Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Shapery Aspen Downtown Storage.1983 I PROJECT PROFILE 198j COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. : Applicant: Sandor W. Shapery, Shapery Enterprises 2. Project Name: Aspen Downtown Storage • 3. Location: Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center 4. Parcel Size: 1 . 147 acres or 49,963 square feet 5. Current Zoning: S/C/I with an SPA overlay 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: External FAR in the S/C/I zone is 1 : 1 , so the maximum buildout is 49,963 square feet. 7. Existing Structures: No structures currently exist on the parcel . 8. Development Program: The proposal includes three separate two-level storage facility buildings. An office for the manager and a living unit will be housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co. building, which will be reconstructed at the entrance to the project. Two 700 square foot employee housing units are proposed near the river. 9. Additional Review Requirements: SPA Plan Amendment, Stream Margin Review, Employee Housing Exemption • 10. Miscellaneous: Quota being requested is as follows: 66 Storage Units of 144 sq.ft. each = 9,438 square feet 66 Storage Units of 160 sq.ft. each = 10,560 square feet TOTAL GROSS STORAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE = 19,998 square feet Circulation Area (included in FAR) = 4,752 square feet TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE = 24,750 square feet • , ex off[ ,., I in 0-11 � \D-N, ��s MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney ,City Electric - City Engineering Department ' Sanitation District City/County Housing Department5 Building Department City Water Department Fire Chief FROM: Planning Office j) RE: GMP Applications DATE: September 2, 1982 • Attached please find four (4) applications submitted to the Planning Office: Planner Colette Penne is handling 3 applications--Rubey Park Visitor's Center, and Aspen Downtown Storage, and Whale of a Wash. The first application, Rubey Park Visitor's Center requests construction of a Public Transportation Information Center, containing some commercial lease space which would house related services. The Aspen Downtown Storage application pertains to the proposed development of a self-storage warehouse facility with manager's office, manager's apartment and two employee housing units on Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. The Whale of a Wash application (also referred to as 415 East Main Street) proposes expansion onto the existing Whale of a Wash laundry for commercial and office development. These three applications will be reviewed at the October 5, 1982 City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so please review the applications and return any comments regarding same to the Planning Office, attention Colette Penne, by Monday, 3ctober 20th if at all possible. Planner Alice Davis is handling the attached Carriage House Lodge application. The applicant seeks approval for a 26 unit lodge to be located at 204 E. Durant Avenue. This application will be presented before the October 19th City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so any referral comments should be back to Alice Davis at the Planning Office by Monday, October 4th. Please remember that the City GMP scoring procedures have been amended during the past year, so your comments should address these new regulations. If you are unfamiliar with the new Ordinance, please contact either Colette Penne or Alice Davis at 925-2020, ext. 223 and ext. 227, respectively. Thank you. , ,n A SPP.f- S'A/�u7AT /or t icnc /cr /in ,ea ✓/E �NE g„/sF_ y ,j9 A/c (//f ,VO6S CrF.'reI . SPEc-• ,bGi.-r?OI-r. S.7. an 4c A 1) !-/4Na.p OF L As pfeoJt_ ` r$ A'-o CM-I- se,n-,c,_ 7 Ha A/Dn..0 • I Asn �f/j� Acec_ • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING OFFICE FROM: RONALD L. MITCHELL RE: REVIEW OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMPONENT FOR GMP APPLICATONS The following are comments on the employee housing components of the GMP applications: 1. Rubey Park Visitor' s Center - the unit in the development and the trailer provided for employee housing should be designated low-income housing. The condition designating low income housing should indicate that it is the developers responsibility to qualify individuals and set the rental rates in accordance with the City adopted Employee Housing Guidelines. 2. Aspen Downtown Storage - the studio unit should be designated low-income. The two one bedrooms should be designated as moderate income. The condition designating the low and moderate guidelines should indicate that it is the developers responsibility to qualify individuals and set the rental rates in accordance with City Adopted Employee Housing Guidelines. If the units are sold, the developer should call the city to review the qualifying and sale procedures. 3. Whale of A Wash - the two 2 bedroom employee units submitted in this application are existing middle income deed restricted units already in the employee housing pool. 4. Carriage House Lodge - the 5 employee housing units should be designated low income housing. The condition designating the units as low income housing should indicate that it is the owner' s responsibility to qualify individuals and set the rental rates in accordance with City adopted Employee Housing Guidelines. • • s RESOLUTION NO. 45:g (Series of 1982) WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 .5(a) of the Code, September 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applications for commercial and office development allotments within the CC/C-1 , NC/SCI, Office, CL and other zone districts in the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the City Council eliminated the quota for commercial development from previous years which was unallocated by approval of Resolution 58, Series of 1981 , and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, City Council established the following new quotas for commercial development: CC/C-1 10,000 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 square feet Office 4,000 square feet CL/other 3,000 square feet, and WHEREAS, certain activities of demolition and construction which were exempted from competition during the past year have altered the quotas to be: CC/C-1 8,973 square feet NC/SCI 7,000 square feet • Office 4,000 square feet CL/other 2,567 square feet, and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on October 5, 1982 by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Commercial Growth Manage- ment applications and evaluate and score them in conformance with criteria esta- blished in Ordinance 49 (Series of 1981 ) which amended Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, two projects are competing for commercial square footage allotments in the Commercial Core zone which total 8,510 square feet, and WHEREAS, there are no projects competing in the C-1 zone, and WHEREAS, the available quota for the CC/C-1 zones is 8,973 square feet, and WHEREAS, both projects have met the required thresholds in the Planning and Zoning Commission scoring, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to Council that both projects be awarded a development allotment for their requested square footages, and WHEREAS, certain concerns about the projects which are not addressed in the scoring will be considered in subsequent reviews. • NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Asoen. Colorado: Section 1 Commercial and office development allotments are hereby awarded to the Whale of a Wash (2.700 square feet) and The Rubev Park Visitor' s Center (5.810 sauare feet) for a total of 8.510 sauare feet. Each of these projects is authorized to proceed further with additional approvals needed from the City before buildina Permits are secured. • Section 2 The allocation of 2.700 sauare feet of commercial soace to the Whale of a Wash building shall be subiect to the following conditions: A subseauent special review for FAR bonus must be completed and the project must obtain HPC approval . All representations made in the submittal must be adhered to in the construction of the oroiect. as scoring was based on that information. Specifically. the building will be similar to the recent exoansion of the Epicure in terms of height and massing on the front and alley facades and brick will be used to enhance this section of the Main Street streetscaoe with a compatible infill buildina. The sidewalk on Main Street will be uoaraded with a paving .pattern at the curb and the planting of additional trees. A courtyard will be incorporated at the second story level of the buildina. Fire protection reouires the connec- tion of the domestic line to the fire line. The parking area at the back of the buildina will be retained and an on-site drvwell under the oarkina area will be added. Two 2-bedroom aoartments in the Silverkina complex are being used as deed-restricted emolovee units to meet the housina needs of the project. Section 3 The allocation of 5.810 sauare feet of commercial space to the Rubev Park Visitor's Center shall be subiect to the followina conditions: Rezonina of the parcel (to SPA with certain allowed Public and Commercial uses) : adoption of an SPA Plan: HPC aooroval : and exemotion of emolovee housina. The project will be reouired to be constructed accordina to all representations made in the submittal . as scoring was based on that information. The buildina will be designed to be mostly one to one and one-half stories and of similar materials to surroundina buildinas. The desian shall have a steodown element which reduces its Perceived mass. Extensive use of alass will provide views from inside. The trash area will be enclosed and visually screened. All utilities will be underground and utility panels and meters will be enclosed. Heatina will be provided throuah oassive- active systems with enerav efficient backups. Skvliahts and an atrium will be incorporated. A water thermal storage system will provide solar heated domestic hot water. Cooliva and ventilation will be handled by an indirect and direct evaporative system. The oroiect will accomplish revisions in bus circulation and extensions of the malls on both boundaries of the parcel . There will be a reduction in asphalt oavina by 38 percent and an increase in landscaoina and open soace of 11 percent. At least 58 percent of the site shall be devoted to heavily landscaped open soace for public use. Larae aarden areas with walks. benches and bike oarkina areas will be provided. Three additional catch basins will be Provided and on-site drvwells will handle drainage. Six to 12 (varvina with the season)short term oarkina spaces will be provided and a direct shuttle service will connect the facility to the Proposed Rio Grande aaraae. A 900 sauare foot emolovee unit will be Provided in the Project and a three bedroom mobile home will be purchased. providing housina for a total of eiaht employees. Section 4 Council hereby carries over the remainina unused auota of 463 .sauare feet in the CC/C-1 zone. 4.000 sauare feet in the Office zone and 2.567 souare feet in the CL and other zone cateaory to the 1984 Commercial Growth Manaaement Competition. Dated: lgflLt.fy�.4.12) 9 /1974 -2- • V V/ / / Or i erman Edel Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted b the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day of , 1982. athryn S. ch City Clerk ' I -3- C) CO a V -0 n0 0 R7 C71 A W N -. Or .y Of VI A W N -� .o N m O 001 d C -1 . ..t -a. •..t O •. • O -v N 'V N £ u, -r -I C m c.n Y a• f 4< a rt C tD a M a z a • 9 re fl) 9 0 0' E tr Z Cr a N) N O Ct n 'NC • .1 —. C -6 0 - J•-/ r a J• to J o in o0 = CO o n tD to m rt a —. c `C Oct -n 3 v . C Z •1 o C to 'c = .. m in fD n o a n r in a -) - v O. 9 in -• et- CD 0' -t. a. a to V 0 V CO C to 7 0 - ' ' o -1 h n ' a w 0 0 o) tn to n. CO V N \ 'V a. It - 7 7 Z CD O 0 -n C -r rr 0 • N CD a CD - tG In = n Ct in - -1. So —I 0 -s -s 0 CO ri- m . 7 o a n o o • z N -'• H 0 .V 0 n -t to CO D m to Q a. Ct N N C tel O_ C i . 0 Cl) 0 CD CO r r . 0 •• •• co • • • I HD IC I—, NI — I.� I , IO IN) 1 • I—' Ca) I N NI 0 cm 70 0 O Fy me r r N G) —I A (N)1 I O ICr) I JINI �1� IJ Ito IN .� r N � IN to N N -m a m r • . -I r c Om m IIW I O Cl I -a INIOI— IJ p INJ J N - CF = r CD r z CO C CO Cl I o tl I-PIND -.I� I -1 10 NI � - INI _. NI . CO N a CO N CO 3. o � z m NJ I O I C. HT- O N O --' tD NJ • I I II I I • t fD I I H. II::• 2. k I . -It m v a A tO • es o 00 c. Co —I CO '0 a N rrl r N �. O r m no 'o as N 3 73 = N t0 n O 0 rt. 5: —I ti- u O �qp3 N -0 V. 0 Cl M) S G O e..1 S o N - n ;b p - m m -0 7 . y ry r H. C)a c 2. z T C --1 o vcp r r -c N = M M • ✓ a • I w 1 ° I ° I0 -I N / Mc i i r- 1101° 1 ° 1° ' cu lo o i it, 5 . 1 H p o let o ka 1 1 N O = 1 I 1 • .., I N)03 1E • • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Aspen Downtown Storage - Commercial Growth Manage nt Prooject DATE: November 22, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: . , 64 I IMF Background / At the October 5, 1982 regular meeting of the Aspen Plan ng and Zoning Commission, three projects were evaluated in the 1983 Commercial Growth Management competition. Each project was presented, discussed, public comment heard, and scoring was done individually by each Commission member. At your regular meeting on November 8, 1982, allocations of quota for two of the three projects were made. The two projects were the Whale of a Wash Building and the Rubey Park Visitor' s Center, both in the Commercial Core. The project you are considering tonight, Aspen Downtown Storage in the SCI zone, was tabled at the applicant' s request on November 8. The application as submitted and scored is a request for 24,750 square feet of commercial space in the form of three two-level storage facility buildings to be developed on Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center (on Puppy Smith Street). The parcel size is 1 .147 acres, or 49,963 square feet. An office for the manager and a living unit will be housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co. building, which will be reconstructed at the entrance to the project. Two 700 square foot employee housing units are proposed near the river. Quota Available The quota established by Ordinance 26, Series of 1982, for commercial development in the NC/SCI zones is 7,000 square feet. Thresholds and Eligibility To be eligible for an allocation, a project is required to score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under Categories 1 (Quality of Design) , 2 (Availability of Public Facilities/Services) , and 3 (Employee Housing Need) , amounting to 22.8 points. A minimum score of 30 percent of the points available in each category (1 , 2 and 3) is also required for a project to meet the basic competitive requirements. The minimum points were as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points Category 2 = 3 points Category 3 = 3 points Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over the minimum thresholds, but can affect the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of awarding allotments. The scoring by the Planning and Zoning Commission was as follows: Average 1 . Quality of Design 8.5 2. Availability of Public 5.6 Facilities and Services 3. Employee Housing Need 10.0 Subtotal : 24. 1 4. Employee Housing Incentive 8.2 5. Applicant' s Previous Performance n/a 6. Bonus Points 0.2 TOTAL: 32.5 ✓ The project met all required thresholds. Memo: Aspen Downtown Storage November 22, 1982 Page Two Subsequent Approvals The SCI zoning on this parcel also has an SPA overlay, since the lot is part of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center Specially Planned Area. Therefore, the application must be processed as an amendment to the SPA. The employee housing units proposed must be exempted from GMP competition and a stream margin review must be completed due to the nearness of two of the proposed employee units to the floodplain. P&Z Action The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the coverage of the parcel by the project made rather intense use of the land, impacted the Rio Grande Trail in a negative way and would possibly have detrimental effects on the adjacent wildlife sanctuary of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. They directed the j Planning Office to draft the attached Resolution to convey discontentment with the project which they felt the scoring system did not adequately reflect. They further recommended that Council allocate one year's quota (7,000 square feet) with enough bonus square footage to complete construction of one building. Council Action The applicant intends to amend this application and would like to present the changes to you at this meeting to see if you feel , conceptually, that the changes make the project more acceptable. The Planning Office has seen a plan for the amendment, and anticipates that the Planning and Zoning Commission will view the amended plans more favorably than the original submission. Many of the concerns raised by P&Z have been mitigated in the revised submission. If you feel it would be worthwhile for the applicant to pursue the amendment and resolve some of the problems, he asks that you extend the time period for allocating the quota and make the allotment after consideration of the amendment. The Planning Office concurs with this approach. The appropriate motion is: "I move to extend the period of time in which a development allotment can be made for the 1983 Growth Management Commercial Competition in the SCI/NC zone, at the request of the applicant, until such time as the proposed amendment has been considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a recommendation for quota based on the amended plans has been forwarded to Council . " • RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONSIDERATION BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL OF THE PURCHASE OF LOT 3, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER AS AN OPEN SPACE PARCEL Resolution No. 82 - /'� WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed Commercial • Growth Management proposals at a public hearing held on October 5, 1982, and WHEREAS, a project proposed to be built on Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center met the threshold of 60 percent of available points in the first three scoring categories of the Growth Management Competition Scoring System, and WHEREAS, the awarding of points and a subsequent recommendation for a square footage allotment does not convey some of the concerns expressed in the discussion of the project, and WHEREAS, the wildlife habitat of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies sanctuary could be affected by a large buildout or the ongoing construction of a phased project, and WHEREAS, the access to and use of Jenny Adair Park may be significantly altered by the proposed development, and WHEREAS, the development of this parcel would preclude the possibility of the return of rail transit along the Rio Grande right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the appeal of the Rio Grande Trail system would be reduced by its being juxtaposed between the proposed storage warehouse buildings and the existing Sanitation facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that a recommendation is hereby made to the City Council of Aspen, Colorado to consider the purchase of Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center with open space funds for use as open space. Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on October 19, 1982. ASPEN PLANNING Ail ZONING COMMISSION BY 1 =,r L f' " see, Acting Chairman • ATTEST: "/ e---yee: c z Vir9r(ia Beall , Deputy City Clerk PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION 1. Applicant: Sandor W. Shapery, Shapery Enterprises 2. Project Name: Aspen Downtown Storage 3. Location: Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Center 4. Parcel Size: 1 .147 acres or 49,963 square feet 5. Current Zoning: S/C/I with an SPA overlay 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: External FAR in the S/C/I zone is 1 : 1 , so the maximum buildout is 49,963 square feet. 7. Existing Structures: No structures currently exist on the parcel . 8. Development Program: The proposal includes three separate two-level storage facility buildings. An office for the manager and a living unit will be housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co. building, which will be reconstructed at the entrance to the project. Two 700 square foot employee housing units are proposed near the river. 9. Additional Review Requirements: SPA Plan Amendment, Stream Margin Review, Employee Housing Exemption • 10. Miscellaneous: Quota being requested is as follows: 66 Storage Units of 144 sq.ft. each = 9,438 square feet 66 Storage Units of 160 sq.ft. each = 10,560 square feet TOTAL GROSS STORAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE = 19,998 square feet Circulation Area (included in FAR) = 4,752 square feet TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE = 24,750 square feet November 16, 1982 Ms. Colette Penne Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Colette: After the meeting that we had with Sunny and Paul , I decided that it would be in my client's best interest to seek a continuation of the granting of the growth management plan allotment for the Shapery Downtown Storage project. As you know, we are preparing to make changes to the project to respond to ACES' and P&Z' s concerns. The Council , therefore, would not be able to grant us the necessary allotment until the changes have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe, therefore, that it would be in the City's best interest and my client's best interest to present to the Council on Monday the approved GMP project as well as the proposed changes to the project. I would like to see Council 's response to our changes and if they are positive, then we would take the changes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval and then seek an allotment based on the amended GMP plan. If we were to receive an allotment at this time based on the P&Z's recommendation, it would be impossible for Council to amend that allotment upward, and we would all be trapped in a procedural quagmire. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Ve ruAt your , F s fr. Gideon ' . , :n GK:m JAspen Center for Environmental Studies • October 4, 1982 Aspen City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs, The Board of Trustees of the Aspen Center for Environ- mental Studies wishes to express strong opposition to the warehouse project proposed for the former Rio Grande right-of-way property. Our reasons are as follows: 1) The massive scale of this project will signi- ficantly urbanize a presently park-like environ- ment. 2) The City of Aspen is currently negotiating for purchase of additional meadow land adjacent and west of this site. The project would physically dominate the meadow land and Genny Adair Park. 3) Construction of this project would destroy ma- ture cottonwoods and other vegetation alonf the Roaring Fork River. This would be a major incursion into a wildlife travel corridor. Soil disturbance will also reduce water quality in the river. 4) The Rio Grande trail extends more than four miles down valley to the new 15 acre True Smith Park. The warehouse project would realign the trail to pass through sewer plant property. The trail would be confined between a road and a warehouse. That would certainly be an unattractive entry to the main trail system emanating from Aspen and ex- tending along the Roaring Fork River. 5) The probable installation of security lights and fencing would not be aesthetic along the river and would have significant negative impact on the at- tractiveness of the Hallam Lake wildlife sanctuary. P.O. Box 8777 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 • (303) 925-5756 ftsik Page 2 Aspen City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 1982 ACES Board of Trustees feels it was extremely unfortunate that previous City Councils did not acquire this property as open space as part of the original Trueman Property development. We feel the property is in too critical a location for extensive development and we encourage you to seek a trade for this property or to purchase the property with sixth penny funds. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /Lc elk% Hal Clark President- ACES Trustees • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS �`� PROJECT: - Y/ DATE: S Des f z 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 assign- ing 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: N8 ( / Au Ac' GPI fec"1`fDUS SPA 71A7 zV o A-(AJoe £avc„,-�v ene iJ /96.4e(59 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: n COMMENT: t9N ,fFIS itt l26N c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT: 7-4)/(/D Aare, • -2- 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 effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: C I COMMENT: Subtotal : _ 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT; bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: J COMMENT: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or 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 -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: • COMMENT: • ee. 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. q Rating: I COMMENT: • 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating: COMMENT; 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50%- of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating; COMMENT: '4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual . hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ), (2), and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: geD,Jc 6 btS B?� Z 56 ruz-F cL_ Q (°5J/-W UN (ice( Ara-L9N L 6-07-01e-t_ be A H4k'it_ (�v z ro,---(5 [, i 1*e laJ 7. TOTAL POINTS /,, Points in Category 1 : K� (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 'J (Minimum of 3 points needed .11 to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: l U (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 ; 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: _ Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 0" • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: S// 0-7Z DATE; /O'• 1 • c?-.2 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 assign- ing 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. C7 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 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 pedes- trian and bicycle ways. / . Rating: COMMENT: • • -2- 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 effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. cj Rating: COMMENT: Subtotal : /6. 7.2 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) • aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT; bb. 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: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed ..deu.e]opment without substantially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. I Rating; COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. c- Rating: COMMENT: ee. 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 payed surface, convenience and safety. Rating: COMMENT: 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. 7/0 COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. /� Rating; COMMENT: • • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: ///i.". ).- COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. O Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS / Points in Category 1 : /0 2 (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: / (7 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 0) "1/ 1 , 2 and 3: (, . (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: /0 / TOTAL POINTS: 7 ( r2 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: /C4!2y 1271;10/25,.,>r • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION • 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS / PROJECT: // ��'u"" DATE: f°! / T 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 assign- ing 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 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: 2 COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: • COMMENT: • • • • • -2- 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 effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: 2 COMMENT: Subtotal : at 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT; bb. 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: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without.substaatially altering existing traffic patterns -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: • , dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: COMMENT: • ee. 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. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating. MO • COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: COMMENT: • • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. ,{ Rating: 4_ COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. 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: /:62 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: 2 S / Name of Planning and Zoning Member: . Or • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP'APPLICATIONS PROJECT: �2frl UoL t Y oiagt. 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 assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. ' 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the. compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 2- COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. n Rating: COMMENT: much G.Sp p Yxx�t c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. 2 Rating: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. ' Rating: COMMENT: • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: t COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: Z COMMENT: Subtotal : 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT; bb. 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: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or 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 -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating: COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities • _ to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: • COMMENT: • ee. 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. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net -addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. COMMENT: 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- -or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating: 0 COMMENT: 4 -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ), (2), and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS 9 Points in Category 1 : / (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 4 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: a (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 ; 2 and 3: .2-45 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories I 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: 3 S Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: Aspen Downtown Storage DATE; October 1 , 1982 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 assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 2 COMMENT: The compatibility with the neighboring developments is difficult because of the openness of Hallam Lake and the trail . These builidngs are large and quite tall . The design does attempt to break up the considerable mass. With unit doors to the exterior, there will be the ability to view users emptying or filling units. The use of an historic building is commendable. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating. 2 COMMENT: All utilities are presently underground and the two-level design makes the circulation efficient. Due to the loss of mature trees, more new trees would be advisable. Maximum use of the parcel results in large amounts of roof area and aspahlt paving. The bulk will affect the serene nature of the neighborhood. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: 2 COMMENT: The design makes it possible to use only natural lighting in daytime hours and the three employee units will have woodburning stoves and be built in excess of energy codes. d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The design maximizes coverage of the lot, leaving no usable open space, except a small amount for the employee units. The proposal to realign the trail is favorable, but must be done to accomplish the developer's purposes of full utilization of the site. • • • _ I • _2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating: 1 COMMENT: Because of the grade change these buildings are being built upon and the fact that the back building will be nearly 40 feet above surface grade, the view of the mountains from the trail will he redured yet from come vantage points, the view of the sewer plant is being blocked. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. Rating: 2 COMMENT: Needs of the project are not excessive and are adequately provided for. Subtotal : 10 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: COMMENT: The existence of the eight inch main in Puppy Smith Street and a fire hydrant on one corner of the property Indicate that the needs of the prujecl can be served. No other improvements are proposed. bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Rating: 1 COMMENT: An eight inch line runs through the property and can adequately service the project. No other upgrading is proposed. cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or 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 -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; 1 COMMENT: Mill Street and Puppy Smith Street have been improved in the recent past. The Silverking bus route is on Mill Street and may be used by the employees. It. is unlikely that customers will access the facility without a vehicle, however, but visits may be infrequent. dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. 2 Rating: COMMENT: On-site drywells are proposed to handle all on-site runoff., The open ditch which handles runoff from adjacent properties will be upgraded to an under- ground culvert, thus improving the existing situation. ee. 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: 1 COMMENT: The parking needs of this project are met by the proposal of one space at each unit and five spaces for employees and customers at the office. Through the SPA review, this requirement can be reviewed. 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating. 10 COMMENT; One full-time employee is all that is needed, with possibly a part-time employee to fill in. For a maximum of 10 points to be awarded, 50% of the employees would be housed, and this is the case. 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula; 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. 10 Rating; COMMENT: Accepting 1 .5 employees as the number needed, 150% = 2.25, and housing is being provided for 6.4 employees. • -4- , 5. APPLICANT' S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial ' competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: n/a COMMENT: n/a 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 10 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 6 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: 26 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6; 10 TOTAL POINTS: 36 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office • • • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT•�a a � C J DATE; //6-C) - 0162, -4/e r ,t- 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 assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the. compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. 1 / / /Raati/ng: COMMENT:)17,6//02-7,4:2,27z/A._ .74/V/) /,e/ Agog_ ascl__ 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. if COMMENT: - c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: c›.2._, COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: COMMENT j J�fo ,eJ. ,7l7a. ifQJ • • • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. / Rating: COMMENT;_./L.,,a, �/7�//a /glac.) f/,IIV—� f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. 2 Rating: CO , • !/ �,_sr _ 4c% .-- Subtotal : 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: / COMMENT; bb. 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: cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or 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 _3_ or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; COMMENT: dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities _ to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: c42 COMMENT: ee. 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. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. /D COMMENT; 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50%"of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. Rating; /7) COMMENT: • -4- 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: /2 COMMENT: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ), (2), and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: L� (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: /(7 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1; 2 and 3: 25 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories �1 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: �— ) Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 1 2 F �\ � (C) • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION . 1983 COMMERCIAL-GMP APPLICATIONS • 'PROJECT: Aspen Downtown Storage DATE: October 1 , 1982 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 assign- ing points according to the following formula: i • 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 2 • • COMMENT: The compatibility with the neighboring developments is difficult because of the openness of Hallam Lake and the trail . These builidngs are large and quite tall. The design does attempt to break up the considerable mass. With unit doors to the exterior, there will be the ability to view users emptying or filling units. The use of an historic building is commendable. b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating; 2 COMMENT: All utilities are presently underground and the two-level design makes the circulation efficient. Due to the loss of mature trees, more new trees would be advisable. Maximum use of the parcel results in large amounts of roof area and aspahlt paving. The bulk will affect the serene nature of the neighborhood. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to•maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: 2 COMMENT: The design makes it possible to use only natural lighting in daytime hours and the three employee units will have woodburning stoves and be built in excess of energy codes. - d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The design maximizes coverage of the lot, leaving no usable open space, except a small amount for the employee units. the proposal to realign the trail is favorable, but must be done to accomplish the developer's purposes of full utilization of the site. • • • • • • • -2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. �, Rating: • COMMENT: Because of the grade change these buildings are being built upon and the fact that the back building will be nearly 40 feet above surface grade, the !! view of the mountains from the trail will be reduced yet from snme vantage pnints, the view of the sewer plant is being enhanced. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. �' Rating: 2 COMMENT: Needs of the project are not excessive and are adequately provided for. Subtotal : 10 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public 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 general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. 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 provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The existence of the eight inch main in Puppy Smith Street and a fire hydrant on one corner of the property Indicate that the needs of Lhe prujeLL can be served.. No other improvements are proposed. bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. • Rating: 1 COMMENT: An eight inch line runs through the property and can adequately service the project. No other upgrading is proposed. • cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or 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 • r -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to ,• extend the existing road network. Rating; 1 COMMENT: Mill Street and Puppy Smith Street have been improved in the recent past. The Silverking bus route is on Mill Street and may be used by the employees. Itis unlikely that customers will access the facility without a vehicle, however, but visits may be infrequent. dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. 2 Rating: COMMENT: On-site drywells are proposed to handle all on-site runoff.. The open ditch which handles runoff from adjacent properties will be upgraded to an under- ground culvert, thus improving the existing situation. ee. 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: 1 • COMMENT: The parking needs of this project are met by the proposal of one space at each unit and five spaces for employees and customers at the office. Through the SPA review, this requirement can be reviewed. 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points). The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is, by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status). Rating. 10 COMMENT: One full-time employee is all that is needed, with possibly a part-time employee to fill in. For a maximum of 10 points to be awarded, 50% of the employees would be housed, and this is the case.. • 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points). In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50% of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula; • 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. 10 Rating: COMMENT: Accepting 1.5 employees as the number needed, 150% = 2.25, and housing • is being provided for 6.4 pmpinyPes. • • r -4_ , 5. APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points). Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial '. competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that. for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. Rating: n/a COMMENT: n/a 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points). (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2), and (3) ). Commission members 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 Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: • 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 10 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 6 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 1Q (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1, 2 and 3: 26 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: 10 TOTAL POINTS: 36 Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • • • • LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN 611 WEST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 DAVID G. EISENSTEIN 925-8166 September 23 , 1982 Ms. Colette Penne Box 2505 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Request for Koch Lumber Building/Board of Trustees Aspen Historical Society Dear Colette, As you know by now, a meeting is scheduled for September 28 , 1982 , to confirm your approval of the use by our client, Mr. Sandor W. Shapery, of the Koch Lumber Building in his self-storage warehouse project to be built on Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. We had hoped that your final approval would be given based on the merits of our request. Unfortunately one of your members, Carol Blomquist, has seen fit to prejudge the project, and sent you a letter setting forth her opposition to the project. What is most distressing about this is the fact that Carol ' s letter contains several inaccuracies and misstatements. It is therefore important to write you this letter to set the record straight so you will be able to come to the meeting with better data. Then, at the meeting, we can explain the project and answer any questions you might have. With respect to Carol' s letter we have the following comments. 1 . When you look at the plans for our proposed project, you will see we do not have a massive building. The project has been designed with the particular configuration of the property in mind so the building will blend in with the property and enhance the surroundings. Furthermore the site will be improved by the addition of new trees and a well thought out landscaping plan. Board of Trustees Aspen Historical Society September 23 , 1982 Page Two 2 . It is totally incorrect to say this project violates the SPA plan. Mr. Trueman' s SPA plan for this area was fully approved by the City, after going through all reviews required by the City Code. Mr. Trueman' s plan created this lot and made it a fully developable parcel in the SCI zone. Self-storage warehouses are a permitted use in the SCI zone and therefore, by right, the property owner is entitled to construct self-storage warehouses on the property. Further, though the buildings to be constructed are certainly intended to be permanent, we have taken abundant care in our design and feel that it is not ugly but rather very attractive and improves the scenery of the area. 3 . This project has been designed to fulfill a sorely felt need in the Aspen area. There is no reasonably priced storage available in the central area of Aspen. The self-storage at the Aspen Airport Business Center has a very long waiting list. Thus, local businesses and local residents want this project and support it because it provides a service the community really needs. 4 . It is not true that the HPC board was "told the Koch Building would be rebuilt on the Stoddard (sic) House property. " When the presentation was made to the HPC board, we made it clear that the Koch Lumber Building was to be incorporated in a project on Lot 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project and was to be used as an office and employee housing for the self-storage warehouse development. This will be confirmed to you by Colette Penne of the City Planning Office. The HPC board gave its unanimous approval to the development concept. 5 . One final point. Carol' s letter has confused the issue that is before you. What our project does is to preserve and renovate an important historic building for the City of Aspen. Additionally, it places the Koch Lumber Building in a showcase location where many people will be able to see it every day. Our request to you as members of the Board of Trustees of the Aspen Historical Society is to give us your final approval to allow us to renovate and preserve the Koch Lumber Building. Board of Trustees Aspen Historical Society Setpember 23 , 1982 Page Three Thank you very much for your consideration of these matters. We look forward to meeting with you on September 28 , 1982 , and discussing this project and answering any questions you might have. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I . KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation Al By O/ David G. Eisenstein DGE kw J • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1983 City of Aspen Commercial Growth Management Competition NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 5, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall , 130 S. Galena, Aspen to review and score the following 1983 Commercial Growth Management applications: • Whale of a Wash Building Aspen Downtown Storage Building Rubey Park Visitor' s Center Building For further information contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission • Published in the Aspen Times on September 16, 1982 City of Aspen Account. • • • • LAY. OrFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A RDFESSONAL CORPOEAT•0• BOX 10001 .;GEC^. KAUFMAN 611 WEST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 DAVID G ESENSTEIN 925-8166 September 7 , 1982 Kathy Snyder , President Aspen Historical Society 620 West Sleeker Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sandor W . Shapery/Koch Lumber Building Dear Kathy , First of all , I would like again to thank you very much for allowing me to present our project and our proposal for the Green Koch Lumber Building to the members of the Aspen Historical Society. I have informed our client , Mr. Shapery, of the Society ' s motion giving conceptual approval to our use of the building and I have explained to Mr . Shapery the concerns raised at your meeting. This letter is written in response to those concerns. Mr. Shapery acquired the property from Mr. Trueman at a cost of four hundred thousand dollars ($400 , 000 . 00) . The overall cost of the project to Mr. Shapery will be at least six hundred thousand dollars ($600 , 000 . 00) . This includes building the duplex employee structure at the rear of the property, the self-storage facility and the moving and renovation of the Koch Lumber Building. In particular with the Koch Lumber Building it is expected it will cost at least $1 , 100 . 00 to move the building and not less than forty thousand dollars ($40 , 000 . 00 ) to complete the renovation of the building so that it will be able to be occupied as an office and an apartment unit . As you can see , this project involves quite a considerable expenditure and commitment on Mr. Shapery' s part. He also would like very much to utilize the Koch Lumber Building in his project as he feels the preservation of historical structures , especially in a town with so much historical character as Aspen, is important. It will cost Mr. Shapery more to restore the Koch Lumber Building than to duplicate it but Mr . Shapery is willing to spend this money in the interest of preserving a historical building. Mr. Shapery has won two awards for his development work from the San Diego Downtown Preservation Commission . In restoring the building, Mr. Shapery will not be receiving any tax benefits whatsoever. Kathy Snyder Aspen Historical Society September 7 , 1982 Page Two Mr. Shapery wholeheartedly supports the policy and purpose of the Aspen. Historical Society to protect and preserve historic structures. He is offering to the Aspen Historical Society an opportunity to accomplish this , at no cost to the Aspen Historical Society , in a very tasteful .. inner , in a project that will showcase the structure and fulfill an important community need. In order to further the work of the Aspen Historical Society and in order to allow you to grant him the building and to defray your costs incurred in your moving and preservation of the building, Mr. Shapery would like to make a donation to the Aspen Historical Society in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1 , 500 . 00) . This amount will be paid to the Aspen Historical Society at the time all approvals necessary from the City of Aspen are obtained for the project and all the proper documentation is received from the Historical Society granting Mr. Shapery the Green Koch Lumber Building and approving and supporting his use ef the building . Please contact me as soon as you have had the - opportunity to review this letter with whatever comments you might have and so we may also discuss scheduling a special meeting of the Society in order that Mr. Shapery may obtain the final approval from the Society for his use of the Koch Lumber Building . Thank you again for all your assistance and attention to this matter. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I . KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By _ Or David G. Eisenstein DGE kw cc: Sandor W. Shapery Welton C. Anderson �2 T 460 — Ibb G i/2*v--) ,e 4„ ti '„e3/ C! / " `/ <v� tiE;-*-e 6s t- Gi zC — 10`2 Acea4eekk, .!r G�, .�/U) 12 ?' �. - 7' ' " A& 47:4) t Afg% 14 int- 7 / ads .aietti ,Zr c4i fr' a�P,W /.l rte! ,east, "fre A%xci, /noZ - , a /yrt anti , ` •pita fr R rtie' � v��f iva atv pt. . mr„,th ra,„;t.a_et 11'6",ne ^a2 4 ).2-44) j2G�O y A p t /!Lrnt---i 4 e4 ,/,-(2 /leett /6a/ ' •/J /o qa e- � ( . d �, eacc- 'tea-cc- -4'n% t Pa- , s i G�2 7 nr'� is G , atjea-le, 1-66,4. ems,p„// a /47 an' r'u5 /a1 as, R3-201 A..AGENYI.D. NO.: 6280 F. USLIFE POLICY NUMBER: M O s3 221-8 B. PROPERTY TYPE: A COUNTY: 097 G. SIMUL. WITH JMBER: 0 I 1 911773 GNPD, %L. PRIOR C. POL. OR LIA. E H. PRIOR POLICY NUMBER: D. STAT. CODE: 5012 is 20.00 REMARKS: RISK RATE: $553.50 Code (Gross Prem. I E. SPECIAL DR/CR CODE/S: `s s IS • IS Code (Gross Prem. Code !Gross Prem. Code Gross • Prem. Code Gross Prem. by Date of Policy: January 8, 1982 at 11:46 AM GF No. A81-488 Amount of Insurance $ 300,000.00 1. Name of Insured: James R. Truman 2. The estate or interest in the land described in this Schedule and which is encumbered by the insured mortgage is: (a fee, a leasehold, etc.) Fee Simple 3. The estate or interest to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: Sandor W. Shapery 4. The mortgage, herein referred to as the insured mortgage, and the assignments thereof, if any, are described as follows: Deed of Trust from Sandor W. Shapery to bhe Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of James R. Truman, beneficiary, to secure $300,000.00 dated January 8, 1982, recorded January 8, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 614. The land 'referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot 3 TRUFMAN NEIGHBORIIOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5 at Page 70. Pitkin County, Colorado eMcn,P111.1111 un tutuC •ccnr,aT,rnJ In..4 l.n, Inv rnn., .n.n •..n..nnn •n �� t » - r ,:c- ' ,. '- 1 it 0 . Iv 4 i 4i` 4 ✓+ t 41+x. Y J,° 11..io'clnca A .H., in a, 1912, 1922 r,, 1s ,,.n No. -Tea /2:0.1, Pitkin County Recorder udgmommis ¢„ WARRANTY DEED '"�419 ""613 �~ YC ;. 2 This warranty Deed made this day of January, 19N. , :AMES R. TRURMAN, whose address 1a'5400 Hayden Ruh Road, Amin, y ^Ii,o 2301)2, for the consideration of Ten Dollars (210.00) and +* other good and valuable consideration, in hard paid hereby 0112 t, and conveys to SARDOR W. SHAPERY, whose :idress is lee, { i ''? San 'Diego, California 92101 . ON following art•1 property '� :, . ' :Kc STGuate�in—FE;c1E oP.n. ounty of Pitkin and State of < T.' Colorado, to wit: ' • 4)4(( one ni , r Lot 3 of Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project ` - , irL' ' off` according to the final Plat thereof recorded in - - r ' -\ Plat Book S at pages 10-75, Recorder's cftice, L v r` ` \y' Pttkin County, Colorado. i .._----..:.--.......0 7d p ' �c :� i with all its appurtenances and warrants the title to the WS. J subject to .11 real estate tames and amente not yet due ar , 04.:,.. ,.4. . . . payable; building and toning ordinances and regulations( and a1( Ye easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations of reserd .;� !' •1 including but not limited to th. following: r,$ t 1. Reservations and exceptions as contained AS Nailed •A states Patent recorded Joie a, 1200 in Wet N at pegs "4 ' - f te,} 2, Recorder's Office, Pitkin County, Coleradem i a 2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United 4 2.2,..1.S-2T States Patent recorded Augtat 20. 1051 in.took IN at + '-� I F page 69, Recorder's Officio, Pitkin County, OOlarede. s , 4 S 3. Easement and right of way for trail purposes grant to i a ?ninon by County by James R. Twan b0yy instrument k kW of recorded September 2s, 1972, in Reek 303 at pegs 203, ; Recorder's Office, Pitkin County, Coloreds. s>- . 5 e, casements, encroachments. agreements and ether setters �.. x as shown on the Plat for Trueman MeighbOrkeed commercial Project, recorded in Plat Zook 2 et pages ` .day 70-7S, Recorder's Office, Pitkin County. Colorado. 3, Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations affecting ,. v, ey ! the real estate hereby conveyed as contained in the .. ) Subdivision Agreement for Truman Neighborhood I Commercial Project recorded April S, 1977 in look 327 p.F°h at pages 25-3R, as modified by an Agreement, dated - S :3, ' li• December 19, 1976 between James R. Trueman and the -+ ' City of Aspen. y;.4�''i Signed the day and year first above written. ..4 Signed and acknowledged �. �In the presence of: n 2?---C SS: i • I . ' I punt r,m,ent was acknowledged before me this Fur u. ... „ I'.n2, by James R. Trueman. • . .,r, I .t f trial 'eel . fir. A c - `M'� . ASPEN DOWNTOWN STORAGE Growth Management Plan Application September 1 , 1982 Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Applicant: Sandor W. Shapery Shapery Enterprises Architect: C. Welton Anderson & Associates P.O. Box 9946 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-4576 Attorneys : Law Offices of Gideon I . Kaufman, P.C. 611 West Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8166 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BASIC INFORMATION. Page # 1 . Project Description 1 aa. Water System 1 bb. Sewage 2 cc. Drainage 2 r dd. Development Area 2 ee. Automotive , Transit, Pedestrian 3 ff. Proposed Uses 4 gg. Adjacent Uses 5 hh. Construction Schedule 5 ii. Employee Housing 5 B. REVIEW CRITERIA. 1 . Quality of Design 6 aa. Architectural Design 6 bb. Site Design 7 cc. Energy 8 dd. Amenities 8 ee . Visual Impact 8 ff. Trash and Utility Access Areas 9 2 . Availability of Public Facilities and Services 9 aa. Water Supply/Fire Protection 9 bb. Sewage Disposal 9 r Page # cc. Public Transportation/Roads 10 dd. Storm Drainage 10 ee Parking 10 3 . Employee Housing Need 10 4 . Employee Housing Incentive 11 5 . Bonus Points 11 Vicinity Map Site Plan A. BASIC INFORMATION. 1 . Project Description. Retail space in Aspen ' s commercial core is presently leasing for upwards of twenty dollars ($20 . 00) to thirty dollars ($30 . 00) per square foot per year. Because of Aspen' s zoning codes which includes basements in floor area calculations in the CC and C-1 zone districts, basement space in the City is now just as expensive and can no longer be used primarily for storage as it once was. Many Aspen retailers have resorted to down-valley or Aspen Airport Business Center storage facilities when available; others choose to rely on weekly deliveries to restock inventory. The traffic congestion and inconvenience that this causes is obvious. For these reasons Aspen downtown storage facilities are proposed adjacent to the Trueman Center to provide in town, reasonably priced storage for merchants and locals. This project will reduce downvalley and Airport Business Center traffic . Furthermore , this commercial use will generate only one additional employee; it will have very minimal impact on Puppy Smith Street because of its extended hours of operation and at the same time will provide three employee dwelling units on-site and therefore create a significant surplus for the employee housing pool . This application for GMP allotment under § 24-11 . 5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado , pertains to the proposed development of a self-storage warehouse facility with manager' s office , manager ' s apartment and two employee housing units on Lot 3 , Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. This project is located within the SCI zone. Lot 3 , Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project contains 1 . 147 acres and is presently undeveloped. The proposed development consists of 19 , 998 gross square feet of storage space, 4 ,752 square feet of drive-through corridors , 400 square feet of office space and 1 ,800 square feet of employee housing. Applicant is requesting a multi-year allotment for this proposed development. This project is being built by Sandor W. Shapery/Shapery Enterprises of San Diego, California and Aspen, Colorado. aa. Water System. The proposed self-storage facility is served by an existing eight inch water line which goes in front of the property on Puppy Smith Street. Water pressure in this main exceeds 100 P. S. I . . Both the pressure and the size of the water line are more than adequate to serve the anticipated demand. The property will be connected to this main by water lines which will be sized to accomodate the buildings in the proposed development. This project will have negligible impact on the City water supply and there is sufficient excess capacity available from the City water system to serve the project. bb. Sewage . The site will be served by sanitary lines sized to accomodate the demand from the project. It will be connected to the existing eight inch sanitary sewer that runs through the property. According to the Aspen Sanitation District Manager, the existing treatment plan can accomodate the anticipated flow with no adverse impacts , there being more than sufficient existing excess capacity available from the public system. The sewer demand of the project will be quite minimal . cc . Drainage. All surface , underground and runoff waters will be handled by an on-site dry well drainage system located on the site. dd. Development Area. The proposed self-storage facility is located in the SCI zone on Lot 3 , Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project, which contains 1 . 147 acres or 49 ,963 square feet. The lot fronts Puppy Smith Street. The Aspen City Code provides for an external floor area ratio of 1 : 1 in the SCI zone . The quota being requested is as follows : 66 Storage Units of 144 square feet each = 9 ,438 square feet 66 Storage Units of 160 square feet each = 10 , 560 square feet TOTAL GROSS STORAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 19 , 998 square feet - 2 - Drive through second floor corridors = 4 ,752 square feet TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITY 24 , 750 square feet Office (Koch Lumber Building Reconstructed) = 400 square feet On-site Manager ' s Studio Apartment in Koch Building = 400 square feet (2) one-bedroom units at ' 700 square feet each = 1 , 400 square feet TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PROJECT 26 , 950 SQUARE FEET The open space for the project (lot area less building footprint and driveways) totals 12 , 550 square feet. This means the total open space for the project exceeds the requirements for the SCI zone as provided in the City Code . In the open space , existing trees will be preserved everywhere possible on the property; there will be plantings of four new aspen or evergreen trees throughout the property and along the perimeter of the property for every one existing tree removed. The portion of the property fronting Puppy Smith Street will be particularly green and scenic with the existing trees and additional new plantings of aspen trees on both front corners of the property and the Koch Lumber Building, as reconstructed, situated directly off the driveway entrance onto the property. This abundant greenery, along with the restoration of the historic Koch Building will greatly enhance the scenic quality of the site and the neighborhood. As the site plan indicates , the open space will be landscaped. The internal square footage of the self-storage facility totals approximately 19 , 998 square feet. ee. Automotive, Transit, Pedestrian. The SCI zone requires three parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of commercial space and one space per bedroom. Therefore, on this site , 63 parking spaces are required. Applicant is prepared to provide five marked spaces and 65 parking spaces parallel to the storage facilities for a total of 70 spaces . However, applicant feels and the Planning Office agrees that the parking requirements are not necessarily appropriate for this type of use. The Planning Office feels the SPA designation remains on Lot 3 . Therefore , the parking requirements may be waived or substantially reduced. Nonetheless , as is indicated above , applicant has provided on his site plan for 70 parking spaces . There will be no impact on parking on the adjacent City streets or the adjacent shopping areas . Parking will be provided - 3 - on-site for all persons using the self-storage facility and for all the residents of the employee units and there will be on-site parking for the projected one employee who will be managing the self-service facility and be living on-site in the manager' s apartment. The estimated traffic count increase on Puppy Smith Street and adjacent streets resulting from the proposed development is negligible. The manager' s office hours are expected to be the normal business hours of 9 : 00 to 5 : 00 ; however because this is a self-storage facility, people will be able to enter their storage units any hours of the day or night. Thus the use impacts will be dispersed throughout the day. This site is served by the Silverking bus lines within two blocks of the self-storage facility at the corner of Puppy Smith Street and Mill Street. There will be bicycle racks installed on the site for any bicyclists who may ride to the self-storage facility and to serve the residents who live on the site. The location of a self-storage facility in the City will also reduce traffic to the Airport Business Center and allow local residents and business owners to utilize storage which is more conveniently located within the City . This should decrease the amount of longer automobile trips and, in certain circumstances , encourage pedestrian travel. The Rio Grande walking, jogging , bicycling, cross-country skiing and dog trail , presently running through the property and to be relocated along the easterly boundary line of the lot, is a much utilized trail offering alternative transit means . The preservation and improvement of this trail will be an automobile disincentive incorporated into the proposed development. ff . Proposed Uses . The self-storage building structures will be used for self-storage facilities . There will be a total of 132 storage units. The Koch Lumber Building will have a two-fold purpose. First, it will be used as the office for the self-storage facility; and, second, it will contain an apartment, restricted to employee housing guidelines , to house the manager of the self-storage facility. The other two residential units on the property will also be restricted to employee housing guidelines and regulated by the City of Aspen Housing Authority. No other uses are anticipated for the property and no changes are anticipated to be made to the building exteriors . Applicant intends that the self-storage facility will provide a much needed service to local businesses and residents of the City core and the Trueman Center area by offering convenient, moderately priced storage space . The nature of a - 4 - self-storage facility indicates that it will be a quiet, low intensity, low traffic use. Because it is a self-storage facility and the users of the facility will be able to get in and out of their storage spaces at their own convenience, there will be no times of intense usage and therefore the usage impacts will be low. gg. Adjacent Uses . Immediately adjacent to the east side of the property is the Aspen Metro Sanitation Plant and the sewer plant employee housing. On the west side of the property there are some existing single family houses in the R-15 zone . Further to the west -of the property on the same side of Puppy Smith Street is a small commercial strip containing shops and stores such as a laundromat, a saddle shop, a paint store and the Aspen Times ' printing presses . On the other side of Puppy Smith Street is the Clark' s Market shopping area and the post office . These adjacent uses are for the most part, SCI-NC commercial uses of a more intense nature than the proposed self-storage facility. The self-storage facility can serve as a buffer between these higher intense commercial uses and the residential uses to the west of the self-storage facility. The proposed low profile style of the facility along with the generous landscaping plan will beautify the commercial aspects of the area as well as screen the small residential portions adjacent to the site. Nearly all commercial development under the Growth Management Plan has been in the CC zone for high intensity tourist uses . This proposal is for a lower intensity use which would emphasize service to local residents and local businesses and fulfill a much felt need in the City core area. hh. Construction Schedule. Once a Growth Management Plan allotment has been awarded, applicant will proceed to construction as soon as weather permits , probably during spring of 1983 , with anticipated completion during summer or fall of 1983 . Phasing of this is anticipated, depending on the GMP allotment. ii . Employee Housing. There will only be one new employee generated by this project. A self-storage facility of this nature can be operated by one on-site manager. In the Koch Building, applicant is providing on-site housing for the one employee that will be generated. In addition two one-bedroom employee units containing 700 square feet each are to be constructed thereby provided a net surplus of employee housing space for the City in comparison with the new employees generated by the project. - 5 - B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1 . Quality of Design. aa. Architectural Design. The character and architectural design of the Aspen downtown storage facility was determined by the site ' s existing topography and vegetation and by the applicant ' s desire to be sensitive to the community' s past heritage and its pressing present needs. The long narrow site , high at its center and low on both sides, lends itself well to the unique two level design which provides vehicular access at approximate existing grade to every storage unit , and makes possible a much more compact design than a one story , spread out facility. Five separate structures serving three distinct functions are proposed in this application. Fronting Puppy Smith Street , the old Koch Lumber Building will be reconstructed and restored to house both the manager ' s office and a deed restricted apartment to be utilized to house the manager. Locating the Koch Building in this spot will not only present a small scale street identity for the facility but will be compatible to the two existing victorians to the west (see attached site plan) . The applicant presently has received conceptual approval from the Aspen Historical Society to obtain and use the Koch Building and anticipates receiving final approval within the next several weeks . If applicant is unable to obtain final approval from the Aspen Historical Society, he will construct a new building of similar design containing the same square footages as are indicated herein for the Koch Building. Behind the office is the self-storage facility which is broken up into three distinct structures to reduce its visual scale and to facilitate vehicular circulation . Each of the two story buildings contains 6 , 665 square feet of storage and these have been designed in shape and configuration to resemble barns . This offers an appropriate theme as barns have typically been used as storage buildings . The lower level portion of each building will be concrete block and wood frame and like the cantilevered upper level , finished with barnwood type siding. The sloped roofs will be low maintenance corregated metal and will have a barnlike raised "lantern" running most of the length of the ridge to provide light, weather protection and ventilation for the upper level drive-throughs . At the rear of the site, overlooking the river, will be a two story, two unit 1 , 400 square foot deed restricted employee housing structure built of the same materials as the storage facility. The architectural design of this project seeks to emphasize its low profile , low intensity nature and to blend with adjoining structures in scale as well as function. Since the upper level - 6 - is accessed centrally at roughly the elevation of the mound running along the center of the property and Puppy Smith Street , only one story is apparent at street level . The lower level is accessed on both sides at the lower existing grade on both sides of the mound. This rather unique design configuration, a bi-level user accessible storage facility , becomes functionally and economically practical because of this unique site. bb. Site Design. The site is 100 feet wide by roughly 500 feet long stretching from Puppy Smith Street to the Roaring Fork River. A manmade mound, 40 feet wide of mine tailings , cinders and stone rubble , rises approximately 12 feet above natural grade the full length of the site and was built in the 1880 ' s as part of the Rio Grande Railroad bed that ran along the north side of the Roaring Fork River, north of the Slaughterhouse Bridge and into town where today a 12 foot wide pedestrian/equestrian , bicycle spans the river into this site. Utility and access easements (as shown on the site plan) also crisscross this property. The Koch Lumber Company Building will be located fronting Puppy Smith Street at the highest point on this lot. Behind this are the warehouse facilities which are accessed on two levels. The upper level follows the approximate grade and runs along the center line of the long abandoned Rio Grande right-of-way. The lower level accesses the storage units along the lower grades on both sides of the old right-of-way, with modest regrading as shown in the site plan. Substantial stands of cottonwood trees are clustered on the edges of the old right-of-way. A small portion of the cottonwood trees are going to be removed in order to allow access to the rear of the site. However, applicant will replace each cottonwood tree removed with at least two to four mature aspen or spruce trees . (All new trees are strategically located, primarily to screen the facility from its neighbors and the street) The Rio Grande trail easement is to be slightly relocated, and will be regraded and repaved by the applicant, in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Department' s supervision and approval , to follow the new alignment indicated on the Site Plan. In part, the trail will be relocated on the municipally owned sewage treatment plant property provided permission for that can be obtained; if permission cannot be so obtained, the trail will run along the easterly boundary line of Lot 3 on applicant ' s property. Applicant anticipates receiving approval from the Sanitation District at its next board meeting to be held in early September. All utilities are presently underground and will so remain. Not only is the internal circulation designed for efficient movement of the service vehicles that will use it (proper turning radii , maximum 7% grade on ramps , ample turn around spaces) but - 7 - it also improves access for city maintenance vehicles to the storm retention pond to the north and west of the site. The traffic circulation plan has been designed to maximize safety and privacy for the site and increase it for the area. All trash containers , meters and utility connections will be enclosed or landscaped out of sight. cc. Energy Demands for energy will be minimal for this facility. The storage spaces are unheated and natural light is available to every space . The warehouse use , in contrast with high energy demand SCI uses , maximizes conservation of energy and indicates an excellent design concept. The manager ' s office and apartment and the duplex employee unit structure will all be constructed according to the energy efficient Aspen Energy Code . These units will be provided with woodburning stoves to further augment space heating. dd. Amenities . The Rio Grande trail crosses the Roaring Fork River with a bridge at the center line of the site ' s one hundred ( 100 ) foot north property line and quickly drops down to the lower grade on the east side of the elevated right-of-way. Because of the severe grade changes at each end, it is not a particularly well designed section of the trail. The applicant proposes to realign much of this section of the trail to facilitate the necessary on-site vehicular movement while addressing and correcting many of the trail ' s existing deficiencies. Applicant is having discussions with the Aspen Metro Sanitation District for roughly (70) feet of the trail to be relocated on the northwest corner of their adjoining land. If the trail cannot be relocated in part on the Sanitation District property then it will go along the easterly boundary of applicant' s lot. This project offers a unique opportunity to improve the trail system and to improve access to the City ' s storm retention ponds. In addition , the site will provide usable open space. ee . Visual Impact. Because the three storage buildings straddle the old Rio Grande right-of-way mound (which is at the elevation of Puppy Smith Street) they will rise no more than one story above that street. Public views of Pitkin Green and Red Mountain will not be affected and public views of the less than scenic sewer plant s will be improved and be screened both by the buildings and the new trees to be planted. The scale and location of the buildings serve to maximize public views of the surrounding scenic areas and this , along with the improvements to the landscaping, will improve the views of the surrounding not so scenic areas. Public views of surrounding scenic areas will also be maximized because 8 - applicant is only building to 50% of allowable FAR and therefore the bulk of the project is minimized. ff. Trash and Utility Access Areas. Storage facilities of this nature do not generate any significant amounts of trash nor do they require sub:;tantial space for utility equipment. An ample trash and utility access area, 30 feet wide by 14 feet deep, which complies with the Code requirements , is provided between the office and southern-most storage building. In addition , the employee housing at the rear of the lot will have a trash and utility access area which shall meet all requirements set forth in the Code . The trash area will be enclosed and visually screened. All utilities will be underground. 2 . Availability of Public Facilities and Services . aa. Water Supply/Fire Protection. The City of Aspen water system can easily provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. The self-storage and office aspect of the facility will have very minimal water needs . These being only to water the greenery and occasional cleaning of the buildings and streets . The impacts of the residential aspect of the project, being only three small units , a total of three bedrooms , will also be quite minimal. The City of Aspen Fire Department can provide service according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities . There is a hydrant on one corner of the property. Water service to surrounding areas actually will be improved because this site will use such a small amount of water. The proposed self-storage development of this site, by not having any impact on available supply , creates a surplus of water for surrounding uses and other future developments and postpones the need for expansion and upgrading of water service. bb. Sewage Disposal . The sanitary sewers will dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. This project, having only three small residential units and a small office , and the rest being self-storage facilities , will produce virtually no sewage . Because there will be no impact on the existing sewage system and yet a 1 . 147 acre site will be developed, a surplus is created for future developments , the quality of service is improved for the area and the need for future upgrading or expansion is postponed. - 9 - cc . Public Transportation/Roads . The project is already served by the existing City Silverking bus route and the project will have no impact on this existing route.. Both Mill Street and Puppy Smith Street have recently been improved in anticipation of the further development to be made in this area . Because the proposed development is of such a low intensity, these streets , as improved, will very easily provide for the needs of the proposed development. Existing traffic patterns will not be altered , the existing street system will not be overloaded and there will be no need to extend the existing road network. As is explained above , this project will improve the public trail system serving the area. dd. Storm Drainage . Presently a concrete storm water catch basin at the southwest corner of the site collects surface water runoff from the post office area (the post office apparently provides no on-site drainage for itself according to City Engineering Department) and directs this runoff through an open ditch along this site ' s west boundary to a retention pond near the river. The applicant proposes to improve the drainage through his property from adjacent properties as well as accomodating all site drainage on-site . The open ditch will become an underground culvert, thus eliminating any possibility of flooding the adjacent R-15 properties . The runoff on the site will be handled by on-site drywells . ee. Parking. Section 24-4 . 5 would require 63 parking spaces for this development. The applicant is prepared to provide 70 parking spaces on the site . The spaces have been designed to minimize visual impact and amount of paved service and to be convenient and safe . It seems obvious that this facility needs nowhere near that number of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development. The Planning Office is of the opinion that the SPA designation continues to remain on this site and therefore the parking requirements may be waived or reduced. Regardless of the actual number of parking spaces that are eventually deemed necessary for the applicant to supply, however , applicant will be improving the parking service in the area by offering a surplus of parking spaces far in excess of the needs of the proposed development. 3 . Employee Housing Need. The applicant is providing three deed restricted employee housing units : one being the 400 square foot manager' s studio apartment in the Koch Lumber Building and the other two being the two one-bedroom units , each containing 700 square feet, to be built at the rear of the project. These units will be deed - 10 - restricted for a period of 50 years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . The two 700 square foot units will each contain one bedroom, a kitchen , a livingroom-dining area and one bathroom, along with some amount of closet and storage space . This project will generate only one employee . Discussions with owners and managers of self-storage warehouse facilities down-valley and in the Denver area indicate that facilities of this small size and even larger areas can be operated effectively by only one employee . This employee will be housed on-site in the manager' s apartment. Thus , 100% of the employees of the project will be provided with employee housing on-site . In addition, two new employee units will be added to the employee housing pool resulting in a net surplus being provided by this development. Therefore , applicant is entitled to 10 points under § 24-11 . 5 (b) (3) of the Code. 4 . Employee Housing Incentive. As is indicated above , applicant proposes to provide housing for effectively 300% of the employee generated by the project and thus , pursuant to § 24-11 . 5 (b) (4) applicant is entitled to 10 points for employee housing incentive. 5 . Bonus Points . This project has incorporated and met the substantive criteria of § 24-11 . 5 (b) (1 ) , (2) and (3) . It has also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition and is entitled to additional bonus points not exceeding twenty percent (20%) of the total points awarded under § 24-11 . 5 (b) (1 ) , (2) and (3) . Applicant has come up with a project that is a low intensity use moderating the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. The design of the project is such that there are no negative impacts , the scenery of the area is improved and the impacts of the project can only be beneficial to the neighborhood. The landscaping on the site will be dramatically improved. In addition , this project is providing a much needed service to the community by offering approximate convenient, moderately priced storage area for persons who live and business located within the City of Aspen. At present , there is a considerable waiting period for the self-storage space at the Airport Business Center and there are no other comparable self-storage facilities in the Aspen area. Thus there is a strong need in the community for the facility applicant proposes to build. This project, in addition, has been carefully designed to minimize and negate any impacts to - 11 - community services , to improve the quality of service whenever possible , and to offer a scenic and visually pleasing design that recognizes the historical character of Aspen and the specific site and at the same time is super efficient from an energy and traffic flow standpoint. - 12 - �ti __. _ _ VICINITY MAP �.�' J cr \ ( i ‘11.. CFN err bti Odd, Proposed Development Site .0.00.00, \\ss\ ......,,%....................--.__. / _ / 'a RI sir . L. _ ‘ ,cc ic Inli I° 114 NM P 4 1 A 101010 tiiiwt4 S.0 I. 3 • 5 6 ♦ b • HW / sdi _, ' rr/ en 9 WI Sr 11111PW (S PA ) — / i / !��� H ; � NC SPA < � ..�... (SPA ) f I ' ' Rio GRANDE ?LAYING VELD 111 � 1 III 1 ,. ; -_-- • 1-. —�— • D PARK!N6 'DT , . I ; . i � ; /