HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Shadow Mountain Wesson.34A-86.08A-89MCA. CtmmetA- Gl ap
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street ��
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
- 63721
- 47331
-52100
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
- 63722
- 47332
- 52100
GMP/PRELIMINARY
- 63723
- 47333
-52100
GMP/FINAL
- 63724
- 47341
- 52100
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
- 63725
- 47342
-52100
SUB/PRELIMINARY
- 63726
- 47343
- 52100
SUB/FINAL
- 63727
- 47350
- 52100
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63728
- 47360
-52100
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
- 63730
- 47380
-52100
HOUSING
00115
- 63730
- 47380
- 52100
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
County
00113
- 63711
- 47331
-52200
GMP/GENERAL
- 63712
- 47332
-52200
GMP/DETAILED
- 63713
- 47333
- 52200
GMP/FINAL
- 63714
- 47341
-52200
SUB/GENERAL
- 63715
- 47342
- 52200
SUB/DET^"
- 63716
- 47343
52200
SUB/FINAL
- 63717
- 47350
52200
ALL 2-STEP H, . f IONS
- 63718
- 47360
52200
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
- 63730
- 47380
52200
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
- 63730
- 47380
52200
HOUSING
00113
- 63731
- 09000
52200
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
00113
- 63732
- 09000
52200
ENGINEERING
SUB -TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE
SALES
00113
- 63061
- 09000
52200
COUNTY CODE
- 63063
- 09000
52200
ALMANAC
- 63062
- 09000
- 00000
COMP. PLAN
- 63066
- 09000
- 00000
COPY FEES
- 63069
- 09000
-
OTHER
Name:_
Address:
Check #
Additional Billing:
SUB -TOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project:
Date:
# of Hours:
I� 7 fi�r nU
DATE RECEIVED: - i 1=
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE:
PROJECT NAME:
CASELOAD SUMMARY Sn EET
6 City of Aspen
APPLICANT:
Applicant Address/Phone: (�3
RE PR ES EN TAT IV E: "-( .tom A
Representative Address/Phone:
Type of Application:
I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD
�.�735-IZ�-�{�' Dl�
Q
CAS E NO. L3 U
STAFF
1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,73�80
2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
II. Subdivision/PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 14 $1,900.00
2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications .11 $1, 490 .00
IV. All "One Step" Appl ications 5 $ 680 .00
V. Referral Fees - Environryental
Health, Housing Office
1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50 .00
2. Major Applications 5
Referral Fees -
Engineering
Minor Applications /` 9
80-00
Major Applications DT pn f2O.0
Ll
---------------
P& CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC H E - G : YES NO
<h
DATE REFERRED./ t IN IT IALS,:
REFERRALS:
City Atty Aspen Consol. S. D. School District
r City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State fiwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zo ' g/Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center
--
_____________
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: q % --INITIAL:T[C%
City Atty City Engineer Building Dept.
Other- &itt
Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
CASE DISPOSITION:
Re
viewed by:
I d
Aspen P&Z
City Counci0.
l
2
or,JL5
(fAAJJJ
CCP, 1r, V I J ;-P-Pt
)J
Reviewee., Bv: ;.spen P&Z
Or
QY—C!uncil
—Q
0 MT tj U k,, i !;,, A &,4 W�-tqtr-.' Lt /( 9-pAv-7 "i i � 1) dtit'atd -
t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
RESOLUTION NO. qJ
(Series of 1986)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENT TO
THE WESSON BUILDING THROUGH THE 1986 OFFICE ZONE
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION, CARRYING OVER
OF UNUSED OFFICE QUOTA FOR THE 1987 GMP OFFICE
COMPETITION AND ELIMINATING THE CARRYOVER OF USED QUOTA
IN THE NC AND SCI ZONE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.5 (a) of the
Municipal Code
as amended, August 1
of each year
is
established
as a deadline
for submission of
application
for
commercial
development allotments within the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, in response to this provision, two applications
were submitted for evaluation in the office zone competition
category, listed as follows:
Zone District
Project GMP Allocation Requested Quota Comp.
1. Wesson 2,487 sq. ft. Office
2. 700 E. Hyman 9,000 sq. ft. Office
;and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
September 16, 1986 to consider the Office competition at which
time the Commission did evaluate and score the projects; and
WHEREAS, one project met the minimum threshold of 25.8 and
one project did not meet the threshold by having received the
following points (not including bonus points) :
-- Project Total Points Given by P&Z (avg.)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
; and
Wesson
700 E. Hyman
31.7 •
24.6
WHEREAS, the quota available for each zone district category
in the 1986 Office Zone district Commercial GMP competition is
4,000 sq. ft. ; and
WHEREAS, The Commission considered the representations made
by the Wesson Dental Building applicant in scoring this project,
including but not limited to the following:
A. The building will not exceed 23 1/2 feet in height and
will follow the design characteristics of broken -up
massing, siting 15 feet from the front property line
behind a row of cottonwoods and use of stained wood
siding. Final approval of the design by the Historic
Preservation Committee shall be obtained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
B. The landscape plan includes retaining all existing
trees on -site and in adjacent rights -of -way, planting
ten new trees, planting native ground cover, land-
scaping of the western edge of the property in conjunc-
tion with the adjacent landowners, installation of
undulating sidewalks 5 feet in width, and redesigning
the irrigation ditches and ditch interconnection.
C. A six (6) inch water line will be extended north from
Hopkins Street along 5th Street and a fire hydrant will
be installed on the northeast corner of Main and 5th at
the applicant's expense.
D. All surface run-off of the site will be collected in an
on -site dry well and not discharged into the surround-
ing street drainage system. Curb and gutter on 5th
Street will be installed by the applicant.
E. A 7 1/2 foot by 6 1/2 foot enclosed trash area will be
constructed in the rear of 611 W. Main for common use
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
by the Wesson and Levinson properties.
F. Energy conservation measures include use of insulation
25% over Code requirements and installation of a solar
hot water device.
G. Seven (7) head-on parking spaces will be provided off
the alley, two of which will be demarked for residen-
tial tenant use.
H. The applicant will deed -restrict to the moderate income
housing guidelines one -bedroom unit in the building and
make a cash -in -lieu payment prior to the issuance of a
building permit of $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25
employees at the moderate income level.
; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the recommended
Aspen Planning and zoning Commission scoring for the Wesson
Project and concurs that the requested allotment should be
granted; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council determined that the unused
1985 quota in the NC and SCI zone districts should not be carried
over because the annual quota is adequate for the relative growth
needs in those zone districts, but that the unused quota in the
Office zone district should be carried over to the 1987 quota
because growth in this area may be reasonably expected in
response to development in other sectors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that it does hereby allocate 2,487 sq. ft. from the
available quota of 4,000 sq. ft. in the Office zone category
to the Wesson Dental Building; and
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
.� 100 Leaves
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that the above allocation shall expire pursuant to
Section 24-11.7(a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans,
specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building
permit for the proposed commercial buildings are not submitted on
or before May 1 , 19 89.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado that the 7,000 sq. ft. which remains unallocated in the
NC/SCI zones category and that the 1,513 sq. ft. which remains
unallocated in the Office zone shall not be carried forward for
possible distribution in 1987, as provided for in Section 24-
11.5(f) .
Dated: a� , 1986.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Compliance with Representations and Conditions of
Approval: Wesson Dental Building
DATE: July 23, 1987
Following are my comments on the Wesson project:
1. See Resolution 41 (1986) attached.
2. Final HPC approval was given. Minor changes in window design
are technical amendments that I approve as staff sign_ off*
Building permit plan elevations appear the same as approved.
3. Cash -in -lieu payment of $16,625 for employee housing must be
received by the Housing Authority prior to issuance of building
permit. Please check with Ann Bowman.
4. Bonus FAR totaling 0.9:1 was approved as follows:
2,487 s.f. - commercial space
1,938 s.f. - 1 bedroom free-market apt. on 2nd floor
858 s.f. - employee apt. on garden level
110 s.f. - employee stairwell
5,393 s.f. - Total
Please verify FAR.
5. Site plan including 10 new trees, bike rack, handicap access
ramp, seating area, drywells, relocation of irrigation ditch, new
sidewalk and fire hydrant shown as approved. I recommend that
all of these improvements should be made prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
6. Wesson should be arranging with the Water Department with
regard to the 6 inch water line extended north along 5th Street
and fire hydrant (both at his expense) so they are accomplished
this summer, and before Certificate of Occupancy.
7. Maximum height of 23.5 feet should be checked.
8. Energy representations (see page 7 of Application attached)
should be verified by the Building Department.
9. The on -site employee unit should be deed restricted to
moderate income level prior to C.O.
10. Parking for 7 spaces is shown as approved (P&Z special
review).
11. A trash enclosure 7.5 x 6.5 feet was committed by the
applicant to be constructed on the adjacent property for their
common use of both properties. The enclosure should be built
prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
12. No existing trees on the property or adjacent ROW should be
cut down.
My main concerns are (1) that the immediate items mentioned above
- such as employee housing payment, energy, and area and bulk
representations - are taken care of prior to building permit
issuance and (2) that the long list of site improvements and off -
site improvements are accomplished in conjunction with construct-
ion. This is probably a good time to remind the applicant of all
his commitments.
sb.wesson
• 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office po�
RE: 1986 Commercial GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews -
Office and NC/SCI Zone Districts
DATE: November 5, 1986
Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend
that Council grant a commercial growth management allotment to
the Wesson Building. The Planning Office also recommends that you
carry over the unallocated square footage in the office zone but
not that in the NC/SCI zones.
Requests: The following applications have been made in this
year's Office zone district commercial growth management
compe ti ti on:
GMP
Allocations
Project Requested
1. Wesson Bldg. 2,487 sf
2. 700 E. Hyman 9,000 sf
Reconstruction
Space/On-site Project Zone District
Housing Total Quota Competition
2,906 sf 5,393 sf Office
9,000 sf Office
No requests for allotments were received this year in the NC/SCI
zone district, and the allocations in the CC-C-1 and CL and other
zone districts have already been granted.
Quota Available: Quota for the Office and NC/SCI zone district
GMP competition is calculated as follows:
Zone District Annual Exemptions/ Total Quota
Category Quota Additions Available Quota Requested
Office 4,000 sf 0 4,000 sf 11,487sf
NC/SCI 7 ,000 sf 0 7 ,000 sf 0
1
•
Advisory Committee Votes: The
gave conceptual approval to the
needed to be eligible to submit
Section 24-11 .3 (d) .
Historic Preservation Committee
Wesson Dental Building, as was
a GMP applications according to
The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the Office GMP
applications at their regular meeting of September 16, 1986.
Scoring was done individually by each Commission member, and the
scoring summary sheets for both projects are attached hereto.
Also considered and approved by P&Z were the following special
reviews:
1. Wesson Bldg.:
a. Parking Reduction: P&Z unanimously granted a reduction
in on -site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on
the condition that the two residential spaces shall be
demarked for the use of those tenants.
b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1
subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge
of the property in conjunction with the adjacent
landowner.
Allocation Issues:
The 700 E. Hyman project did not meet the minimum thresholds and
is not eligible for allocations. The Wesson project did meet the
thresholds and can be given allotment from the 1986 quota without
future year allocation.
The Planning Office recommends
requested allocation, as would be
of Resolution 'Y/ (attached) .
Carry -Over of Unused Quota:
Over the past several years, the
allotments remaining from the
Council can either carry-over
follows:
Office 1,513 sf
NC/SCI 7,000 sf
that this project be given the
accomplished by Council adoption
Council has generally eliminated
prior year. The quotas which
or eliminate this year are as
The NC/SCI zone district has seen no development activity since
the imposition of the quota. While some activity may be necessary
to keep up with growth in the residential sector, a carry-over
would create a 1987 quota in these zones of 14,000 sf, which we
believe could encourage one or two projects of a scale inconsistent
with our development and growth policies.
2
•
The Office Zone is seeing the first new development this year
since the quota was established in this zone district. We
believe that carry-over of the unused 1,513 sf is reasonable
because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office
space in the community. Office space may be needed in response
to recent residential, lodging, and ski area expansion.
Of equal importance are the circumstances surrounding the failure
of the 700 E. Hyman Building to meet the competitive threshold.
A major issue which arose with respect to this building was the
applicant's use of covered parking above grade and his request
for a Planning Office interpretation of whether such space should
count in the project's FAR. Due to an unusual workload this
summer, we were unable to adequately analyze this issue prior to
the August deadline. When this issue was analyzed in the review
process, an agreement could not be reached between staff and the
applicant and the P&Z was required to make the interpretation.
Although P&Z agreed with the applicant that such space is exempt
from FAR under the Code, they felt that the applicant's design
was flawed because of this approach and scored the project
accordingly. The applicant has appealed the scoring (see attached
letters from Dave Myler) but has agreed at the Planning staff's
urging to drop the appeal if Council carries over the unused
square footage to next year. We strongly recommend that you
carry the 1,513 sf over to address the unfortunate problem which
occurred with respect to this project.
At the October 27 Council meeting, the Office GMP allocation was
tabled at the request of the 700 E. Hyman applicant. The Hodge
Company wanted to reevaluate its position in regard to the GMP
appeal. The appeal has been dropped contingent upon the above
stated arrangement.
Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends adoption of
Resolution -// , Series of 1986, to grant allocation to Wesson,
eliminate the unused quota in the NC/SCI zone districts and
carry-over the unused office quota.
Ancillary Review of the Wesson Project:
The applicant proposes to deed restrict one 1 bedroom unit on -site
and make a cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Authority of
$16,625 to house 1.25 moderate income employees. The Housing
Authority recommended approval of this program and P&Z accepted
it on September 16, 1986.
Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the proposed GMP exemption
for the construction of one on -site employee unit to be deed
restricted to the moderate income employee housing guidelines and
accept cash -in -lieu payment of $16 ,625 to provide housing f or
1.25 moderate income employees, as adjusted to the current
0
L
payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit.
Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance
of a building permit. Deed restriction of the on -site employee
unit shall be filed prior to issuance of a certificate of occu-
pancy. "
City Manager's Recommendation:
C,0 ✓DTo 14.44 sCNs c
4
•
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
September 10, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CG�7\�(
D
SEP 10 FA
Re: Wesson Growth Management Plan Application
Dear Steve:
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
One other point of information that I want to review
with you concerning the Wesson Growth Management Plan
Application is contained in Elyse Elliot's memo dated
September 5, 1986. In that memo, Elyse requests increasing
the size of the trash area to 5' x 10'. After discussions,
we agreed that the trash area should be 72' x 62'. This new
size will accomodate both her concerns and our needs. I
believe all items that you asked us to address have been
adequately addressed so that you can go forward with the
scoring of our application.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
GK/bw
ideon/Kaufman
•
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN y
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Box 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
August 4, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Wesson Dental Building
Parking Exemption
Dear Alan,
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925.8166
Please consider this letter as Application for Special
Review approval for reduction in required parking. Pursuant to
§ 24-4.5 Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant is hereby requesting
a reduction by Special Review. The Code parking guideline for
the Office District is three (3.0) spaces per one thousand
(1,000) feet or seven and one-half (7.5) car spaces for this
office. The Code allows for a variance from this guideline for
a reduced parking standard of one and one-half (1.5) cars per
one thousand (1,000) square feet, or three and seven -tenths
(3.7) car spaces for this office. Dr. Wesson is providing five
(5) spaces which is above the three and seven -tenths (3.7)
minimum requirement allowed by Special Review.
We feel that the reduction in parking is acceptable for
the following reasons:
1. The property is a corner lot and parking is available
along Main Street and Fifth Street. The sixty (60) foot lot
frontage along Main Street can accommodate three (3) to four (4)
cars. The one hundred (100) foot frontage along Fifth Street
can accommodate five (5) to six (6) cars. Therefore, the total
on and off street parking available to the property is fifteen
(15) to seventeen (17) spaces. This figure is well above the
seven (7) spaces required using the maximum guideline of the
Code.
2. The property is located outside the downtown core
area and the parking along Main Street and Fifth Street at this
location is generally easily available. The property is
conveniently located for walking, bicycle and bus access which
will reduce the parking demand.
Mr. Alan Richman
August 4, 1986
Page Two
We feel that ample precedent exists for reducing the
parking requirement as requested, and that the reduction is
appropriate in this instance.
We would appreciate it if this review could be heard by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the same time as the GMP
hearing.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN
By:
GideOP/
Kaufman
GK:kl
cc: William Wesson
GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION •
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
August 4, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan,
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925 8166
Re: Wesson Dental Building Special
Review Exemption for Restricted
Units From The GMP
Please consider this letter an application for special
approval for exempting the employee housing unit in The Wesson
Dental Building GMP application. Pursuant to 2411.2(f), an
employee housing unit deed restricted in accordance with the
city -adopted employee housing guidelines constructed pursuant to
the residential, commercial and lodge development allotment can
be exempt from the GMP. It is our belief that the proposed
employee housing meets a community need and that the proposed
housing is in compliance with the adopted housing plan.
We are asking that the one -bedroom moderate income unit
be exempt. We feel that ample precedent exists for exempting
this unit. We hope that this review procedure can be done
concurrent with the GMP review process.
If you have any comments or questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN
By: _
Gideon laufman
GK:kl
cc: William Wesson
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Box 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305
ASPEN. COLORADO 61611
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
August 4, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Wesson Dental Building
Bonus FAR
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-81615
Dear Alan,
Please consider this letter an Application for Special
Review approval for bonus FAR in the GMP scoring for the
above referenced matter. Pursuant to Section 24-3.4
Aspen Municipal Code, "Area and Bulk requirements", the
allowable Floor Area Ratio is . 7 5 : 1 (4,500 square feet
F.A.R.) in the Office District with a bonus of .25:1 (1,500
square feet F.A.R.) for on -site employee housing. The
applicant is requesting less than the full bonus square feet
(employee apartment is 858 square feet and employee unit
stairwell is 110 square feet). We feel that the bonus points
should be awarded for the following reasons:
(1) The employee unit will be rented in accordance
with adopted housing price guidelines for moderate
income occupants; and
(2) The project is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and zoning. T1he design has received
conceptual HPC approval and is best characterized
as a "modest and simple' design" which shall be
extensively screerred by the existing large
cottonwood trees. The height of the building has
been reduced from the maximum height allowed by
Code to 23' feet. Although there is no requirement
for Open Space in the Office District, the project
provides 1,840 square feet of open space.
(3) The GMP application fully sets forth the analyses
which has been completed with respect to the
adequacy of the water supply, sewage treatment,
storm drainage, roads and parking facilities
serving the project. The results indicate that
the project can be fully served by the existing
water and sewage systems. The project will result
in minimum impact on the existing roads. The
project also provides for storm drainage and
parking facilities on site. (Please see GMP
application for details).
We feel that ample precedent exists for the award of
Bonus F.A.R. for this project.
We would appreciate it if this review could be heard by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the same time as the
GMP hearing.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact
me.
Very Truly Yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN
7
By:
Gid do Kaufman
cc: William Wesson
•
ff�l9li�1\iiir�
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
ss.
STATE OF COLORADO )
I, GIDEON KAUFMAN, hereby verify that William H. Wesson
is the title holder of the fee simple interest in the
following described property located in Pitkin County:
Lots H and I, Block 25
City and Townsite of Aspen
DATED this 1st day of August, 1986.
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By i //�
✓Gide n Kaufman
CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL CMP APPLICATICNS
TALLY SAP
VIRCUECT NAME: —Wesson Dental Building Date: 2Z16186
1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
P&Z VC1iIM MEMBERS David Ja4n; rp Welton Ram Jim -
A. Quality of Design
1. Architectural
Design 2.5 3 2_ 3_ 2
2. Site Design 2.5 3 3 2_ _3
3. Energy 2.5 2 _ — 2_ _3
4. Anenities 2.5 3 2_ 2_ 2
5. Visual Impact 3 3 3_3 2
6. Trash and Utility
Access 2.5 1 2 2 2
SUBTOTAL: 15.5 15 15 1_4 14— 14.7
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1. Water Supply/Fire
Protection 2 _2 2-2 2
2. Sewage Di spo sal 1 1 1_ 1 1
3. Public Transporta-
ti on/Roads -1 1 1 1_ 1
4. Storm Drainage 2 2 �. 1 _2
5. Parking 2 1 1 1 1
SUBTOTAL: 8 Z_ 1— 6_ Z- 7
C. Provision of Dnplayee
Housing 10 10 10 IQ_ 10 10
D. TOTAL:
33.5 32 32-- 30 31 31.7
D. Bonus Points 6 4_ 5_ 4— 2 4.2
TOTAL POINTS
CATEGORIES A, B, C
and D 39.5 -36- 3Z— _34__ 33-- .3 9
0
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
• L y
PROJECT: DATE
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Fate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING. v�/2
COMMENT : �Vt�f � • I � ; � t`��j �t�� SE 1 L�tiL. �C,
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and priva
RATING:
�L
COMMENT:
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
•
•
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources. %
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
��v �
COMMENT: C-eG'��' �f?l�C� RATING
D14
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
COMMENT:
1 (Sol (41
i
RATING:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.,
RATING: / r�
COMMENT.. k-L
(4fs([- tcw Y Cc
2
SUB TOTAL : 4
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities. _ff
RATING:
COMMENT: I►�Dl flcJ� � � t C',r�U �C' P (�
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
3
RATING: '
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
I
RATING:
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING.
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING. z
COMMENT: 1 � P"a
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING:
COMMENT
4. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (max' um 5 points) - The Commission
shall assign points to those ap icants who guarantee to provide
a portion of their low, mo rate and middle income, units by
purchas' ful constructe units' -which are restricted to
Aspen's ho ng ideli s d placi a ed-restriction upon
them in compli tion w' h Se tion 24- 0. Pdints shall be
assigned accordin to e fo11 ing sghedu e:
Points
1 to 33% all low, m to and mle \
incom' d
e u s propose icant re
to be /zIchased an eed re c d
34 �66% of a ow, moderat a middl 3
me units oposed by applicant e
t e pure sed and deed stricted
6 to Q$ of all low, mo/reederate and mid 5
ncom�'u 'ts proposed by applicant are
to 1?6 pur ased and deed restricted
COME N T :
5
RATING:
E
CJ
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
f;
BONUS POINTS:COMMENT: (Noo 61V/5 ((1-`
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: I�>IIl (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4 '(minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
l%
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
19
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
�,
PRAT ECT : � l� ?SS D n �%�Y 1 `1��� N�U / /A� DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
cc RATING: �t3
COMMENT.'S '- � �_ bLIJ �. Und%J./ I'C%S
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
L, RATING:
COMMENT: Y:1t e7-1
�'0
PLvS - �a-
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
01
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - 6onsidering the sca e and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMEN: _l�^Y�"� GC_ PR �/"�'1 l�� Z/�J C G� �Q
T
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
2
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENT:
3
r
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: '—
COMMENT
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING: f 0
4. LRSION OF EXISTING ITS ximum 5 points) - Th ommission
sh 1 assign points to ose app 'cants who guar ntee to rovide
a pdrtion-.,of their low,., moderate and middle come un s by
purchasing 'filly constructed units w ch are not estricte to
Aspen��s housing guidelines,,.and placin a deed-res riction u n
them in compli�tion with Section 24-11\10. Poin s shall b
assigned accordiftq to the following schedules
Point
1 to 331 of all to moderate nd middle 1
income units propose by applicant are
be purchased and de d restricted
34 t 66% of all low, mode ate and�niddle 3
.income nits prop
by ap icant Are
`to be Pu hased and deed restricted
67,to 100$ o all low, moderate ana7-fiiddle 5
inc me units proposed by applicant are
to bpurchased and deed restricted
COMMENT:
5
RATING:
lir
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: is (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: 7 (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
Points in Category 5
TOTAL POINTS:
L (minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
n
rr
3'(�
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:�C-
N
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: �,.� rt -��1 IAtI J A) L bi t- l j DATE:1Z kz�
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: * "L-
COMMENT:
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT:
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
0 •
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: L�-
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
l RATING: y-7�p
COMMENT: P� ai h-f I�� 'V L � �- ���
A / 1
SUBTOTAL:
2
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: L
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENT:
P
•
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARRING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL: + j
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING:
4. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - Th,"ommission
shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide
a portion of their low, moderate and middincome units by
purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to
Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon
them in complication with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be
assigned according to the following chedule:
Points
1 to 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
34 to 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purJehased and deed restricted
67 to 00% of all low, moderate and middle 5
ie units proposed by applicant are
tnc be purchased and deed restricted
COMMENT:
5
RATING:
0 •
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS: L
COMMENT: P_ta:L- I* -A I RiauSop POC�7r
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
Points in Category 5
TOTAL POINTS:
_ (minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
AMP
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
n
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT • l.(/ 55� !/�!� (��%%���� DATE • 6 �6
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 1-Z-
COMMENT :
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT:
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
COMMENT
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
2
SUBTOTAL:
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
f ormul a:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT: vV I
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
COMMENT:
3
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
4
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point f or each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING:
4. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - The Commission
shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide
a portion of their low, moderate and middle income units by
purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to
Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon
them in complication with Section 11.10. Points shall be
assigned according to the following, -"schedule:
Points
1 to 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and' deed restricted
34 to 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3
income unitsproposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
67 to ,1'00$ of all low, moderate. and middle 5
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
RATING:
COMMENT
5
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
Points in Category 5
TOTAL POINTS:
r ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
J4kw--
M
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:
DATE:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING:
COMMENT:
C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
I • •
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING:
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
2
.4 • •
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
COMMENT
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
COMMENT:
3
RATING:
C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING:
COMMENT
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
COMMENT
SUBTOTAL:
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
n
f • •
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
COMMENT:
RATING:
4. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - The Commission
shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide
a portion of their low, moderate and middle income units by
purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to
Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed -restriction upon
them in complication with Section 24-11.10. Points shall be
assigned according to the following schedule:
Points
1 to 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
34 to 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
67 to 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
COMMENT:
5
RATING:
u
0
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS:
COMMENT
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: ( minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: (minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4 (minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
TOTAL POINTS:
i
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: W"'�'
6
September 10, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Wesson Growth Management Plan Application
Dear Steve:
I write this letter to you as the owner of 611 West Main
Street, which is the yellow Victorian next door to Dr.
Wesson's property. Dr. Wesson and I have entered into an
agreement whereby Dr. Wesson will construct a common trash
enclosure for both properties as set forth in his GMP
application. This enclosure will be constructed on my
property. This is being done in order to clean up the
unsightly feature which presently exists in the alley.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free
to contact me.
Ver my s,
Dan Levinson
•
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
City Hall
Aspen, Co. 81611
Gentlemen:
• Box 3646
Aspen, Co. 81612
September 13, 1986
p�6�nd�l,
This letter is written to support the application of a project seeking
Commission approval which has been submitted to you by W. H. Wesson, DDS. I
have read the project summary, and I have also read the criteria on which
approval for the project will apparently be based, the commercial GMP
evaluation sheets.
Prior to my moving to Aspen about seven years ago, for over thirty years I was
active in burgeoning post -WWII northern Ohio, where I practiced my profession,
participated actively on regional and city planning and zoning boards, helped
to write building and zoning codes and chaired for a number of years a zoning
appeals board.
When I moved to Aspen I found that I was in for a shock. I found a lovely
parcel for my home which I contracted to purchase -- a ten acre residential
lot, so zoned, from an old ranch. It took over one and one half years to
receive required county P and Z approval in order to secure a building permit.
This was to be a single lot split from a larger parcel, for which it seemed
the entire procedure required for a full-blown subdivision was required from
me, excepting for the competition for points against construction industry
professionals and their teams, as is now faced by Dr. Wesson's application. I
still wince as I think of the multi -page professional engineer's report on the
impact on Castle Creek road traffic from the construction and occupancy of my
single family residence, located at the confluence of Conundrum and Castle
creeks.
There is a strong parallel between my experience I have just described and the
situation Dr. Wesson seems to be experiencing. In the community's approval
process a consideration of qualitative values seem to be totally absent, even
PG( -hewed. in contrast Othe exclusive consideratio of quantitative values
based primarily on what a promoter or developer might be willing to do extra
for the city simply as a payment of sorts for his entry permit. To pit
predatory, exploitative promoters, developers and investors and their staffs
-- the professionals of the construction industry, against the individual
citizen concerned with building his own home or professional workplace is
certainly contrary to the idealism displayed by what I see as a majority of
residents in this community.
As I see it, a commission such as yours can be just as objective and
impersonal with respect to the task of judging qualities as quantitites. For
the long range best interests of the community, perhaps certain qualitative
concerns can be of more importance than the quantitative concerns, and a place
for this might well be added to the evaluation procedure. In these two cases,
those of Dr. Wesson and myself, each applicant is an individual, concerned
with a relatively small and highly personal construction project, that of a
home for both an individual professional practice and for the practioner-
applicant himself. Where the current evaluation procedure puts to
disadvantage and hardship the individual citizen, especially in the case at
hand where Dr. Wesson demonstrates a fifteen year community interest track
record, I believe the planning and zoning board should use it's judgement and
its authority to square the unfairness built into the present evaluation
system with the idealism everywhere prevalent in this community.
Sincerely,
T. L. Goudvis, P. E.
CC: Bill Wesson
• 9
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM ELYSE ELLIOTT
4e ate-��.�.�
e &""e "
:,2
"f"a .12.
• . •
a yz I
ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY
ASPEN, COLORADO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 9, 1986
TO: Steve Burstein
City/County Planning Office
r
FROM: Bruce A. Abel, General
Paul S. Hilts, Director
RE: Wesson Dental Building
-Conceptual Submission
Manager
of Operation
After reviewing the Wesson Dental Building Conceptual Submission,
the Roaring Fork Transit Agency does not see any major problems
with this project. This portion of Main Street is served four
times per hour in each direction by the Highlands/Mountain Valley
and Snowbnnny buses, in addition to regular service from points
downvalley by fare buses. We see no problems with this project
being easily served by public transportation. Neither should it
significantly impact the existing services along this corridor.
Our only suggestion/comment
bench suggested on page six of
suggest that, if possible,
Street side of the building
public transportation.
pak
would be in regard to the waiting
the submission. We would like to
this bench be placed on the Main
in order to facilitate waiting for
r ��o�rE
D -�
SEP 1 196
M E M 0 R A N D U M ------
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1986
RE: 700 E. HYMAN BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP/CONCEPT. SUB
ISSUE: Does the application meet the Aspen City Municipal Code
and the Housing Authority generation requirements?
BACKGROUND: The project is proposed on a vacant 12,000 square
foot parcel of land located at the intersection of Spring Street
and Hyman Avenue referred to as the Lucas property. The property
consists of Lots K,L,M, and N, Block 104, City of Aspen. The
applicant proposes to construct and approximately 9,000 square
foot office building on the Lucas property, with the ground floor
containing 1.660 square feet, the second and third floors
containing 3,830 square feet, and 3,510 square feet respectively.
A basement is neither required nor provided.
The applicant represents that the 700 East Hyman building's
tenants will be limited to those professional and business
offices permitted within the 0-office zone district. The
project's employee housing requirement will be fulfilled via the
conversion of existing free market units; therefore, no residen-
tial use of the property is required or proposed.
The total net leasable floor area of the building is approxi-
mately 7,460 square feet. Based on an employee generation factor
of three (3) employees per thousand (1,000) square feet of net
leasable floor area (the Municipal Code's specified employee
generation factor for the 0-office zone district), the project
will generate approximately twenty two (22) new employees. The
applicant proposes to satisfy the employee housing requirements,
of Section 24-11.5(c) via nine (9) employees, or forty (40)
percent of the total employees generated by the project, in four
(4) two bedroom units to be purchased at the Airport Business
Center aka Park Place Condominiums. The units in question comply
with all applicable employee housing standards and will be deed
restricted to employee occupancy and price guidelines in accor-
dance with the Housing AUthority's recommendations prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. It
is anticipated that the units will be restricted to the Auth-
ority's low income rental and sales price guidelines.
0 i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the
project's calculations and proposed housing for the (9) employees
with the following deed restriction:
1. The applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that
the employee housing units shall be deed restricted in terms
of use and occupancy to the rental guidelines established
and indexed by the City Council's designee for low income
employee housing units at the time or prior to issuance of
the building permit. Verification of employment and income
of those person living in the low income employee units
shall be completed and filed with the City Council or its
designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording
hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and
annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run
with the land as a burden thereto for the benef it of and
shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its
designee by any appropriate legal action including injunc-
tion, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during
the period of life of the last surviving member of the
presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of
fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the
Pitkin County Real Property records, whichever period shall
be greater.
2. The owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the
units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such
individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in
Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the
requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee"
as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in
and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County a minimum
average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve-
month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy
eligibility requirements established and then applied by the
Housing Authority with respect to employee housing.
3. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee
rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six
consecutive months.
4. When a lease is executed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent
to the Housing Office so that a current file may be main-
tained on each unit.
5. Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the
Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a
copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the
Housing Authority Office after recordation.
ACTION NEEDED: Approval by the Board of staff recommendation.
2
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: WESSON DENTAL BUILDING GMP
DATE: AUGUST 20, 1986
We have reviewed the proposed Wesson Dental Building application
pertaining to water availability.
In this locale, the nearest water main is located on the north
side of Main Street. Water service has been provided to adjacent
properties in this block via several small service lines running
up the alley from 6th Street. It is our recommendation that the
development obtain water by extending the 6" main from Hopkins
Street northerly along 5th Street in order to avoid a highway
crossing on Main Street, as well as providing closer fire
protection for the new office building.
We recommend that the applicant install a fire hydrant at or near
the northeast corner of block 25 (Main and 5th). The instal-
lation of the recommended fire hydrant at this location would
greatly improve fire protection for this area.
At some future point in time, when funds are available, the Water
Department would attempt to complete the extension of the main,
thereby providing an interconnect to Main Street.
Although our recommendation to extend the 6" main from Hopkins
Street will be greater in length than the applicant's proposal to
cross Main Street with a service line, we believe our
recommendation is the better alternative for the following
reasons: the fire hydrant will be located on the south side,
thereby eliminating the necessity for the Fire Department to
string fire hose across Main Street, as well as saving the
expense of cutting the highway. Since we are in short supply of
hydrants on the south side of Main Street, it is the objective of
the Water Department to palce any new fire hydrants in Main
Street on the south side. The applicant's proposal to place a
fire hydrant on the southeast corner of block 24 (across the
street), does not achieve this objective.
In closing, should the Planning Office and the P & Z concur with
our recommendation, we believe the applicant should be given
credit for their proposal to upgrade fire protection on the south
side of Main Street.
JM: ab
•
C�
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
HAND -DELIVERY
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
June 27, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman, Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Area and Bulk Requirements of Of
Dear Alan:
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925.8166
p�6�ae�
,AN 3 0
After reviewing your letter of June 23, 1986, regarding
the above -referenced matter, and after discussing the issues
with you, I feel that there is one item that needs further
clarification. The last sentence of your letter states that
both the office and free-market residential units require a
Growth Management Allotment.
While I agree that the office portion of the building
requires both a Growth Management allotment and the need to
compete in the Office GMP, I question the need to compete in
the GMP for the free-market unit. In the Office Zone, there
is an inherent right to build a single-family residence,
therefore the lot in question has a right to one residential
unit. Clearly, my client could construct a residential unit
on the property without the need to compete in the Growth
Management Plan. He could then compete in the O-Office Zone
GMP competition, and convert part of the space to office use,
or add on to the existing space without the need to compete
in the residential GMP. Therefore, the construction of a
single residential unit in the Office Zone should be exempt
from GMP competition in order to avoid the preceding
convoluted activity. The residential unit would be deducted
from the future residential quota, just as any development on
previously subdivided lots is. To interpret the Code to
require my client to compete in the residential GMP
competition would only cause a tremendous amount of hardship
because the small project would have to compete in two Growth
Management competitions. It would also create the type of
development that is. disjointed and would not foster good
planning and aesthetically pleasing architecture, since you
would be forcing an applicant to build a residential unit and
then make it work as an office building.
In summary, I believe the Code interpretation I am
proposing is fair, and one that does not undermine or in any
way harm the intent of the Code. The free-market residential
unit to be constructed on the property would be accounted in
•
Mr. Alan Richman
June 27, 1986
Page 2
the GMP process. The office building would be competed for
in the office competition, and the end result would
accomplish the goals of the GMP, not circumvent them nor
pervert them.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you in the
near future as we have an August 1 deadline for submission of
our GMP, as well as a July 18 deadline for HPC.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
Br
Gideo Kaufman
GK/bw
cc: William Wesson
•
11
June 23, 1986
Mr. Gideon Kaufman
315 F. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Gideon:
I have reviewed vour letter dated Nav 2.7 1.986 submitted to the
City Attorney. I have discussed this matter with the Assistant
City Attorney and Karen and I have come to the following determin-
ation.
41e have reviewed Section 24-3.4 of the Municinal Code. Area and
Bulk Requirements, as it pertains to density in the office zone
di strict . In looking at Line 2 of the chart, minimum lot area
per dwelling unit, it is clear that the number of dwellina units
allowed on property in this district is a function of lot size.
However, it is also clear that as with the RMF zone district,
given the limited areal extent of the district,, the intent is to
maximize the effectiveness of the use of land zoned office.
Therefore, the Code sets a less stringent density limit for
multi -family uses than it does for single family and duplex uses.
In this light; your development proposal for a dwelling unit and
medical office most closely resembles a "duplex" for density
purposes only; for which 3000 square feet per unit are required.
Given this finding, your 6000 square foot lot Would appear to
meet the underlying area and bulk requirement for density for the
use proposed. Obviously, both the office and the free market
residential unit will he subject to the need to obtain a crowth
management allotment.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions recrardina
this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Plannina and Development Director
AR.nec
MEMO TO : Paul INTERNAL MEMO
FROM: Karen
DATE: June 9, 198
RE: G. KAUFMAN'S LETTER RE: WESSON PROPERTY
I have reviewed Gideon's letter of *zav 37th, and the code,
and have the following comments:
I agree with Gideon that the planning office's interpretation
of the code is unfounded, and completely without support from
traditional statutory interpretation principles.
The code provides for a 6000 square foot minimum lot area in
the office zone. and a*)nlicant meets this requirement. See
Section 24-3.4.
The code nrovides that on a site of 9.000 sauare feet or less.
the following sauare footaae requirements apply:
1 BR: 1,200
2 BR: 2,000
3 BR: 3,000
There is nothing in the code that in any way indicates that
should an applicant make dual use (office and dwelling) of
his property, he must meet additional square footage requirements.
Other than the square footage requirements above, found at
Section 24-3.4, the code does not address square footage
requirements for the building itself. (Unless I missed something.)
There seems to be some question what the minimum square footage
requirements might be for the applicants building, since we
don't know from Gideon's letter exactly what is proposed and
since the code does not address minimum square footaqe
requirements for office space alone, much less office space
in combination with a dwelling unit.
At any rate, I think it is inappropriate to relv on Sandy
Stuller's memory for interpretation. Intention of the framers
is certainly relevant, but only reliable if recorded at the
time of drafting, as in a legislative record.
Gideon's office called late today, and they are hoping for an
answer to this problem Tuesday. I said I was working on it and
would discuss it with you as soon as possible.
•
LAW OFFICES
�-
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
`l
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
May 27, 1986 TELEPHONE
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
AREA CODE 303
925.8166
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Wesson Property
Dear Paul:
I write this letter pursuant to our meeting today
concerning the 6,000 square -foot lot that Bill Wesson owns in
the "0" office zone. Residential as well as office uses are
permitted in the office zone. 6,000 square feet is the
minimum lot area listed in the office zone. As we discussed
at our meeting, the planning office has adopted an interpre-
tation of the area and bulk requirements for the office zone
which requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet of area for
each primary use.
During my conversation with Alan, he agreed that the
language in the code does not support the position taken by
the Planning Office. He stated, however, that this interpre-
tation originated from discussions with Sandy Stuller, who
was the City Attorney when the provisions were drafted.
Sandy Stuller's position was that that was her intention when
she drafted the ordinance years ago. However, the code does
not say this. It is not possible to reach that interpreta-
tion from the Code language. I feel that it is unfortunate
to interpret the Code in such a manner, especially when the
logic of this interpretation is not apparent and we are
merely relying on a former staff member's interpretation.
Since the uses are permitted and the F.A.R. does not change,
I really do not see a justification for requiring twice the
square footage to construct permitted uses. I think a
planner would be hard pressed to argue that the impacts of
half residential and half office are greater than all office.
In fact, the impacts would probably be less. Additionally,
this interpretation would require someone to accumulate more
land and construct larger buildings --something I'm certain
the community does not want to require.
I would hope that after you have had a chance to review
this item and discuss it with Alan that there would be a
resolution available to my client. Bill Wesson would like to
• 0
�l � �
�-- APG!-F W, �, t
tp-- vw�:F 9 ► t6- fMr-
� wT�ivr�L Wt,�
•
•
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
May 27, 1986
Page 2
compete in the upcoming growth management plan and he would
like to find a permanent home for his dental practice which
has been servicing this community for fifteen years. I look
forward to discussing this matter with you in the near
future.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
GIK mk
cc Bill Wesson
0-u
i
;-moo / �S
CA
0
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Office Files
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Code Interpretations
DATE: August 11, 1981
We recently had inquires in the 0 - Office zone concerning the following cases:
1. An individual with a 10 unit office building wanted to convert four units
to residences.
2. An individual with a 6000 square foot parcel zoned 0 wanted to construct
both office and residential uses.
The interpretation of the Code by Sandy Stuller in these two issues is as
follows. Conversion of offices to residences involves construction a.nd would
therefore require an allocation under the residential GMP. There is no
exception for a single family or duplex residence on a lot which already contains
another building since we have always interpreted this GMP exception as one
which gives back the property rights to subdivided lots which effectively would
have lost them to the competition process. An applicant would have to tear
down the office use and meet the underlying Area and Bulk Requirements of the
zone to be eligible for this exception.
For an applicant to build both office and residential uses on a vacant parcel,
the minimum lot size would be 12,000 square feet. In this respect, in reading
the Area and Bulk Requirements chart, the row entitled "minimum lot area" should
be interpreted as minimum lot area per use, which for office and residential in
the 4 zone would be 6,000 square feet plus 6,000 square feet er a total of
12,000 square feet needed to build a combination of these uses,
In the future, all public inquiry in these matters should be interpreted as above,
If you have any need for clarification, please see me for further information,
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN August 1, 1986 TELEPHONE
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303
925-8166
Ms. Nancy Crelli
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Wesson Dental Building Office Growth
Management Plan Application
Dear Nancy:
Enclosed for submission in Office GMP competition are
the following documents:
1. Original and twenty copies of the above -referenced
application;
2. One set of drawings (twenty additional sets will be
delivered on Monday, August 4, 1986);
3. Affidavit of ownership of subject property; and
4. Check payable to Aspen/Pitkin County Planning
Office in the amount of $3,080.00 for the application fee.
Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
Gid oh Kaufman
r
GK/bw
Enclosures
cc: William Wesson
cc: Jim Curtis
•
10
AFFTT)AUTT
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
ss.
STATE OF COLORADO )
I, GIDEON KAUFMAN, hereby verify that William H. Wesson
is the title holder of the fee simple interest in the
following described property located in Pitkin County:
Lots H and I, Block 25
City and Townsite of Aspen
DATED this 1st day of August, 1986.
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By /
Gide n Kaufman
ASPEN/pITRIN PLANNING
F2CE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
RED
v
Dear G
This is to inform
preliminary review Of that the Planrnin
Hess. We have Your_C_G �h Off ice has completed determined that yOUr a — application for its
PPlication complete-
__---- is complete.
is not complete.
The additional items we will require
f are as follows;
-- Disclosure of ownershi
_ P (one copy only needed) .
-' Adjacent
Property owners list. (one Additional PY only needed).
VT CO Pi es of co entire application.
--- Authorization b
/ application. y °caner for representative
to submit
Response to the attached ing to
list of
regulations of the with the a items demonstrat-
Code, or Pplicable policies
—'-- A check in other specified materialsnd
the amount of $
---_----- i s due.
-- — A. Since
for reviewYbyrthePllcation i complete,
We will s
be calling we have scheduled it
Prior to that g YOU If we need an on
several days date. In any case Y additional information
review memorandum ior to
Your we will be calling -your to make a 9 You
(is) (is not) your re tO You. Please COPY of the
a sign, which we can P°nsibility to note that it
provide you. Post Your property with
Since your
scheduled it for application is incom received the materialsubl'c review at t Plete, we have
to place we have his time. When w not
you on the next availablegUested, we will e have
Please feel free to agenda, be happy
this
assigned to call .,t
case, if you have
any questions, who is the planner
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING
2 OFFICE
l/Alan Richman; Planning and
AR;jl Development Director
eS
r �
PRE —APPLICATION CONFt;K :rd%,r• Qu-ru""
P JE I,lltntll l c-pm� Id F
PL NT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
P SENTATIVE'S PHONE:
�td5- y411
ERS NAME:
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application:
2, De -scribe action/type of development being requested:
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
r
_ 1.' � - � .: �•; ,*. �:j.'7(,'.n/��;n., . •� r. ,.(� Vr' is i:• f��:,l-nf•>5 v.
V !!!
Yr r
4. Review is:- (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z t eh n toto C& BOCC)
5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6. Did you tell aPN�)caDisclosubeto lt list of of Ownership: JA(y S)PR�PNOPROPERTY
OWNERS? (Y)
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9, COM11ENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
Y
Rlo'l tip
,
ITovember 20, 1978
t°
Planning & ZortgC6tsim3sxi> .
City of Aspen
`�spen, Colorado _s1611
To the Members of _ the Cpqulit3sion,
This letter is to clOr,14y, my. application for a
oax,cinq variance as ,provided in Article IV Section -24-4.5
of the Aspen Municipal Z16da,« i.-. havo been doing
business In the 13sLioi2 D,ental., Arts Building for the
past seven years anid m er "xerce `is that there has
always been suffid'id '""tieet parY.ing, even c'rith the pre-
sence of the Mesa StAreo awiss Chalets,.Christiania
Lodge, the recent Fl:6rador4:Building, and other
professional offices �-bo&tding' hou4,6s and lodaes in
the immediate area., This,'buildiner houses two full
4
time dental practicl s,,' a down, stairs dental lab, and
Lou_ u;�stairs apartmez 1. and we have never experienced
S
a parking problem eve11-though there"are only five
usable parking sRaces be$'ind', the building.
The parking r'egtiixQptent, which seems reasonable
in tic dov ntotyn corn ' mx ea OoSez an unreasonable
hardship on a, mall lOt . st;'the Jest jnd o; town. The
primary reason`X selected .this 1ocatZOn was because of
easy access and co::ven cot parking -`for patients, and I
feel the added f inanCialL.bezrdeh-of, underground parking is
unjusti-Had since my ®xper: -enc# in the present location,
as men-Uo;zed above, ;i's : _hat :WOj -ttlwa is have had more than
sufficient parkinr ;x:Ar ;patients and --personnel alir:e..
'•
Also, a consider :,Of' pl:etnn 'ug on ;the logistics
s
of underground Vp r% ng:' has° baan done k etween me and Tom
Wells,who is xayit)&re itedt.. First :and foremost is ms wish
to do a project hAt is a credit to the City . of Aspen, one
'*1hi'ch
t ,at is es the : And coi. 2iments ,the quali::y that
�"�•
originally attragbad lt`o- the? A.,s ien - area. %11. the parking
r;
alterna tives we .haves:=stuct3.ed ftz�ce : us to raise the
building five to niz a `feet" -a ove the sidewalk, i-rhich
1
results in an unto inly situation fo.r a small lot such
1.
as this and .destroy..$ thdi gharacte•r of the eatire block.
My next door neiq le .and ,; re workilig toward making
Alis t..ree lots;` . a �1664y ihavo a house on them, and..
Y
my two lots$.sually pleasing approach to
4 +
r ,
• 1 1Y : d ;{�
'.
420 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 303-925-4411
`o'g,..yt
W 1 KJ�,.%v� ,y f:t, r ^�y� Y'; A. •
j•++h..-;..
r
u,� '• ...: a ,.
`t
r
C
I
town from ;the west e iid o.ho
—that is not out o= scale
or overdone. Re(Tujridq`more ,par]:ii-.g in. this particular
place appears to us tP -aCCOM64ate the automobile at
the cost of losing landsc &pingi-thel character oz tha
block, and the esthetics that gives ,j0ng",teem value.
I prefer long term value to a short ..term gain since i
am committed to the beauty 'Ofthe.town .that is my homa.
I feel that this type d-O;oject -:Ln this location
is a valid reason for t)ie-exi8tehceF of the variance
and review process, and hlbp'p' that I my request inects
with your approval,
Sincerely, 4.
r.
A.
"illian I -lesson,
D.D.S.
WISP
I � ,
•M.DIOHb ►UBLtf HIttG CO., DCHVCE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reqular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 5, 1978
i
—
Chairman Chic Collins
called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with members
Joan Klar, Olaf
Hedstrom, and Nancy McDonnell present.
i
Wesson Parking
- Richard Grice, planning office, included a site plan where
� Special. F.eview
Wesson plans to build on Main street next to the Shaw house.
There: is a total. square footage of 4,40.1 and 6 parking spaces
The Code requires 3 parking spaces per 1,0.00 square feet;
this can be varied by P & Z down to 1.5 spaces per 1,000
square -feet. In a letter to the Commission from Wesson, the
reduction in parking is justifed by Wesson's concern about
building too large of a structure on Main street. Wesson
would rather reduce the size of the building and keep the
parking at 1.5 per 1,000.
j1
Grice and City Engineer Dave Ellis felt this was a reasonable
justification. Wesson would like to maintain the option for
providing a 7th parking space. Grice recommended approval
with the condition the.;ninimum parking space requirements be
r
met allowing the option to create another parking space if
I
Wesson can come up with it through design. Grice pointed out
the build out -is 4,404 square feet; if Wesson only provides
six parking spaces, the building will have to be 4,325 square
feet.
Wesson said he would like to build the building at an PAat of
.75:1, which would mean 7 parking spaces or knockin<x off "ahoy.
100 square feet. Collins asked if this would be a dental/
buildings. Wesson said he was not sure. yet; he
_professional
may live there. Ms. Rlar said she like the idea of reduced
parking because if the community ever gets a transi= program,
that is what they want. Wesson said the design guidelines
will be up to the HPC; he is trying to make it compatible
it
with the rest of the block. Wesson said for this site, his
preference is to cut the building down to 4,325 square feet
with six parking space.
Hedstrom moved to grant approval of the special review r.eques
two the parking requirement in the O, office, zone from
t
,vary
3 spaces pe`r 7�,-UOY`sgiiafts"feet to square feet
in accordance with Sec. 24-4.5 of the Code for the proposed
Wesson office building on lots Fi and I, block 25, Main street
seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried.
+ Maxwell Alc:y
Grice told the Commission that the planning office and engin-
Stream Marctin
eering has problems with the plat because there is a 100 year.
Review.
flood plain line. The distance from the house to the river.
j
is not marked clearly. Engineering has reviewed this and
recommended approval provided the edge of the house come no
closer then 7.5 to 10 feet from the power lines. This is
located o* Red Butte drive; they are not asking to.remove an}
substantial vegetation at all. The planning office recommenc
approval with the condition of the distance from the power
lines.
Collins asked if the City was asking for trail easements in
this area. Dan McArthur, assistant engineer, told the
Commission the trails are on the other side of the Roaring
Fork.. There is no problem with the stream marking. „
Hedstrom moved to approve the stream margin review presented
by Maxwell Al.ey for a proposed house on lot 7, block 1, Red
;+
t
Butte subdivision subject to the condition that the pr.opos,
lar Mueting
Aspen Planning and Zoning Couunission October 16, 1979
Anderson moved to approve Dr. Wesson's application for
special review for two employee housing units and for parkin
reduction of two spaces from that which would normally be
required by the code, for his new office Building at
605 W. Main Street and conditioned that the property is deed
restricted to Low, Moderate or Middle income housing,
Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion -approved. Hunt
abstained from voting for lack of information.
rs
Grice introduced the application.. The applicant requests
ivision
subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of a duplex
ation
presently a single family occupied by the owners with the
second unit proposed. Thq Engineering Department recommends
•
approval subject to their conditions. The Planning Office
recommends approval subject to the Engineeering Department's
concerns. I
Hunt moved to recommend exemption from strict application of
the subdivision regulations applied to the Somers duplex
condominiumization conditioned on, 1) compliance with Item 1
of the Engineering Department memo September,24, 1979, prior
to consideration by City Council, 2) compliance with Item 2
of the above referenced memo,'3) compliance with Aspen
Municipal Code Section 20-22:, the six month minimum lease
provision and the property be so deed restricted. Otherwise
there are no significant adverse land use impacts or detri-
ments to. the public good, Anderson seconded. All in•favor,
motion approved.
-Hall Grice introduced the application. The -applicant requests
vision subdivision exemption for the .condominiumization of an
.)tion existing duplex. The rental,•history indicates that one unit
has been rented for .57/sgft. in the last 18 months. Stock
feels this shows the unit falls within the low, moderate
and middle income housing pool. He recommends denial. The
Engineering Department recommends approval subject to their
conditions. Ur A.
ution 79-19,
es Employee
ng Approval
Jon..;Seigle, representing the, applicant, said the duplex was
purchased in 1972, both units are now under contract to sell
The north unit has been rented, the south unit is owner oc-
cupi'ed. The tenants do not wish to exercise their right of
first refusal and the prospective buyers do not intend to
rent it as employee housing. Seigle.did not feel these unit
fell under the housing guidelines. -
Pardee felt it important to know who has been renting' this
unit; has it been four laborers paying. $675/month. Hedstrom
felt it important that the rent has been $675 since October
1976'. Hunt did not feel they should penalize them for keep-
ing .their -rents down. -Anderson felt they should get more
information. McDonnell did'not feel it fell under employee
housing. Harvey agreed withv-McDonnell and asked for -more
information.
Hunt moved to.r�mmend exemption from strict application of
the subdivisirm=e!9a1vtions of the Sams -Hall condominiumiza-
tion conditi nn,-A ..one IJ. compliance with item 1 of the' En-
gine4ring.megar-me++ - dated October 11, i979, prior to
City'. Counril-=arLsi de=at vn, 2) . compliance with item 2 of the
above mentim a d-memo,73)-;compliance with Aspen Municipal Cod
'Section 20-22, the six month minimum lease provisions and
be so deed restricted. Otherwise, there are no significant
adverse land use impacts or•'detriments to the public good,
Harvey seconded.-;-Roll•-call vote: Harvey, aye; McDonnell,
aye; Anderson, nay;. Pardee, nay; Hunt, aye; Hedstrom, aye.
Motion approved.
Harvey felt they should include the six month minimum lease
restriction in the resolution.
1
a,awo r„nuetso,,a co., ormvrov RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
jular Meeting
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 1b, 1979
2 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on October 16,
79, at 5:00 PM
in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstron
Pardee, Roger
Hunt, Welton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell and Perry Harvey. Also
2sent were Richard Grice of the Planning Office, Housing Director Jim Reents
City Attorney
Ronald Stock. '.
nissionmeraber
-Chairman Hedstrom noted he attended the last Council meeting.
vents
He told the Council that the P&Z did not feel their recom-
mendations were getting through to the Council. He sum-
marized the P&Z's deliberation on the Lodge condominiumiza•-
tion. The P&Z felt the intent behind the lodge zoning shculc
be upheld, that a reduction in the number of units available
in this zone would be inadvisable, and that condominiumiza-
tion of these units would create pressure for tourist units
outside the lodge zone and tend to weaken the quality of
the lodging facilities because of the change in ownership.
He noted there was no certainty that these things would
' happen but the P&Z felt they should prevent them from occur-
ring. He explained to the.Council that P&Z is aware that
-
condominiumization may be the only way for certain Lodges
to. finance upgrading of the facilities but felt this problem
should be attacked 'directly: Pardee asked if Council had
taken any action. Stock said they requested an ord:�nance
prohibiting all subdivision of lodges and hotels which Stock
did not support. He 'recommended a moratorium on these
condominiumizations and a rewrite of the subdivision regu-
lations. This rewrite would take up to eight months. Iie
recommends a long subdivision process, a short subdivision
process similar to subdivision 'exemptions and a condominiumi-
zation/split fee type process. He noted that a mor:±toriuza
envisions action whereas.a prohibition.does not.
Anderson moved to recommend -to City Council a moratorium on
all condominiumizations of lodges and hotels until legisla-
.
tion can be drafted to clarify existing subdivision and
condominiumization regulations concerning the condominiumi-
`
nation of lodges and further. -recommend that. this revision to
existing legislation be done* in the most expeditous manner
possible, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
L House,
Lee Pardee stepped down from his position on the commission
=am' Margin
dde to a conflict of interest.
iew
Grice introduced the application. He,noted the property was
filled and graded some time ago through a Stream Margin
approval. The Code requires that no building be coMstructed
in the Stream Margin without approval. The Engineering
Department has recommended approval subject to the applicant
resubmitting a stream margin review plat. The Planning Oi-
fice recommends approval subject to the five conditions of
-
the Engineering Department.
Hunt moved to approve the Stream Margin Review of the ad-
diiion of a tennis court to the Hill House property as
proposed conditioned upon compliance with the Engineering
Department items,1-5 listed on the -Planning Office memo
dated October 11...1979, Harvey seconded. All in favor,
motion. approved.
;on Employee.
Pardee resumed -his -position on the Commission.
:ing Project
Reents introduced .the'application. The applicant wishes to
build an office building next to the Shaw residence on Main
Street, 605 W. Main. The HPC'has.given their approval. In
the O-Office, there is an FAR bonus for employee housing.
This application needs special review and the employee
housing' parking reduction. The employee housing is garden
level.
v � ,
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Water Department
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Transit Authority
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: 1986 City Commercial GMP Competition Application:
700 E. Hyman Building Commercial GMP/Conceptual Submission
Wesson Dental Building Commercial. GMP/Conceptual
Submission
DATE: August 15, 1986
Attached for your review are two (2) 1986 City GMP/Conceptual
Submission Applications. Following is a brief description of the
Applicant's requests:
700 E.. Flan Building Conm. ercial GIIP
The project is proposed on a vacant 12,000 square foot
parcel of land located at the intersection of Spring Street
and Symar, Avenue referred to as the Lucas property.. The
property consists of Lot %,L,M, and N, Block 104, City of
Aspen.. The applicant proposes to construct an approx.i*iately
9,000 square foot office building on the Lucas property,
with the ground floor containing 1,6G0 square feet, the
second and third floors containing 3,830 and 3,510 square
feet, respectively.. A basement is neither �requir.ed nor
provided..
Wesson Dental Building Corunercial G ;P
The project is proposed at 605 ruin Street, the southwest
corner of Main Street and Fifth Street. The property
is a sir, thousand (G,000) square foot corner lot. The
applicant proposes a new dental office requesting office GMP
quota of 2,487 square feet, an on -site employee ap�irtment
and a free market residence (the latter is exempt as a
residence on an existing vacant lot) ..
Please review these applications and return your referral comments
to Planning Office no later than September 1 so we have adequate
time to prepare for our presentation before P%Z' on September 16,
198G.. Thank you..
E
WESSON DENTAL BUILDING
OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION
August 1, 1986
Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-2020
Applicant: William Wesson, D.D.S.
632 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attorneys: Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C.
315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305
Aspen, Colorado 81611
925-8166
Planner: Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
117 S. Monarch
Aspen, Colorado 81611
920-1395
Architect: Wayne Stryker
Lipkin/Stryker Associates
P.O. Box 3004
Aspen, Colorado 81612
920-1142
Engineer: Dean Gordon
Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Inc.
1512 Grand Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
945-1004
Design Builder: James J. Benson
P.O. Box 6030
Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615
923-3454
1.
2.
3.
4.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
A. PROJECT SUMMARY 1
B. GMP REVIEW CRITERIA
4
Quality of Design
4
aa. Architectural Design
4
bb. Site Design
5
cc. Energy
7
dd. Amenities
7
ee. Visual Impact
8
ff. Trash and Utility Access
10
Availability of Public Facilities and Services
10
aa. Water Supply and Fire Protection
10
bb. Sewage Disposal
11
CC. Public Transportation and Roads
11
dd. Storm Drainage
13
ee. Parking
14
Employee Housing
15
Bonus Points
16
C. PROJECT INFORMATION
18
aa. Water System
18
bb. Sewage
18
CC. Drainage
19
dd. Development Area
19
ee. Traffic
20
i
•
Page #
ff. Proposed Uses 21
gg. Effects of the Proposed Development on 21
Adjacent Uses and Land Uses in the
Vicinity of the Project
hh. Construction Schedule 22
ii. Employee Housing 22
0
•
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
Dr. William Wesson has been practicing dentistry in Aspen
for fifteen years. He acquired an office parcel seven years ago
and has been planning to build his own office since that time.
His present office space is inadequate and cannot provide the
on -site services which his practice requires. Due to the
cramped condition of his office, he has had to utilize two
additional off -site locations for his laboratory and storage
areas. The proposed office will enable him to provide the kind
of service to his fifteen year Aspen clientele that is befitting
his professional standards and reputation.
The proposed building will be located in the Office Zoning
District at 605 West Main Street, the southwest corner of Main
Street and Fifth Street. The property is a six thousand (6,000)
square foot corner lot surrounded by large cottonwood trees
which will be saved. The building shall contain a new dental
office, a one -bedroom apartment for Dr. Wesson, and a
one -bedroom employee unit for a staff member. The building
F.A.R. is given below:
Dental office (street level)
Wesson apt. (second level)
(4,500 sq. ft. allowed)
2,487 sq. ft. F.A.R.
1,938 sq. ft. F.A.R.
4,425 sq. ft. F.A.R.
- 1 -
•
L47
Employee apt. (garden level)
Employee stairwell (garden level)
(1,500 sq. ft. allowed)
858 sq. ft. F.A.R.
110 sq. ft. F.A.R.
968 sq. ft. F.A.R.
Specifically, Dr. Wesson is requesting the following:
1. Office GMP quota of 2,487 sq. ft.
2. Bonus F.A.R. of 968 sq. ft. for the on -site employee
apartment and employee stairwell (which is included in F.A.R.
calculations).
The proposed building has received conceptual HPC approval.
The building and the placement of the building on the lot has
been designed to be compatible with and have low impact on the
neighborhood, and specifically, have low impact on Main Street.
Main Street has a mix of building types with no single type
dominating the character of the street. Therefore, the design
of the building is modest and simple, taking advantage of the
large cottonwoods fronting the lot and allowing the trees to
continue to dominate and screen the lot. These cottonwoods will
be preserved and additional trees will be planted along Main
Street and Fifth Street to compliment the large cottonwoods and
to provide further screening of the building.
Even though the Office District doesn't have an open space
requirement, Dr. Wesson being sensitive to the open space
- 2 -
desires of the community has preserved thirty percent (30%) of
the property as open space and landscaping area.
The property is conveniently located for walking, bicycle,
and bus access, and will therefore have less traffic and parking
impact. Moreover, the property is located outside the downtown
core area, and will help relieve some of the congestion in the
core area.
Dr. Wesson proposes to provide housing for three (3)
employees through an on -site one -bedroom apartment and a
cash -in -lieu of payment. The City's employee housing guidelines
are based on the generation of new employees from new
businesses. In reality, since this is an existing business that
has been in Aspen for fifteen years, one could argue the project
creates no new employees. Nonetheless, the applicant proposes
to provide employee housing, exceeding the minimum requirement
of the City Code, as a benefit to the community and his
employees.
In summary, this is a small project necessary to upgrade
Dr. Wesson's professional practice. This project is not
commercially motivated, but is put forth by a fifteen year
resident in order to provide a better community service.
- 3 -
•
•
B. GMP REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Quality of Design.
aa. Architectural Design.
The building has been consciously designed to be compatible
with and have low impact on the neighborhood, and specifically,
have low impact on Main Street. Main Street has a mix of
building types with no single type dominating the character of
the street. Therefore, the design of the building is modest and
simple taking advantage of the large cottonwoods fronting the
lot and allowing the trees to continue to dominate and screen
the lot. These cottonwoods will be preserved and additional
trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to
compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide further
screening of the building.
Architecturally, the scale of the building has been
lessened by breaking the roof line and pitching back the roofs
such that only a nine foot (91) building facade is seen from
Main Street. The front building facade is again broken and
given interest by recessing the entry of the building under a
covered porch.
The height of the building has been reduced from the
maximum height allowed by Code to twenty-three and one-half feet
(23h'). The building has also been designed with a mansard roof
- 4 -
which will make it look even smaller than using a full pitched
roof which is allowed by Code to go up to a thirty foot (301)
roof height.
Building materials have also been kept simple to lessen the
perceived mass of the building. The wood siding shall be a
light gray tone stain that is used on many homes in the West
End. The roof shall be either metal in a dark tone to
compliment the wood siding, or shake wood shingles in a dark
tone. Both roofing materials have been discussed with the HPC,
and will be decided upon at detailed design. Window planes have
been kept simple and residential in character.
Most significantly, the building size will appear much
smaller when viewed in contrast to the much higher and larger
existing building on the adjoining property. The building next
door is approximately twenty-eight (28) to thirty (30) feet high
with a Victorian pitched roof, is painted a yellow color, and
has much less tree screening along Main Street. Not wishing to
compete with this building, and wanting to take full advantage
of the large cottonwoods, the Wesson building has taken a
simple, architecturally pleasing modest design.
bb. Site Design.
Consistent with the architecture of the building, the site
design has also sought to minimize the scale of the building.
- 5 -
The large cottonwoods along Main Street and Fifth Street will be
preserved and will visually screen the building. Additional
trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to
compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide further
screening of the building.
The building has been setback further from Main Street and
Fifth Street than required by Code. The building is back
twenty-nine feet (291) from the curb of Main Street. The
distance from the Main Street curb to the property line is
fourteen feet (14') and the front yard setback of the building
has been increased from the ten feet (10') permitted under the
Code to fifteen feet (15'). The increased setback will further
reduce the appearance of the building from Main Street, and will
provide a larger landscaping area in front of the building.
In addition to the landscaping of new trees along Main
Street, Dr. Wesson will also landscape around the building with
massings of mixed groundcovers, flowers and shrubery. This
native landscaping versus a traditional lawn will add
significant color to the building in the Spring and Summer.
Sidewalks will be constructed along Main Street and Fifth
Street that will meander through the existing trees. A small
outside seating and waiting area with bicycle rack is planned.
A handicapped access ramp is also provided for the project.
While there is no requirement for open space in the
0-Office District, the project is responsible to the need for
open space by providing 1,840 square feet of open space. The
total open space of the project not only exceeds the
requirements for the 0-Office zone, but in fact equals thirty
percent (30%) of the total lot area.
All utility service lines will be undergrounded.
cc. Energy.
The proposed building has been designed to be energy
efficient. The building will exceed the Code requirements both
in terms of roof and wall insulation by twenty-five percent
(25%). The building site has good sun exposure and its location
is conducive to solar benefits. A solar hot water device will
be installed in order to heat the water by solar energy.
Additionally, a proposed clear story in the center of the roof
will provide passive solar benefits. The utilization of this
very efficient design will result in extensive energy reduction,
and low energy costs to Dr. Wesson.
dd. Amenities.
A major amenity of the project is the preservation and
clean-up of the large cottonwood trees along Main Street and
Fifth Street. These trees (lower branches) will be trimmed and
- 7 -
shaped to improve their appearance. The cottonwoods will be
supplemented by new trees planted along Main Street and Fifth
Street. Dr. Wesson will also landscape around the building with
massings of mixed groundcovers, flowers and shrubery. This
native landscaping will add significant color to the building in
the Spring and Summer.
Sidewalks will be constructed along Main Street and Fifth
Street that will meander through the existing trees. A small
outside seating and waiting area with bicycle rack is planned.
A handicapped access ramp is also provided for the project.
ee. Visual Impact.
The design of the building and its placement on the lot has
consciously minimized the visual impact of the building. The
large cottonwoods along Main Street and Fifth Street will be
preserved, and will visually screen the building. Additional
trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to
compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide additional
screening of the building.
The building has been set back further from Main Street and
Fifth Street than required by Code. The building is back
twenty-nine feet (291) from the curb of Main Street. The
distance from the Main Street curb to the property line is
fourteen feet (14') and the front yard setback of the building
has been increased from the ten feet (10') permitted under the
0
Code to fifteen feet (15'). The increased setback will further
reduce the impact of the building from Main Street and will
provide a larger landscaping area in front of the building.
The height of the building has been reduced from the
maximum allowed by Code to twenty-three and one-half feet
(23k'). The building has been designed with a mansard roof
which will make it look even lower than using a full pitched
roof which is allowed by Code to go up to a thirty foot (30')
roof height. The roof line along Main Street has been broken
and pitched back such that only a nine foot (91) building facade
is seen from Main Street. This building design creates an
extremely small front building facade, especially when compared
to the surrounding Main Street buildings. The front facade is
again broken and given interest by recessing the entry of the
building under a covered porch.
Most significantly, the size of the building will appear
much smaller when viewed in contrast to the much higher and
larger existing building on the adjoining property. The
building next door is approximately twenty-eight feet (28') to
thirty feet (30') high with a Victorian pitched roof, is painted
a yellow color, and has much less tree screening along Main
Street.
All of the above design decisions have been made to
minimize the visual impact of the building, especially from Main
Street.
- 9 -
ff. Trash and Utility Access.
Dr. Wesson, recognizing a problem in the alley behind his
property, has worked out an arrangement with his neighbor to
provide a common trash enclosure for both properties. Dr.
Wesson will construct the enclosure on the adjoining property
with the property owner's permission, in order to clean up the
unsightly feature which presently exists in the alley. All new
utilities will be underground.
2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services.
aa. Water Supply and Fire Protection.
The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen
Water Department as outlined in the Engineering Report by
Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1". The
building will be connected to the existing water trunk line
located along Main Street. Based on a preliminary conversation
with Jim Markalunas, the Aspen Water Department can service the
building in accordance with its standard service procedures
without the need for any system line extensions or treatment
plant upgrading.
Dr. Wesson proposes to upgrade the fire protection
capabilities of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a
fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the block across Main
- 10 -
Street within the Main Street R.O.W. This location is directly
across from the building, and the hydrant will connect to the
water trunk line along the north side of Main Street. The
hydrant would upgrade the fire protection for the area, and is
approximately one hundred feet (100') from the building.
bb. Sewage Disposal.
The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen
Sanitation District as outlined in the Engineering Report by
Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1"_ The
building will be connected to the existing sewer trunk line
located in the alley at the rear of the property. Based on a
preliminary conversation with Heiko Kuhn, the Aspen Sanitation
District can service the building in accordance with its
standard service procedures without the need for any system line
extensions or treatment plant upgrading.
CC. Public Transportation and Roads.
The project is located on Main Street where every bus
passes in front of it. A bench will be provided so that people
who want to wait for the bus will be able to sit. The property
is also conveniently located for walking and bicycle access.
The building will have minimal traffic impact on Main
Street and Fifth Street as outlined in the Engineering Report in
Appendix "1". The key findings of the Engineering Report are
given below:
1. Under the Worst Case scenario of 100% car usage, the
estimated 76 ADT (Average Daily Trips) would only increase
traffic on Main Street by 0.3%. Under the more realistic
assumption of 75% car usage, the estimated 57 ADT would only
increase traffic on Main Street by 0.25%.
2. There are currently adequate turning lanes provided on Main
Street for access and exit from Fifth Street.
3. Because Main Street is the logical primary access route,
and Fifth Street is the logical secondary access route, it is
difficult to estimate the increased traffic on Fifth Street.
However, the traffic impact on Fifth Street will primarily be
limited to the short half -block section adjoining the property
between Main and Hopkins. Moreover, the total ADT for Fifth
Street is well below any calculated design carrying capacity of
the street, and no street improvements will be necessary to
Fifth Street to handle any increase in traffic resulting from
the building.
4. Except for vehicles associated with the apartment or
employee unit, all vehicles would only be at the building during
regular office hours from approximately 8:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
- 12 -
Both Main Street and Fifth Street are capable of handling
the limited additional traffic without street improvements.
Dr. Wesson will improve the street system by adding
sidewalks along both Main Street and Fifth Street adjoining the
property. He will also upgrade Fifth Street by adding curb and
gutter on the west side of the street adjoining the property.
The east side of Fifth Street already has curb and gutter, and
the installation of same on the west side will complete the
street drainage system at the intersection of Fifth Street and
Main Street.
dd. Storm Drainage.
Based on the Engineering Report in Appendix "1", all
on -site drainage from the building and parking will be collected
in an on -site drywell, and not discharged directly into the
surrounding street drainage.
Dr. Wesson proposes to improve the surrounding street
drainage by installing a curb and gutter along the west side of
Fifth Street adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth
Street already has curb and gutter, and the installation of same
on the west side will complete the street drainage system at
the intersection of Fifth Street and Main Street.
- 13 -
• •
ee. Parking.
Dr. Wesson is providing a total of seven (7) on -site
parking spaces as follows: one (1) space for his one -bedroom
apartment, one (1) space for the employee unit, and five (5)
spaces for the dental office. The Code parking guideline for
office is 3.0 cars per 1,000 sq. ft. or 7.5 cars for the dental
office. However, the Code allows for a variance from this
guideline by Special Review to a reduced parking standard of 1.5
cars per 1,000 sq. ft. or 3.7 cars for the dental office. Dr.
Wesson is providing five (5) spaces for the office which is
above the 3.7 car minimum requirement allowed by Special Review.
The Special Review variance is justified for the building
because of the following:
1. The property is a corner lot and parking is available along
Main Street and Fifth Street. The sixty foot (601) lot frontage
along Main Street can accommodate three (3) to four (4) cars and
the one hundred foot (1001) lot frontage along Fifth Street can
accommodate five (5) to six (6) cars. Total on and off street
parking available to the property is therefore fifteen (15) to
seventeen (17) cars which is well above the nine (9) cars
required using the maximum guideline of the Code.
2. The property is located outside the downtown core area and
parking along Main Street and Fifth Street at this location is
generally easily available.
- 14 -
3. The property is conveniently located for walking, bicycle,
and bus access which will reduce the parking demand for the
building.
4. Except for parking associated with the apartment or
employee unit, office parking would only be needed at the
building during regular office hours approximately from 8:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
The on -site parking is located at the rear of the building
off the alley. The parking is not visible from Main Street and
is easily accessed from the alley.
3. Employee Housing.
The applicant proposes to provide housing for forty percent
(40%) or three (3) employees that would be generated under the
City guidelines as follows:
2,487 sq. ft. net leasable office FAR
3.0 employees per 1,000 sq. ft.
7.5 total employees generated
40% of employees housed
3.0 employees housed
The three (3) employees shall be housed as follows:
One (1) one -bedroom apartment on -site (1.75 emp.). The
- 15 -
apartment is 858 square feet, rental, and price -restricted to
the moderate income guidelines as annually adopted. The
apartment is proposed to be rented to Dr. Wesson's staff, and is
therefore oversized to provide a better living environment. In
accordance with the City housing guidelines, the rent shall be
based on the smaller 700 square foot moderate income unit size
guideline.
Cash -in -lieu payment of $16,625.00 (1.25 emp.). The cash
payment is calculated at the moderate income level of $13,300.00
per employee ($13,300.00 x 1.25 emp.), and shall be adjusted to
the moderate income payment schedule at the time of issuance of
a building permit.
The City's employee housing guidelines are based on the
generation of new employees from new businesses. In reality,
since this is an existing business that has been in Aspen for
fifteen years, one could argue the project creates no new
employees. Nonetheless, Dr. Wesson proposes to provide employee
housing, exceeding the minimum requirement of the City Code
guidelines, as a benefit to the community and his employees.
4. Bonus Points.
The Code provides for bonus points when a project exceeds
the substantive criteria of the GMP scoring, and achieves an
outstanding overall design. This project is, therefore,
deserving of substantial bonus points.
- 16 -
•
The term "outstanding overall design" looks not only to the
architecture of the building, but to what the building design
achieves for the community. In this case, it enables a fifteen
year local dental practice to upgrade in a fashion that is
conveniently located and attractively designed. It is a project
that does not try to compete with the expensive chic Aspen
trend, but rather exemplifies an Aspenite's individual attempt
to create a practical office building in harmony with an older
mixed neighborhood.
This project exceeds the substantive criteria of the GMP
scoring. The bonus area is where you can reward this type of
project for fulfilling a community need, and maintaining a
necessary and valuable community commodity. In addition, this
project merits bonus points for providing more than the minimum
threshold of employee housing when, in fact, no new housing
demand is being generated by the use.
- 17 -
•
CJ
C. PROJECT INFORMATION
aa. Water System.
The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen
Water Department as outlined in the Engineering Report by
Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1". The
building will be connected to the existing water trunk line
located along Main Street. Based on a preliminary conversation
with Jim Markalunas, the Aspen Water Department can service the
building in accordance with its standard service procedures
without the need for any system line extensions or treatment
plant upgrading.
Dr. Wesson proposes to upgrade the fire protection
capabilities of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a fire
hydrant on the southeast corner of the block across Main Street
within the Main Street R.O.W. The hydrant would upgrade the
fire protection for the area and is approximately one hundred
(1001) feet from the building.
bb. Sewage System.
The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen
Sanitation District as outlined in the Engineering Report by
Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1". The
building will be connected to the existing sewer trunk line
located in the alley at the rear of the property. Based on a
preliminary conversation with Heiko Kuhn, the Aspen Sanitation
District can service the building in accordance with its
standard service procedures without the need for any system line
extensions or treatment plant upgrading.
CC. Drainage System.
Based on the Engineering Report in Appendix "1", all
on -site drainage from the building and parking will be collected
in an on -site drywell, and not discharged directly into the
surrounding street drainage.
Dr. Wesson proposes to improve the surrounding street
drainage by installing a curb and gutter along the west side of
Fifth Street adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth
Street already has curb and gutter, and the installation of same
on the west side will complete the street drainage system at
the intersection of Fifth Street and Main Street.
dd. Development Area.
The property is a 6,000 square foot corner lot in the
O-Office District. The lot is fronted on the north side by Main
Street and the east side by Fifth Street. The Aspen Municipal
Code provides for an allowable Floor Area Ratio of .75:1 (4,500
square feet F.A.R.) in the O-Office District with a bonus of
- 19 -
.25:1 (1,500 square feet F.A.R.) available by Special Review for
on -site employee housing.
The development F.A.R. for the building is as follows:
Dental office (street level)
Wesson apt. (upper level)
(4,500 sq. ft. allowed)
Employee apt. (garden level)
Employee stairwell (garden level)
(1,500 sq. ft. allowed)
TOTAL
2,487 sq. ft. F.A.R.
1,938 sq. ft. F.A.R.
4,425 sq. ft. F.A.R.
858 sq. ft. F.A.R.
110 sq. ft. F.A.R.
968 sq. ft. F.A.R.
5,393 sq. ft. F.A.R.
As indicated above, the proposed development F.A.R. complies
with the F.A.R. for the office zoning.
While there is no requirement for open space in the
0-Office District, the project is responsive to the need for
open space by providing 1,840 square footage of open space.
Therefore, the total open space of the project not only exceeds
the requirements for the O-Office District, but in fact equals
thirty percent (30%) of the total area.
ee. Estimated Traffic Count.
An estimated traffic count for the building is given in the
Engineering Report in Appendix "1". As outlined in the report,
- 20 -
the building will have minimal traffic impact on Main Street or
Fifth Street. Both Main Street and Fifth Street are capable of
handling the limited additional traffic without street
improvements.
ff. Proposed Uses For the Structure.
The proposed uses are the following:
Dental office (street level) - Dental office for Dr.
William Wesson.
Wesson apartment (upper level) - Residential apartment for
Dr. Wesson's personal use.
Employee apartment (garden level) - Employee apartment for
dental staff member.
Under any future change -in -use of the building, the dental
office could be modified for use as general professional office
space without the need for substantial changes. The residential
apartments are likely to remain as residential units under any
future change -in -use of the building.
gg. Effects of the Proposed Development on Adjacent
Uses and Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project.
The property is on Main Street with its many varied uses.
- 21 -
To the west of this parcel are two buildings that are presently
utilized for office space. To the east of the project is a
lodge. Behind the project is a multi -family structure. The
proposed use conforms with the intent of the zoning (Office
District), and with the existing uses in the area. The proposed
use will have negligible effect on adjacent uses in the vicinity
of the project.
hh. Construction Schedule.
The proposed building will begin construction in the Spring
of 1987, and be completed in the Winter of 1987.
ii. Employee Housing.
Three (3) employees will be housed by the project as
follows:
1. One (1) one -bedroom apartment on -site (1.75 emp.). The
apartment is 858 square feet, rental, and price -restricted to
the moderate income guidelines as annually adopted. The
apartment is proposed to be rented to Dr. Wesson's staff, and is
therefore oversized to provide a better living environment. In
accordance with the City employee housing guidelines, the rent
shall be based on the smaller 700 square foot moderate income
unit size guideline.
- 22 -
2. Cash -in -lieu payment of $16,625.00 (1.25 emp.). The cash
payment is calculated at the moderate income level of $13,300.00
per employee ($13,300.00 x 1.25 emp.), and shall be adjusted to
the moderate income payment schedule at the time of issuance of
a building permit.
wesson gmp app/GMP
- 23 -
July 28, 1986
APPENDIX 'T'
1510AND AVENUE, SUITE 212
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
(303) 945-1004
Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
117 So. Monarch Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Wesson Dental Building - Engineering Report
Dear Jim,
At your request, I have reviewed the above -referenced project as
to the GMP requirements for utilities, drainage, traffic and
parking. It is my understanding the building will consist of a
2,487 sq. ft. dental office, a 1-bedroom residential apartment,
and a 1-bedroom employee unit. The building is located at 605
West Main Street, the southwest corner of Main Street and Fifth
Street.
ITtiIitieG
The building will occupy a vacant corner lot which is totally
surrounded by developed property. Consequently, the basic
utility and street infrastructure is in place. The building can
be served by standard service line extensions in accordance with
the standard service procedures of the respective utilities. The
following cormnents are relevant with respect to the utility
systems:
1. Water System. Potable water will be provided by a 6 " trans-
mission line located along Main Street. Total water demand
for the building is estimated to be 1, 410 gpd; based on a
demand of 655 gpd for the dental office (7 staff at 25 gpd
each and 24 patients at 20 gpd each) , 300 gpd for the
1-bedroom apartment, 200 gpd for the 1-bedroom employee
unit, and 225 gpd for irrigation (2,175 sq. ft. of
landscaping) . Total peak demand is estimated at 3.3 9pm
over a 24 hour period or 15 gpn instantaneous. Based on a
preliminary conversation with Jim Markal unas, the Aspen
Water Department can service the building in accordance with
its standard service procedures without the need for any
main line extensions or treatment plant upgrading.
It is possible to i,nprove the fire protection capabilities
of the water system by installtion of a fire hydrant on the
corner of Main and Fifth. Because the water trans,nission
line is located along the north part of Main street, I
recommend the hydrant be placed at the northwest corner of
L'
0
Mr. Jim Curtis
July 28, 1986
Page Two
the intersection within the Main
location is directly across from
service the building and upgrade
surrounding neighborhood.
Street right-of-way. This
the building and would
the fire protection for the
2. Sewer System. Sewer is provided by an 8" collection main in
the alley to the rear of the property, between Main and
Hopkins. Total sewer demand for the building is estimated
to be 1, 155 gpd; based on a demand of 655 gpd for the dental
office, 300 gpd for the 1-bedroom apartment, 200 gpd for the
1-bedroom employee unit. Based on a preliminary
conversation with Heiko Kuhn, the Aspen Sanitation District
can service the building in accordandce with its standard
service procedures without the need for any main line
extensions or treatment plant upgrading.
3. Telephone, Electric, Cable TV_. These three utilities are
currently overhead in the alley to the rear of the property,
between Main and Hopkins. Service connections will be
underground if the City' s undergrounding program is canplet-
ed prior to the proposed Spring 1987 construction of the
building. The respective utilities can service the building
in accordance with their standard service procedures.
4. Gas. Natural gas is in the alley to the rear of the
property, between Main and Hopkins. This utility can
service the building in accordance with its standard service
procedure.
Drainage
With respect to drainage , all of the on -site drainage from the
building and parking area will be collected for disposal in an
on -site drywell system. No impervious area surface water will be
directly discharged to the existing street drainage facilities.
The drywell will be designed and sized based upon soils and
percolation tests to be conducted during detail building design.
It is possible to improve the existing street drainage system by
installing a curb and gutter along the west side of Fifth Street
adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth Street already
has curb and gutter and the installtion of same on the west side
will complete the street drainage system at the intersection of
Main and Fifth.
Mr. Jim Curtis
July 28, 1986
Plage Three
Traffic
With respect to traffic, the project will primarily affect Main
Street, and secondarily Fifth Street on the short half -block
section between Main and Hopkins. Because the property is
conveniently located for walking, bicycle, and bus access, it is
expected car trips be significantly less than typical standards,
anywhere from 25% to 35% less. An estimate of car trips is given
based on a discussion with Dr. Wesson on the typical use of the
dental office. The office has 6 dental stations with 4 stations
being occupied at any one time. The stations typically turnover
6 patients per day or a total of 24 patients per day. Assuming 2
car trips per patient (arriving and exiting), the 24 patients
would generate 48 trips @ 100% car usage and more realistically,
36 trips @ the lower 75% car usage. Added to this is the trips
generated by Dr. Wesson and an estimated staff of 6 employees.
These trips would also include Dr. Wesson's upstairs apartment
and the lower employee apartment to be occupied by a staff
member. Assuming 4 car trips per staff per day, the 7 staff
would generate 28 trips @ 100% car usage, and more realistically,
21 trips @ the lower 75% car usage. The total combined trips per
day of patients and staff would be 76 trips @ 100% car usage, and
more realistically, 57 trips @ the lower 75% car usage. By
comparison, based on limited data generated recenty by the City
Planning Office, the estimted ADT (Average Daily Trips) for Main
Street is 22,500 ADT; and Fifth Street is 150 ADT.
The following observations can be drawn regarding traffic genera-
tion of the building.
1. Under the Worst Case scenario of 100% car usage, the esti-
mated 76 ADT would only increase traffic on Main street by
0.3%. Under the more realistic assumption of 75% car usage,
the estimated 57 ADT would only increase traffic on Main
Street by 0. 25 %.
2. There are currently adequate turning lanes provided on Main
Street for access and exit fran Fifth Street.
3. Because Main Street is the logical primary access route, and
Fifth Street is the logical secondary access route, it is
difficult to estimate the increased traffic on Fifth Street.
However, the traffic impact on Fifth Street will primarily
be limited to the short half -block section adjoining the
property between Main & Hopkins. Moreover, the total ADT
Mr. Jim Curtis
July 28, 1986
Page Four
for Fifth Street is well below any calculated design carry-
ing capacity of the street and no street improvements will
be necessry on Fifth Street to handle any increase in
traffic resulting from the building.
4. Except for vehicles associated with the apartment or
employee unit, all vehicles would only be at the building
during regular office hours from approximatley 8:30 A.M. to
5:30 P.M.
Parking
It is my understanding seven (7) parking spaces shall be provided
off the alley at the rear of the building. Since the property is
a corner lot parking is also available on Main Street and Fifth
Street adjoining the property. The 60' lot frontage along Main
Street could accomodate 3-4 cars and the 100' frontage along
Fifth Street could accomodate 5-6 cars. Total on and off street
parking available to the propepty is therefore 15-17 cars. Using
the parking guidelines of the Municipal Code, nine (9) spaces
would be necessary for the building as follows: 7 spaces for the
dental office (3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft .) , 1 space for the
residential apartment, and 1 space for the employee unit. As
indicated, total on and off street parking available to the
corner property can easily accommodate the estimated parking
demand especially since the property is located outside the
downtown core area and parking along Main and Fifth Street at
this location is generally easily available. Moreover, because
the property is conveniently located for walking, bicycle, and
bus access, this will reduce the parking demand for the
building.
Again, except for vehicles associated with the apartment or
employee unit, all vehicles would only be at the building during
regular office hours approximately from 3:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
I trust that I have addressed all of the itens required for the
GMP submittal regarding utilities, drainage, traffic and parking.
If you should require any additional information or clarifica-
tion, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER,
2De Gordon,
P esid nt
DWG • ec/6126
r',P;,�sr�RF.
,Lt
P. E. u C
�. e
MAP OF
ASPEN
;
COLORADO
iNiNi yRr'1�t
e s•: r
Yi•...�tpti. d:,
OCA.. � � C� IJ 1
� wnNLnoar ow. U �E crt. � T
SAW
cr
�g ti
e
h hp�
i
t4*. 0l045. ,U8 WNt 01-419": -. - ...