to the
provisions of Section 6 -207 of the Land Use Regulations. It
is understood by the Applicant that final approval of the
proposed development must be granted by ordinance of the City
Council to establish such status. It is also the Applicant's
38
understanding that no specific submission requirements, or
review criteria other than a public hearing, are required to
confer such status.
39
APPENDIX A
..
ATTACHMENT 1
lAND USE APPLICATION EXHIBIT 1
1) Project Name /77 / 4 7714- co.
2) Project location 6 ' -'Y" � . 1 .MA /1■ l
/92 .c/cali/rgR a/sys'>n/ /edeN /
(indicate street address, lot & block number, legal der_riptim where
a priate)
3) Present zoning GC 4) Lot / Size l ���
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # 4- ` "-
"a I` -
f5-.2Z
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # 1 V-31-4 '
7) Type of Application (please heck all that apply):
Ctnditienal Use Orneeptual SPA Ccncepiaial Historic Dev.
IC Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev.
8040 (amine ____ Conceptual PUD _ Minor Historic Dev.
■
Sim Margin _ Final POD _ Historic D®olitim
_ Mountain View Plane _ Subdivision . _/ Historic Designatio n
co iniumiZatim _ Tnext,/Map.Metl ent /t GUS Allotment
Lot Split/lot Line — GCS Exenpticn
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft.; number of bedroms; any previous apperNals gamed to the
property) .
4 2e 177 n4 ``/
9) Description of Development Application
: - / tt�rL
10) lave you attached the following ? Minim
Response to Attac>ment 2, ,m n,tmiscim Donte�ts
"re
Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
w
! 't EXitiIBIT 2
3 a lc
, , ! r i) • +. • Cy I/
1
•
H; 1 11
August 21, 1990
HAND DELIVERY • ;
Bill Poss, Chairman
Historic Preservation Committee
605 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Pitkin County Bank Addition
Dear Mr. Poss,
I am, the President of .Pitkin County Bank i& Trust Co. (the
"Bank "). The Bank is the tenant of the entire building located on
Lot 4, Pitkin Center Subdivision commonly known as the. Pitkin
County Bank Building. The Bank is also one of the owners of the
building, and in that capacity acts as agent for the other owners
of the building. This letter will confirm that I am authorized to
act on behalf of the Bank and the ownership of the Bank building in
regard to this application.
Very truly yours,
PITKIN COUNTY BAK '& TRUST CO.
BY: Stiteelle.
Charles B. Israel, President
It \pcbt.his
r
aa•
134 li. IIYMAN AVE. • POST OFFICE BOX 3677 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PflONP. 30:4 /925 -6700
EXHIBIT 3
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Panning Consultants
September 12, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of
Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants, to represent
Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd. in the processing of our application
for a commercial growth management allocation for an addition
to the Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company building located at
534 East Hyman Avenue. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act
on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertain-
-° ing to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Aspen Bank Shares, Ltd.
Slitalti
Charles B. Israel, President
Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company
(303) 925 -6700
SV:cwv
-'_0 East Hopkins Aver • soer. Colorado 816 • 303925 -6958
EXHIBIT 4
BLOCK 93
St. Mary's Church
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 •
Warren J. Conner
Claude Conner
534 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
u Margaret & Warren Conner
534 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
BLOCK 94
W. G. Bullock
Grant Bullock Trust
Box 609
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Maurice Beriro
3475 Mountain Street, Suite 912
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G2A4
Aspen Plaza Co.
+ Box 1709
Aspen, CO 81612
..
Elks Lodge (BPO)
210 S. Galena Street, Suite 21
Aspen, CO 81611
Mason Morse, Inc.
514 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin Center Subdivision
" SJA Associates, Ltd.
520 E. Durant Avenue, Suite 207
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin Center, Ltd.
Box 4948
Aspen, CO 81612
MO
WO
BLOCK 95
a
Arcades Associates
a Jerome H. Michael
✓ c/o AAIRSCAPE LTD.
314 S. Mill Street
., Aspen, CO 81611
T&E Restaurant Corp.
Box 4069
Aspen, CO 81612
Jean Ingham
Mt. Resort Trust
730 17th Street, Suite 730
Denver, CO 80203
Richard Volk, Trustee
-- 5847 San Felipe, Suite 3600
Houston, TX 77057
Andre Ulyrch
Box 2202
.. Aspen, CO 81612
Heinz & Eliane Wolf
Wolf Family Trust
1221 Myrtle Avenue
�• San Diego, CA 92103
Leonard Weinglass
525 E. Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
W.T. Ray, Jr.
J. B. Speed
50 Scott Avenue
Cookeville, TN 38501
Robert E. McNeilly, Jr.
6th Floor
American National Bank
Nashville, TN 37237
Tennessee Three
Mrs. A E Miller
3506 Honeywood Drive
Johnson City, TN 37604
s
Donald B. McCann
go One Bratenahl Place
Cleveland, OH 44108
Porter R. and Carol Rodgers, Jr.
1300 S. Main Street
°- Searcy, AK 72143
Harold & Martha Caldwell, Jr.
Caldwell Campers
5147 Hickory Hollow Parkway
-- Nashville, TN 37013
William A. Van Orsdel
400 Locust Street
8th Floor
Des Moines, IA 50398
James B. Nowery
Harold Quinn
100 Travis Place
Shreveport, LA 71101
Mary C. Oliver
c/o Ken Brock, Executor
270 County Farm Road
Little Rock, AK 72212
R.P. Fitzgerald
600 Palmer Drive
.r Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403
Kern Tompkins & Co.
520 E. Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Lester Turner
101 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37201
James R. and Elaine B. McDade
Box 3099
Aspen, CO 81612
Douglas Tompkins
Aspen Art Supply
520 E. Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Lester Morris
'IN 100 Sunrise Avenue
Palm Beach, FL 33480
Aspen Cooper
Wall Mortgage & Finance Corp.
200 Fillmore Street, Suite 110
Denver, CO 80206
r.,
John H. Cheek, Jr
Box 564
Aspen, CO 81611
BLOCK 98
Thomas D. McClockey & Bonnie McCloskey
Box 7846
Aspen, CO 81612
Dayton Heidelberg Distr. Co.
1518 Dalton Street
Cincinnati, OH 45214
June Ellen Kuper
624 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
BLOCK 99
Gary G. & Leslie J. Troyer
601 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
W.R. Walton
Box 665
Aspen, CO 81612
Norris E. & Goodrich H. Taylor
602 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81612
.. Charles Cunniffe
520 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81612
Furngolf Ltd.
616 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Frank J. Woods, III
205 S. Mill Street, Suite 301A
., Aspen, CO 81611
BLOCK 100
Gerald P. & Patricia Long
7251 E. Dessert Moon Loop
Tucson, AZ 85715
Spring Street P 0
Gulfco Ltd.
616 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Robert L. Kopp & Martin Cerise
Box 100
Aspen, CO 81612
Hunter Plaza Assoc.
Anthony Mazza
205 S. Mill Street, Suite 301A
Aspen, CO 81611
M &B Co.
c/o Garfield & Hecht
.- 601 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
HYMAN MALL BLOCK
Ransom B. Woods, Jr.
Justine F. Woods
Box 12288
Aspen, CO 81612
Levant America
Colonial Navigation
2240 17 Battery Place
New York City, NY 10004
Harley Baldwin II
205 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
r
o.
awl
OWN
APPENDIX B
All
ass
r
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC . . .
pt P.O. Box 2155
AND ; .I, Aspen, Colorado 81612
MM rin (303) 925-6727
warn
`i CONSULTING ENGINEERS i SURVEYORS/ EXHIBIT 1
September 12, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 East Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, Co. 81611
RE: Pitkin County Bank Building
Commercial Growth Management Application - Engineering Report
Dear sunny:
This letter comprises an engineering report on matters pertinent to a City of
Aspen Commercial Growth Management Application for the Pitkin County Bank
Building. This report represents a compilation of information gathered from site
visits, interviews with relevant utility officials, review of proposed expansion
plans and discussions with the project architect. I have organized the report
to reflect those items included in my proposal to you of August 16, 1990 as well
as additional matters resulting from our subsequent discussions.
This GMP application 1s for a project which will expand the existing Pitkin
County Bank Building located on the northwest corner of Hyman and Hunter Streets
in Aspen, Colorado. The proposed expansion involves the creation of an
additional 2,240 sq. ft. of net leasable office space. The proposed expansion
is accomplished via the addition of a second story to the existing structure.
This configuration results in no substantial increase to the footprint of the
existing building. Engineering items pertinent to this application are as
follows:
1. Water Service. I have spoken at various times with representatives of the
Aspen Water Department including particularly, Judy McKenzie as well as
Ron Ferguson and John Mcdermott. Based on those discussions I have
gathered the following general information with regard to water service to
the project.
A. The Aspen Water Department has sufficient capacity to provide
water service to the proposed expansion.
B. The addition of 2,240 sq. ft. of net leasable space to the
Pitkin County Bank Building will require the payment of additional
.• tap fees to the City of Aspen.
•, C. The existing service tap to the 12 inch diametermain line In
Hyman Avenue is a 4" tap in order to provide both domestic supply
and fire flows to the existing building. The increase in office
square footage would permit the owners, should they wish, to
increase their domestic service line from a 1" line with a 1" meter
to a 11/2" line and meter. (The existing 1" domestic line is separated
from the 4" fire supply line inside the existing structure.)
"� 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945.1004
September 12, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 2
D. As indicated by John Mcdermott on September 12, the existing
fire hydrant No. 784 in front of the Pitkin County Bank Building
requires replacement to a current standard. The Pitkin County Bank
project may incur the cost to upgrade this hydrant as an improvement
to the public water system in the immediate area. This hydrant
replacement results in an improved water system and upgraded fire
protection for the immediate neighborhood.
2. Sanitary Sewer Service. I spoke with Tom Bracewell of the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District on September 6, 1990. He provided me
with the following guidance regarding the availability of sanitary sewer
service to the Pitkin County Bank expansion:
A. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has the capacity to
serve the proposed expansion.
B. Expansion of available office space within the structure will
require the payment of additional tap fees to the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
C. The existing service line, which appears to be a 4" line, should
be adequate to provide service to the existing structure and the
expansion.
D. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District may require an
additional surcharge for future improvements to the Galena Street
crossing of the sewerline in the alley adjacent to the Pitkin County
Bank Building.
These improvements are in anticipation of the construction of a
trolley service on Galena Street, and the surcharge would be applied
on an equitable basis to businesses and other structures in the area
serviced by that main.
E. The existing sanitary main in the alley behind the Pitkin
County Bank is generally in good condition and does not require any
additional upgrade by this applicant to provide service to the
expansion.
Jou
r
September 12, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 3
3. Storm drainage. I have reviewed the proposed plans for the Pitkin County
Bank Building expansion as well as copies of the original building plans
supplied to me by the project architect. The original building plans
indicate that the roof areas of the existing structure are served by a
drywell located on the site for purposes of detaining roof area storm
runoff and providing recharge to the existing aquifer. Since the proposed
expansion involves an additional story on the existing structure, and the
structure footprint is essentially unchanged, storm runoff will continue
to be controlled as it has been historically.
In short, this project represents no change to the impervious area of the
Pitkin County Bank Building and its site. Drainage control both on and
off site will continue as it has since the Pitkin County Bank Building was
originally constructed.
Based on my inspection of the immediate neighborhood, there are no
apparent opportunities to improve drainage in adjacent rights -of -way.
4. Fire Protection. Based on my discussion with Wayne Vandermark, the City
Fire Marshall, on September 12, 1990, it would appear that the proposed
expansion of the Pitkin County Bank does not represent significant
concerns from a fire protection standpoint. Wayne indicated that the
following items should be considered in the expansion proposal:
A. Expansion to a 2 story office structure above grade will require
the installation of an alarm system. (The existing structure may
already have an alarm system, I was unable to verify this before
finalizing this report.) This alarm system may be manual in nature,
but will be a requirement for a 2 story office structure.
B. Wayne was aware that the existing structure has a sprinkler
system for the basement area. He recommends that any additional
office area be sprinklered but would not require that the expansion
have a sprinkler system.
C. Wayne also agreed with John Mcdermott that the fire hydrant No.
784, fronting on Hyman Avenue, requires replacement. He indicated
that this replacement would also represent an improvement to
neighborhood fire protection from the standpoint of fire protection
scoring.
w
w September 12, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 4
5. Roads. Expansion to the office space in the Pitkin County Bank Building
will also result in some additional traffic associated with bank business.
Generally speaking the Pitkin County Bank Building 1s well located in the
downtown area within walking distance of many adjacent businesses as well
as close proximity to existing transit lines.
The most frequently cited source for area trip generation figures is the
Alan Voorhees study of 1973. This study forms the basis of the trip
generation figures utilized in the Pitkin County Code although a
comparable trip generation analysis has not been codified by the City of
Aspen. Utilizing the Voorhees figures, and assuming a strong transit
system for this area, would indicate an appropriate assumption of 8
additional vehicle trips per 1000 sq. ft. of proposed office expansion.
An expansion of 2,240 net sq. ft., therefore, result in an additional 18
trips per day on adjacent streets. Since each additional vehicle trip
results in 2 trip ends, this project therefore represents an increase to
adjacent daily traffic counts of just 36 vehicles per day. The Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element as published by the Aspen - Pitkin
Planning Department in 1986 indicates existing traffic counts on Hyman
Avenue at 2,200 vehicles per day and on Hunter Street at 2,100 vehicles
per day. That same report indicated projected traffic for the year 2000
on Hyman Avenue at 3,00 vehicles per day and on Hunter Street at 3,700
vehicles per day. Hyman Avenue and Hunter Street are both paved urban
streets in a 2 lane configuration with an assumed total traffic capacity
of some 5,000 vehicles per day. It is apparent that this proposal for an
office expansion does not represent a significant impact on the traffic
loads of adjacent streets even projected to the year 2000.
Construction of the Pitkin County Bank Building expansion, therefore,
will not require improvements to adjacent streets in order to handle the
additional traffic generated by the project.
6. Trash Utility Area. Based on you subsequent request, I have reviewed the
proposed trash utility area for the bank expansion. It would appear from
the preliminary
September 12, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 5
schematic plan that the proposed trash utility area abutting the alley on
the north end of the building will be between 81/2 and 101/2 feet deep
measured from the alley and 18 feet wide at the alley entrance. It is
also 10 feet high at the opening which meets City code requirements. With
the proposed expansion the Pitkin County Bank Building will have 7,700 sq.
ft. of total leasable office space. The Aspen Zoning Code would require
a trash area 20 feet long measured parallel to the alley for the initial
6,000 sq. ft. of office space and an additional 1 foot in length for each
additional 1200 sq. ft. of floor area. As you are aware, the requirements
for trash utility area dimensions may be reduced persuant to the special
review provisions of Article 7, Division 4, of the City of Aspen Land Use
Regulations. We would recommend that a reduction in the trash utility
area commensurate with the available apace would be appropriate for the
following reasons:
A. All utilities in the adjacent alley are currently undergrounded
and have adequate transformer and pedestal locations elsewhere in
the alley. As a result no additional pedestals or transformers are
ti required in this trash utility enclosure and therefore the space 1s
generally needed only for trash facilities.
B. Trash requirements for this office expansion as well as the
existing structure are essentially office use in nature and do not
present the problems associated with trash for uses such as
restaurant facilities.
7. Other Utilities. I have been able to contact all of the other utility
companies relevant to this expansion proposal. Generally speaking they
have indicated that service is available to the project and that the
expansion ie easily accommodated with either existing facilities or minor
improvements to existing facilities.
The following itemization represents a breakdown of specific utility
comments:
A. Electric Service. Don Gilbert of the City Electric Department
-• indicates that capacity is available to serve the expansion to the
Pitkin County Bank Building and that existing transformers in the
alley can probably handle the increased requirements.
B. Ray Patch of the Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company indicates
that the existing service is probably adequate to handle the
expansion and that the only improvement required may be an upeized
meter.
September 12, 1990
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 6
C. Wayne Johnson of the U.S. West Communications tells me that
phone service, again, is not a problem to the proposed project. He
notes that if increased phone capacity requires a larger service
cable, the Bank would need to install conduit to the alley pedestal.
Internal conduit systems should be installed during the expansion
•• construction.
D. Representatives of Canyon Cable Television indicated that the
existing structure may not have cable service. They noted, however,
that any contemplated installation of cable television lines in the
future would suggest that the expansion be prewired for cable in
order to avoid additional wiring on exterior surfaces at a later
date.
This completes my report on engineering matters pertinent to the Pitkin County
Bank Commercial Growth Management Application. I hope this report proves
adequate for GMP Application purposes, feel free to contact me if I may provide
any additional information or further assistance with preparation of the
application. Thank you again for the opportunity of working on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GOR MEYER, INC.
a W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal -Aspen Office
cc: Charles Israel, Pitkin Co. Bank & Trust Co.
JH /ja90190
EXHIBIT 2
\ 41.4 I t >
�¢.
\ n
, - -
CHARLES B. ISRAEL
President
September 13,1990
Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority
Dear Members:
I am writing you at the direction of Mr.Sonny Vann to
explain the needs of our bank in our proposed expansion
of the banks' premises.
At present we employ between 28 and 30 full time equivalent
employees. Because of our strictly enforced record keeping
requirements, vast areas of storage space are needed to
house the years of records generated by our customers.
These areas are unused by employees except for research
done for depositors on a periodic basis.
At the same time we are truly crowded in work space
areas because of the nature of our business forces us to
keep large areas of space available as customer, traffic
flow areas.
We presently have no plans to expand our staff,but rather
we hope to give exisiting employees proper work areas.
Factually a banks' growth is deposit driven and all recent
reports indicate Aspen is presently in a downward deposit
cycle. With the recent closing of Aspen Savings and Loan,
tens of millions of dollars of deposits left the Aspen
financial area. If this trend were to continue we could
be forced to reduce staff rather than enlarge.
I sincerely hope this brief explanation clarifies our
need for our building expansion.
If there are any further questions, please do not hesitate
to call me.
pec fully A., `,'
arles B. Israel
President
1
531 E. MI ‘N . %YE. • P.O. BOX 3677 • : %SEEN. COLORADO 81612 • 3031925 -6700
ran
raw
aan
aut
■
APPENDIX C
,M B FI W a te i'Y1S " EXHIBIT 1
Ns
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
Aspen Distract
a
a
a
Mr. Scott C. Smith
m Gibson & Reno
418 E. Cooper
Aspen, CO 81611
September 5, 1990
Dear Scott,
After reviewing plans for the addition to the Pitkin County
Bank Building, it is our opinion that there will not be any effect
on trash removal.
We have no objections to your plans as reviewed by us and wish you
well on your project.
ry Truly Your:,
CS
Anthony J. Vagne
Distri't Manag:
1
all
wit
405 AABC, SUITE E ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925 -6505
r