HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.StoreHouse Building 121 Galena.20A87 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 7- bI- PARCEL ID AND CASE N/,O.c
DATE COMPLETE: .1- 3{7-6 C. al - 46 -00 02C -OI-
p �/ { STAFF MEMBER: '5
If PROJECT N Li / t e gat I b qi/a 4in, C� 111i/crag/He
Project Address: [a) (9nLe4-'1+ 0
APPLICANT: e• (A/40Clkin
Applicant Address:
i
REPRESENTATIVE: ,L( 'L; ep r
Representative dress/Phone: •V: JO. at / id . 1 is
_ _ lie ,_. b ) c9008z —_
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
PAID: S NO AMOUNT: t.4-60-QO
1 STEP APPLICATION: 'TL-vO S-re t7s _ N 0 e j1 o--t-" k
P&Z MEETING DATE: Se r 1 Sr-Li PUBLIC nRTEAR�ING: YES NO
1 DATE REFERRED: 4-9-947-- Il
INITIALS: i/C__-/
eTEP APPLICATION:
CC MEETING DATE: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
REFERRALS:
V City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
V City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
V Housing Dir. / Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
v Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon/Inspect
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork ✓ Roaring Fork
Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center
S.D. Other ...--- _, 11 L/`
-- Pkph , ; , 1
_ 0 , J ZDn ;n1i "era ha,.%he! , �hAii nfr��,�1 , Ho) ---_ �0r fr :(.
FINAL ROUTING: / DATE ROUTED: (5 K INITIAL p ,44 )( !,
City Atty V City Engineer Bldg. Dept. tDAaj.
Other: HDss' , Direr+D/
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: v
CASE DISPOSITION
STOREHOUSE BUILDING GMP AMENDMENT
On September 1, 1987 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
affirmed rescoring of the amended Storehouse application for
27 . 25 points and recommended City Council to confirm the GMP
allocation for the project subject to the conditions stated
below. P&Z also approved Special Review for reduction of the
Storehouse Building trash and utilities area to 66 square feet,
subject to the condition that the owner agrees to place a trash
compactor in the basement if the Engineering Department deter-
mines that trash generation problems have occurred and a compac-
tor is needed.
On September 14, 1987 the Aspen City Council approved, in a vote
of 4 in favor and 1 opposed, a motion to confirm the GMP allocat-
ion for the Storehouse project subject to the following condi-
tions and clarifications of representations:
1. Design elements of the building will include a height
not to exceed 33 feet, use of brick and sandstone,
addition of structural enclosure in the northern
portion of the second floor, door and window options
approved by HPC and shown on building elevations dated
9/14/97 , and widening of storefront windows with
kickplates.
2 . Aggregate concrete treatment of the plaza area and
sidewalks will be installed prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy. Snowmelt shall be excluded
from the site.
3 . Included in the internal area of the plaza open space
will be small scale planting and seating as shown on
the revised site plan dated 9/14/87. Window box
planters will be installed next to the northern
entrance. Seven (7) Norway Maple ("Cleveland" sub-
specy) , Marshall Seedless Ash, or Cottonless Cottonwood
trees, 3" minimum caliper, shall be planted in on-grade
grates in the City right of way served by drip irriga-
tion. An improvements guarantee shall be prepared by
the applicant to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
prior to occupancy of the building to insure that all
landscaping improvements are installed prior to June,
1988.
4. Energy conservation measures including insulation,
solar massing and an energy efficient heating and
cooling system will be used as represented in the
original and amended application.
5. A fire hydrant will be installed by the applicant on
the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins prior to
occupancy of the building.
6. All surface run-off will be retained on the site.
7. The applicant will provide a 66 square feet trash and
utilities area in a configuration shown on a Sutherland
Fallin sketch dated 9/1/87. All utility meter boxes
shall be located on site. If a problem with appropri-
ate handling of trash arises, as determined by the
Engineering Department, the applicant agrees to install
a trash compactor upon Engineering Department's
request. A letter of agreement shall be submitted by
the applicant in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney and recorded with the County Clerk and
Recorder' s Office prior to occupancy of the building.
8 . The applicant will make a cash in lieu payment of
$40,720 to the Housing Authority to house 2. 036 low
income employees.
9. A change from retail use to restaurant use shall only
be allowed subject to approval of a GMP amendment
during which time the trash and utility access area and
the employee housing program will be reconsidered.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Storehouse Building GMP Amendment
Case Number 2737-073-30-007-20A-87
DATE: September 15, 1987
LOCATION: 121 S . Galena Street, Lot S, Block 87, Townsite and
City of Aspen.
LOT SIZE: 3, 000 Square feet
ZONING: Commercial Core/H (Commercial Core/Historic Overlay
District) .
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to amend
the 1986 Storehouse GMP application to accomplish the following
changes to the project: (a) reconfigure space from the basement
to the second floor and enlarge storefront windows, (b) eliminate
seating and planters in the corner plaza area, (c) delete
snowmelt, (d) replace brick and concrete sidewalk/plaza treatment
with aggregate concrete, (e) delete fire hydrant, (f) delete
conveyor belt to basement storage, (g) delete trash compactor,
(h) reduce trash and utilities area, and (i) recalculate employee
housing cash in lieu. Reduction in trash and utilities area is
requested through special review approval.
BACKGROUND: The Storehouse application was one of three projects
in the CC/C-1 Commercial GMP competition in 1986. All three
projects received scores above the threshold and were given
allocations through Council Resolution No. 37 (Series of 1986) .
Respective scores were:
Project Total points Given by P&Z (average)
Pitkin Center 31.7
Hunter Plaza 30.4
Storehouse Building 29. 0
The Storehouse Building also received special review approvals
from the P&Z for (a) reduction of trash and utilities area from
200 square feet to 96 square feet subject to the placement of a
trash compactor in the basement of the building, and (b) restau-
rant use of required open space.
Construction of the building is proceeding based upon the
approved project. When construction reaches any of the items
affected by this application it will stop until appropriate
approvals are received. If approvals are not granted, the
project will be required to meet its original commitments.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24-11. 7 (b) of
the Municipal Code requires rescoring of substantial changes to
GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be
confirmed or rescinded. If the scoring remains above the minimum
threshold and the applicant' s position relative to others in the
competition does not change, the Planning and Zoning Commission
"shall make a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness
of the changes and any further conditions of approval. "
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS: At a public hearing on September
1, 1987 , the Planning and Zoning Commission affirmed rescoring of
the amended Storehouse application recommended by the Planning
Office. The new score remains above the threshold and does not
change the projects relative position in the 1986 GMP competi-
tion. Further conditions of approval recommended by P&Z are
stated in the "Proposed Motion" at the end of this memo.
P&Z also approved on September 1 Special Review for reduction of
the Storehouse Building trash and utilities area to 66 square
feet, subject to the condition that the owner agrees to place a
trash compactor in the basement if the Engineering Department
determines that trash generation problems have occurred and a
compactor is needed.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1. Engineering Department: In an August 17, 1987 memorandum
from Elyse Elliott the following comments were made:
a. Removal of the sidewalk snowmelt system poses no
problem.
b. The sidewalk plan cannot include raised planters
around the trees. Tree grates should be used instead.
The final sidewalk plan should be approved by CCLC.
c. It is recommended that the trash and utility area
that has already been reduced to 96 square feet not be
further reduced.
2. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark stated in an August 4, 1987
memorandum that he is adamantly opposed to deletion of the
fire hydrant from the northwest corner of Galena and
Hopkins.
2
3. Water Department: Jim Markalunas stated in an August 20,
1987 memorandum that he concurs with the Fire Marshal that a
fire hydrant should be installed. Jim clarified the size
and locations of water mains and observed that since the
water main in Hopkins St. is located at or near the north
side of the street, a minimal amount of paving would be cut
in installing the fire hydrant.
4. CCLC Streetscape Guidelines Consultant: Wayne Ethridge,
landscape architect working with CCLC to revise the City' s
Streetscape Guidelines, made the following verbal comments
on August 24 , 1987 :
a. Acceptable street tree species are Marshall Seedless
Ash, Norway Maple ("Cleveland" subspecy) , and Cotton-
wood. Minimum caliper should be 3" .
b. Drip irrigation of street trees is recommended.
c. Spacing of trees and diameter of tree grate area is
adequate for the trees ' health. Grates should be flush
with the sidewalk to allow for unimpeded pedestr-
ian passage. If no grouting were used between brick
pavers near trees, more water would get to roots,
similar to how the Cantina's plaza works.
d. Snowmelt is not critical as the plaza is south-
facing.
e. The distance from the building entrance to the
street corner is 35 ' , indicating the large size of the
plaza area. A focal point such as a specimen tree,
with planters and benches attached, would do much to
make this space attractive.
f. There is a qualitative difference between brick and
concrete treatment and the aggregate concrete treat-
ment.
5. Building Department: In an August 24, 1987 memorandum
Zoning Official Bill Drueding stated that after calculating
FAR for the first and second floors in the approved building
permit plans (basement space was entirely exempt from FAR)
3 ,738 square feet is being utilized, leaving a credit of 759
square feet from the total FAR allocated. This credit is
less than the applicant had calculated, however, it is
adequate for the proposed second floor expansion and trash
and utility area decrease. If these changes are approved we
estimate that a credit of 116 square feet would remain.
3
6. Roaring Fork Energy Center: Steve Standiford explained in
his memorandum received August 7, 1987 that the deletion of
snowmelt and clarifications of insulation allow him to
understand that there will be energy savings in the project
as amended. North facing glass could utilize triple glazing
or Heat Mirror windows to minimize heat loss. Solar heat
will have a small contribution to heating needs because of
the building's orientation.
7. Housing Authority: As stated in a memorandum from Ann
Bowman dated August 10, 1987, employee generation has been
recalculated based on the new building configuration and
replacement of restaurant and bakery by retail space. New
employee generation has been estimated at 5.22 employees
instead of 9 . 1 employees. The applicant continues to commit
to house 39% of the net employee generation, for a cash in
lieu payment of $40,720. The Housing Authority recommends
approval of the recalculated cash in lieu payment.
B. Planning Office Comments: The Planning and Zoning Commission
gave a revised score of 27 . 25 points for the amended Storehouse
GMP application while the score for the original project was 29
points. Some of the important differences in the scores from the
original application include:
1. Scoring for Architectural Design decreased. The amended
architectural design contains additional bulk on the
second floor, affecting in a small way the quality of
massing. Widening of the storefront windows along
Galena Street is less compatible with the character of
the building and does not compliment as well the
vertical windows of nearby historic structures. Both
of these changes were found to be acceptable to HPC and
approved. Painting of the adjacent Thrift Store wall
is not as attractive as bricking first considered.
2 . Scoring for Site Design decreased. The deletion of
planters and seating within the plaza and replacement
of the patterned brick and concrete with aggregate
concrete leave the open space with minimal texture,
greenery or interest. We note that the seven (7)
street trees and small planters near the northeast
entrance remain. Quality of service access off the
alley has also decreased with the loss of the conveyor
and decrease in trash and utility space that had also
served as a small bay in front of the rear access door.
3 . Scoring for Trash and Utility Access Areas decreased.
The Engineering Department believes that the proposed
36 square feet would make for a substandard situation
for both the dumpster(s) and utility meters.
4
4 . Scoring for energy conservation increased, based on the
deletion of snowmelt and a higher RFEC evaluation of
the insulation and glazing specified.
5. Amenities has been decreased due to removal of site
design amenities. Recommended scoring decreased from 2
points to 1 point.
Following is a summary of the Planning and Zoning Commissions
original and revised scores. Please note that the minimum
threshold is 25.8 points.
P&Z Original P&Z
Score Revised Score
1. Quality of Design 12 . 75 10 .5
2 . Availability of Public 6. 5 7
Facilities & Services
3 . Provision of Employee Housing 9 . 75 9.75
4 . Bonus Points 0 0
Total 29 27.25
The Planning Office has the following comments regarding proposed
changes and clarifications of the project to retain the overall
project quality:
1. Site design: P&Z is recommending acceptance of the aggregate
concrete treatment of the plaza and sidewalk surfaces. In
the Planning Office' s opinion, the brick and concrete
treatment in the original application is qualitatively
superior and should be retained. This surface texture would
compliment the building and extend the mall character down
Galena, which is becoming increasingly commercialized as a
result of this project. Snowmelt is not a necessary feature
of the project, wastes energy and should not be required.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending a small
scale planting and seating area within the plaza (for which
plans have not yet been submitted) . Staff felt that the
tree shown on the original plan in the plaza was a desirable
amenity and suggest that a good sized specimen tree be
planted in a planter on site, with seating attached. This
would replace one of the trees shown on the public right-of-
way, reducing the total from seven (7) to six (6) trees.
The applicant has argued that without the restaurant, the
plaza does not need the same level of textured treatment and
landscaping. We continue to believe that the project open
space should remain as a high quality design feature
containing greenery, and seating. Without restaurant
tables, there is more space for greenery.
5
Six (6) street trees should be planted in the public right-
of-way in on-grade grates. It should be noted that three of
these trees are simply replacements of City-planted Norway
Maples that were cut down during construction, according to
the Parks Director. Staff is requesting that an improvements
guarantee be made by the applicant to insure that all
landscaping improvements are completed, as the date of
installation was pushed back from issuance of a certificate
of occupancy to June, 1988 at the applicant's request.
Please note that staff continues to recommend that the site
design features of brick and concrete treatment and an on-
site tree be retained. The Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation for aggregate paving and a small scale
planting area are contained in the recommended motion stated
below.
2 . Fire hydrant: The applicant has agreed to retain the fire
hydrant on the northwest corner of the intersection as
recommended by the Fire Marshal, and as contained in the
original application.
3 . Employee Housing Cash Payment: The loss of restaurant and
bakery occupants from the building has reduced the employee
generation by almost 4 persons and cash payment by $29,280.
The applicant should agree that a change from retail to
restaurant use in the building can only occur after a GMP
amendment, during which time the employee housing cash-in-
lieu would be recalculated.
In summary, the purpose of the GMP amendment process is to
allow changes to a project necessitated by technical
problems and functional changes discovered after the project
was reviewed, and not for removing project amenities that
were committed to. Evaluation of proposed amendments is
accomplished by P&Z through rescoring the application and
recommending to Council the appropriateness of changes and
further conditions of approval. Staff finds both technical
and qualitative changes proposed in this application.
Changes in building massing and materials and in employee
generation/cash-in-lieu due to the change in occupants are
technical changes. Removal of certain site design features
is a qualitative change which we do not believe is appro-
priate.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"Move to confirm the GMP allocation for the Storehouse
project subject to the following conditions and clarifi-
cations of representations:
1. Design elements of the building will include a height
6
not to exceed 33 feet, use of brick and sandstone,
addition of structural enclosure in the northern
portion of the second floor, and widening of storefront
windows with kickplates.
2 . Aggregate concrete treatment of the plaza area and
sidewalks will be installed prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy. Snowmelt shall be excluded
from the site.
3 . Included in the internal area of the plaza open space
will be small scale planting and seating. Window box
planters will be installed next to the northern
entrance. Seven (7) Norway Maple ("Cleveland" sub-
specy) , Marshall Seedless Ash, or Cottonless Cottonwood
trees, 3" minimum caliper, shall be planted in on-grade
grates in the City right of way served by drip irriga-
tion. The revised site plan showing all landscape
improvements will be presented to the Planning Office
prior to occupancy of the building. An improvements
guarantee shall be prepared by the applicant to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to occupancy of
the building to insure that all landscaping improve-
ments are installed prior to June, 1988 .
4 . Energy conservation measures including insulation,
solar massing and an energy efficient heating and
cooling system will be used as represented in the
original and amended application.
5. A fire hydrant will be installed by the applicant on
the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins prior to
occupancy of the building.
6. All surface run-off will be retained on the site.
7. The applicant will provide a 66 square feet trash and
utilities area in a configuration approved by the
Engineering Department prior to issuance of a Building
Permit for the revised building plans. All utility
meter boxes shall be located on site. If a problem
with appropriate handling of trash arises, as deter-
mined by the Engineering Department, the applicant
agrees to install a trash compactor upon Engineering
Department' s request. A letter of agreement shall be
submitted by the applicant in a form satisfactory to
the City Attorney and recorded with the County Clerk
and Recorder's Office prior to occupancy of the
building.
8 . The applicant will make a cash in lieu payment of
$40, 720 to the Housing Authority to house 2 . 036 low
7
income employees.
9 . A change from retail use to restaurant use shall only
be allowed subject to approval of a GMP amendment
during which time the trash and utility access area and
the employee housing program will be reconsidered.
storehouse
8
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office AUG 1 81987
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department V.
Date: August 17 , 1987
Re: The Storehouse Building GMP Amendment
After reviewing this application and making a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has these comments:
1. Removal of the sidewalk snowmelt system poses no problem.
2 . The sidewalk plan cannot include raised planters around the
trees. Tree grates should be used instead. The final sidewalk
plan must be approved by CCLC.
3 . The applicant is seeking further reduction of the trash
utility area. Section 24-3 . 7 (h) (4) requires that buildings up to
6000 square feet provide 200 square feet for this purpose.
Through special review, the Storehouse was granted a reduction to
96 square feet (8 ' x 12 ' ) . They had agreed to install a trash
compactor.
The amended application provides a trash area of 30 . 8 square feet
(4 ' x 7 . 7 ' ) , and a utility area of 4 . 3 square feet (3 . 3 ' x 1. 3 ' )
for a total of 35 . 1 square feet. Both areas are located in the
rear of the building for alley access. The application states
that the bakery and restaurant will be omitted thus reducing the
trash generation by 50% . Since the trash compactor had a 4 : 1
compaction ratio, elimination of the compactor will increase the
trash by 4 times. The net increase after these two changes is an
increase of trash by twofold (50% of 4) .
I have spoken to the construction manager about the small area
provided for utility boxes. He stated that the only utilities
needed on site are a small water meter and a bank of electric
meters (each rented space will have a separate electric meter) ,
and that the gas meter will be housed on the adjacent Thrift
Store site. If this is the case, we need to see a written
agreement from the Thrift Store that allows this. Since the City
is the owner of the Thrift Shop land, I don't see it being
beneficial to the City to grant this easement to the Storehouse.
It is recommended that the trash and utility area that has
already been reduced to 96 square feet, not be further reduced.
1
MEMORANDUM AU; 121987 ,j
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE i `
i
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE : AUGUST 10, 1987
RE: THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
ISSUE: Does the application meet the Aspen City Municipal Code
and the Housing Authority generation requirements?
BACKGROUND: The applicant , Perry Harvey is requesting GMP
Amendment to the Storehouse Building. Changes from the original
application are listed below for your information.
* The employee generation has been recalculated and the employee
housing commitment has been reduced.
The original approval for employee housing was for $69,300
as cash in lieu for 1 .5 low income employees and 3 .0
moderate income employees . This was to provide housing for
39% of the net employees generated
The new configuration and use of space produces the follow-
ing employee generation:
Basement: 2,960 gross square feet with 1 ,000 qualifying as
warehouse generating .4 emp per 1 ,000 square for fo a total
of .4 employees .
First Floor : 1,653 square feet of net leasable space to be
used as retail, generating 3 .5 emp per 1 ,000 square feet for
a total of 5 .78 employees .
Top Floor : 1,347 square feet of new leasable office space
at 3 . 0 emp per 1 , 000 square feet for a total of 4 . 04
employees .
The new building configuration will generate a total of 10 .22
employees . Less the credit of 5 employees from Little Cliff' s ,
new generation is 5 .22 employees . The applicant continues to
commit to house 39% of the net employee generation or 2 . 035
employees , for a cash in lieu payment of $40 , 720 .00 . The
attached floor plans show the changes .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff met with the applicant and computed
the above generation figures . Staff therefore recommends
approval of the amended application.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff recommendation.
1
i
MEMORANDUM
r ;
4
To: Steve Burstein, Planning 1 !'--
From: Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshal
Re: Storehouse Building
Date: August 4, 1987
I have reviewed the proposed property use and prints . As stated
in the text, there are a number of revisions. One of these is the
deletion of the fire hydrant on the northwest corner of Galena
and Hopkins . One of the reasons this office and the Fire Chief
was pro building on the original GMP was the installation of the
fire hydrant. With the size and configuration of structures in
this area a hydrant would facilitate better fire fighting
capabilities in this area. It is true however, the fire station
is in the same block, the water supply for fire fighting is not.
We are adamantly apposed to the deletion of the aforementioned
hydrant. This structure will also require an automatic sprinkler
system in the basement and a smoke and fire detection system
throughout.
0
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBOND - , E •_� ' v� C "
'r- oc 11
:11
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office g 71981 {
FR: Steve Standiford, Director
Li
RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Amendment —
The changes in this requested GMP amendment will result in very
significant reductions in energy use over the original application.
For example, we are pleased to see the deletion of the snowmelt
component. This alone will save a great deal of energy.
INSULATION
Insulation levels are well-defined and far above code. These levels are
consistent wih recommended cost-effective levels for our climate zone.
GLAZING
Without further definition, we assume project will use double glazing
at a minimum. North facing glass could utilize triple glazing or
Heat Mirror windows to minimize heat loss. Since the building is so
well insulated, the windows with R=2 become the weak link and
moveable insulation should at least be considered.
SOLAR ENERGY
Though the building specifications have not changed, the wording in the
amendment has been substantially altered. The majority of the building's
glazing faces east with a small amount of south-facing glass. To
"maximize" solar heat gain, the building's long axis would need to face
east-west instead of north-south. The inherent limitations of the site
dictate the amount of available solar energy. The GMP application states
the building will have "great solar gain and retention". We have no
way of defining "great", but solar potential of the building is somewhat
limited. Based on available data, we feel solar--heat,' will have a small
contribution to heating needs because of the building's orientation.
e>
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT AUG 2 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: NATURE ' S STOREHO SE
DATE : AUGUST 20 , 1987
Regarding the applicants roposal to install a fire hydrant , we
believe it would be a good idea to install a fire hydrant at the
corner of Galena and Hopkins , as requested by the Fire Marshall .
By way of clarification concerning our memo of July 16, 1986, we
were in error at the time stating that there is an 8" main in
Galena Street at this location . There is an 8" main in Galena a
block up the sreet .
In October the Water Department issued a permit for this project
to connect to the water main in Hopkins Street (which was done) .
Since the water main in Hopkins Street is located at or near the
north side of the street , a minimal amount of paving would be
cut in installing the fire hydrant .
We have no further comments to make .
JM: ab
ASPEN*PITKIN FtEGIONAL BUILDING' DEPARTMENT
, MIS 2519& :t
i � M E M O R A N D U M
__________I
TO: Steve Burstein
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer (49
RE : The Storehouse Building GMP Amendment
DATE : August 24 , 1987
Nature' s Storehouse had a GMP allocation of 3 , 077 square
feet and the ability to reconstruct 1 , 420 square feet for a total
of 4 , 497 square feet .
A building permit has been issued. The plans submitted
labeled the entire basement area as storage. This was calculated
as exempt from F. A. R. , as it was subgrade. The subgrade defin-
ition Sec. 24-3. 1 (ee) specifies : "subordinated to the principal
use of the building, and used for parking, storage and other
secondary purposes . "
Jim Wilson calculated the first and second floors to contain
3 , 738 square feet of F. A. R. which would still leave 759 square
feet to be developed, not a commercial F. A. R. credit of 1 , 420
square feet .
The Building Department would be happy to review these
figures with the applicant .
WD: lo
sbns .wd
cc: Jim Wilson
Storehouse file
offices: mail address:
517 East Hopkins Avenue 506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
Pe,��∎ �
!Haney Po. B�
—■ Aspen,Co 81612
Real Estate Consulting&Marketing (303)920-2000
(303)925-2182
July 6 , 1987
Mr . Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept .
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve:
Pursuant to Article 27-11 .7 (b) , I am making application to amend
the Growth Management Allocation awarded in Resolution 37 (series
of 1986) dated October 28, 1986 , for The Storehouse Building at
121 S. Galena.
Since this allocatibr was received a basement was constructed on
the property. No other work was undertaken. On June 29, 1987, a
new owner , C . Associates , purchased the property . Several
changes are being made in the plans which necessitate that the
approval be rescored by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
reviewed by the H. P.C.
Article 27-11 .7 (b) requires a review by Planning and Zoning when
there is a substantial deviation from the GMP proposal in any of
the following:
1 ) A change which would potentially alter the points
awarded during the GMP scoring;
2) Any change from the approved architecture and site
design of the project;
3) Any change in the number , size , and type of employee
units; and
4) Any modification to the type and level of physical
services and facilities of the project .
The enclosed material constitutes a review of all sections of the
GMP application with the changes noted in detail.
Please let me know if you need further information or
clarification on this amendment . I await your reply as to the
earliest date for the Planning and Zoning review. I am making
application to H.P.C . under separate cover .
Sincerely,
Perry arvey
PH:mao
Enclosure
I. INTRODUCTION
This amendment to the Growth Management approval is to
develop the 3 ,000 square foot parcel of land at 121 S. Galena,
referred to as "The Storehouse Building" . The property is Lot 5 ,
Block 87, City of Aspen. It occupies the Northwest corner of E.
Hopkins and Galena and is zoned CC , Commercial Core . The
applicant for the amendment is C . Associates. The agent for the
owner is Perry Harvey.
This amendment is required for two reasons : first the new
owners are shifting the uses from restaurant to retail and moving
some of the approved floor area from the basement to the second
floor. The net affect will be to reduce the overall F.A.R. by
over 600 square feet . The second reason is financial and, while
the City is not concerned with the financial viability of any
project , it is important that the facts be known. Because this
project has been in default the cost to purchase the property was
very high. Two specific issues to save on construction costs are
the snowmelt system, which requires a separate boiler and the
fire hydrant . As the amendment is reviewed keep in mind the
motivations for this request.
A. Project Description: Originally the building was to
house Nature ' s Storehouse and Little Cliff' s Bakery with office
on the top floor . The building was to contain 4 ,497 square feet
of external floor area, less the credit of 1 , 420, for a net
increase of 3 ,077 square feet .
1
The revised plan calls for the basement to be used for
storage and mechanical spaces. The ground floor will be retail
space . The second floor will be expanded to create additional
office space .
TABLE 1
FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
ORIGINAL REVISED
LEVEL FLOOR AREA FLOOR AREA
Basement 1 , 248 -0-
Street Level 2,050 2, 174
Second Floor 1 , 199 1 ,718
TOTALS: 4,497 3,892
LESS: CREDIT ( 1 ,420 ) ( 1 ,420)
GMP REQUEST 3,077 2 ,472
NET DIFFERENCE: (605)
1 . Water System. The fixture count and water
requirements will be substantially lowered in the revised plan.
The initial fixture count will be reduced by the elimination of 1
shower , 6 sinks, 1 urinal, 2 toilets , and 2 dishwashers . The
water department approved the original service level and thus is
capable of accommodating the revised building.
2. Sewage System . The sewage flow will be
dramatically reduced by the elimination of the fixtures as well
as the intensity generated by a restaurant and bakery use.
3. Drainage System. The same system remains in place
in that roof drains will channel water into the drywell below the
building and runoff from impervious plaza and walks will be
2
directed into drywells. This plan removes existing problems on
the site and represents a substantial upgrading of the City storm
sewer system as a whole , even with the eliminated snowmelt
system.
4. Development Data. The following table summarized
the site and development data for the original approval and as
revised .
TABLE 2 r
ITEM ORIGINAL REVISED
Lot Area 3;000 3,000
Building Footprint 2, 114 2, 134
Open Space 750. 5 sq.ft . 750.5 sq.ft .
Ext. Floor Area 4,497 sq. ft . 3,892 sq. ft .
Ext. Floor Area Ratio 1 .49 to 1 1 .30 to 1
Existing Commercial Credit 1 ,420 sq.ft. 1 ,420 sq. ft .
1986 Commercial GMP Allotment 3,077 sq.ft . 2 ,472 sq. ft.
5. Traffic and Parking. There is no change here
other than the decrease in traffic and parking demand due to a
retail and office use rather than a restaurant with three meals
daily and retail and office use on the upper floor.
6. Proposed Uses. Rather than a building envisioned
for Nature ' s Storehouse Restaurant and Little Cliff ' s , the
basement will be storage , the ground floor for 1 or 2 retail
stores and office as a continued use on the second floor.
7. Impact of Adjacent Uses . There will be an
extremely beneficial impact on the adjacent uses as a result of
3
this amendment . The plywood across from City Hall will become an
attractive and vital part of Aspen' s central core and of Galena
Street, Aspen ' s scenic entrance .
8. Construction Schedule . Construction was to be
recommenced immediately after closing on the purchase .
9. Employee Housing Proposal . The originally
approved format for employee housing was for $69 ,300 as cash in
lieu for 1 . 5 low income employees and 3 . 0 moderate income
employees . This was to provide housing for 39% of the net
employees generated .
The new configuration and use of space produces
the following in employee generation;
Basement : 2 , 960 gross square feet with 1 , 000
qualifying as warehouse generating . 4 employees per
11000 square feet for a total of .4 employees.
Ground Floor: 1 , 653 square feet of net leasable space
to be used as retail , generating 3 . 5 employees per
1 ,000 square feet for a total of 5 .78 employees .
Top Floor : 1 , 347 square feet of new leasable office
space at 3 . 0 employees per 1 , 000 square feet for a
total of 4.04 employees .
Thus the building, as redesigned, will generate a total
of 10.22 employees. Less the credit of 5 employees from Little
Cliff ' s , new generation is 5 . 22 employees . We maintain our
commitment to house 39% of the net employee generation number or
2.036 employees, for a cash in lieu payment of $40,720.00.
4
II GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The following section addresses the specific review criteria
and how the amendment affects each category. Please reference
the appropriate sections of 1 .A as needed for support.
A. Quality of Design. The amendment changes the design
only in that it adds a second floor element over the one story
portion at the north end of the building.
1 . Architectural Design
The building form remains linear with maximum open
space in the sou,th facing portion of the site . The height
remains at 33 feet, well below the available 40 feet in the C. C.
zone district. The building design is still segmented into three
separate masses so as to not compete with the significant
buildings on Galena and yet to echo the shop fronts on Galena.
The principal material continues to be brick with some
sandstone to visually tie the building to the color and texture
of City Hall and the Brand Building. The sandstone as a new
decorative architectural element will enrichen the facade, adding
interest to the pedestrian experience .
The addition of the second floor will in fact improve
the building by better balancing the various elements and
creating a more unified design.
Requested Score: 3 Points
2. Site Design. The siting of the building remains
the same, as will the landscaping. The sidewalks, rather than a
pattern of brick and concrete , will be of a rich aggregate
5
concrete and will blend with the plaza area. All utilities are
underground . Access for service and delivery vehicles will be
off the alley, eliminating the intrusion of vehicles into people
spaces which historically delivered from Galena Street.
The elimination of the restaurant means the plaza will
not be used for dining. Thus the open space will be more usable
for general pedestrial traffic or special events .
Requested Score: 3 Points
3. Energy Conservation. The siting remains the same
maximizing exposure to and retention of solar heat gains.
c .
a. Building Siting and Orientation . This
remains the same.
b. Solar Utilization . The brick and stone
materials will remain the same, creating great solar gain and
retention.
c. Insulation. Actual R values for the building
are as follows:
ITEM UBC STOREHOUSE
Basement Walls R-10 to R-12 R-16 .98
1st & 2nd Floor Walls R-19 R-26 .63
Roof R-20 R-38.95
The basement wall insulation will be 2" Dow Styrofoam
on concrete walls with 2 X 2 firring and rigid fiberglass panels
between with drywall. The exterior walls will be 4" face brick
with 1 " air space, building paper on 1 /2" thermax attached to 2x6
6
studs with R-19 insulation and drywall . The roof consists of
plywood sheathing and two 6" layers of 6" batts and drywall.
d. Mechanical . The mechanical system remains
the same in terms of use of a rooftop heating and cooling system
and a zoned system. Overall energy use will be dramatically
reduced because of the elimination of a restaurant kitchen and
bakery facilities .
Requested Score: 3 Points
4. Amenities . No change is planned other than
elimination of seating in plaza; allowing greater use of the
plaza open space .
Requested Score: 3 Points
5. Visual Impact. No change.
Requested Score: 3 Points
6. Trash and Utility Access. The approval also had a
variance for the trash and utility area from the 200 square feet
required by code . A special review granted a trash and utility
area of 8 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet vertical. Of the required
area of 20 by 10 feet , 15 feet is for box storage , utility
transformers or building access and 5 feet for trash facilities.
Thus only 25% of the required area under the code is actually for
trash facilities, or 50 square feet. The original plan called
for the entrance, the utility meters and the trash facilities to
be located in the same place.
The current plan provides for the utility meters to be
located west of the entrance door and the trash area is to the
7
east of the entrance door . Thus the trash area can meet the
requirements of the code .
The initial proposal called for a motorized conveyor belt to
the storage room and a compactor to compress the trash generated
by a restaurant and a bakery. The elimination of these two uses
in the building will effectively reduce the trash generation by
over 50%.
Thus while this amendment requests' a further reduction of
the trash area due to the great site restrictions imposed by a
lot of 30 feet in width, we meet the requirements of adequacy of
trash and delivery vehicle access and adequacy of area for
utility meter placement and access .
Requested Score: 2 Points
B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. The
impact of The Storehouse Building on Public Services is described
in this section.
1 . Water Supply and Fire Protection. When the water
tap was made last fall, a 4" line was brought in from the 8" main
in Galena. A hydrant was proposed for the northwest corner of
Galena and Hopkins. At the time of the tap, a 6" line and
hydrant were overlooked. To install the hydrant will be very
expensive now, as it will require a new tap.
During the referral period we will work with the Fire
Marshall and Fire Chief to solve this problem. Thus while we are
requesting removal of the hydrant as a condition of approval, we
will have more compelling information at the consideration of
this amendment.
8
As the site is less than one-half block from the Aspen
Fire Station , response time will be virtually immediate
regardless of time of day.
Requested Score: 1 Point
2. Sewage Disposal. The consolidated Sanitation
District has indicated the building will be handled by the
existing level of service . Thus the reduction in bathrooms and
need for sewage disposal is an upgra.'de over the original
proposal.
Requested Score: 1 .5 Points
3. Public Transportation and Roads. No change.
Requested Score: 1 Point
4. Storm Drainage . The building continues to
represent a substantial upgrading of the City storm drainage
system . Previously there were no provisions for on site
retention of water runoff. Roof drains and drywells now assure
the retention of 100% of site water .
Requested Score: 2 Points
5. Parking. No change .
Requested Score: 1 Point
C. Provision for Employee Housing. The proposal to house
39% of the employees generated remains unchanged. The number of
employees generated has changed due to the changes in floor area
and building utilization.
Requested Score: 9.75 Points
9
III SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVALS
We are seeking only one special review, for a reduction of
trash and utility access requirements under Section 24-3 . 5 ( b ) .
The previously granted special review approval to utilize the
open space for outdoor dining under Section 24-3 .7( d ) ( 8 ) is no
longer needed .
10
O
- 3
r W
0 Z
a
It 1
. ,; `'N
r < a
N �,
M r W `\ \.. 0
✓ O tY
1. In d
✓ O LL
N I
r W p 2
CD 2 J W
i3 1111 N
I LL �i
D m ,3, %
01 hotb < ,
CO /i ,..1
"rig
KA.10* e +
As., 444
1. CO M N
Of tO fO Cl
It fO N CO
e + r CO
1.
CC CC Ce
d ¢ a d
IL Q 11_ LL
o LL C Fs-
IL a 111
• W W 2
O e J p
CC Q °
it N Vfl a
•`. a
)
'L-
CO
/ 1
,-.- i`z)
---.
1,- .%5L'--f■.L.,OL‘-..J } .L, J 0
I .
.-_t
c
r.1-4,1
III
rc\-11- I-cc-I-
-r--)
a
LS
.:7-0-1 ,,,--)-,--,iii •-.)
-3! _4.---_,
0 M -
La ct , „N
, ,,, ,_,, ,, ,,,
.
LL U ! ma
....
1
,
,
,... i, .
•,.....
II
a i
.r911 (711)7i) MI
F:
slam
IF
i f: 1
• k /
S ,
• "
1.1 tl
I edi 22 / I
ini I '1
Ira.'
IT
ME WM I A, l>
1 1
III li
I i
i S 111 I
' ''
, .
4. 1
• 4 1 mil
I ill
cc
•C 1 I 1 , ...,
0- •C IC
I \ 1\ c‘ I
/ 1 N St Nie
I \4S I
so
I 0
11. a i
0 .,
MUM
MOM
‘ f
I L
pr,„.•., II ..
1 ..,, • / /
L (6. .- _
la
i1
_ _ \ 110,
I
1
,
,
,
,
i
j
_ . Sit/ il ' 3 i
at i't
7
q d
i3 I minlineu is YuIfIMB11e1IWYle�6 --- I�Awl��nx� - -
q 11i1a p ' I, fill
�� I,1 ! cIIuA l� � IIII
/I i II ulmmlmomeeml I m�lmm0I? \( III lh III I III 1 11 1 Ell
�/��1 ' III; ' °I" ,h Iri III,i I iI II 111 it wh mlwmmmww.
� muuummauo - 4 I�u�lmowl i III 1
II 1I111II. ill I ®,1I�' � 1 ��Ii1111 I1111111111111I , II I ,
IIINNImI IlJ U IINIXIui I ___ — N�i II �1. 1 I I 1 III 1'1111
It
I;'' e tll �1 11
1111 1�. 1 . � �� �!I i� l ii, _� ) I�I 1:111111111111 li
1
1, 11 ICI; 1 1111 1 1 1
=A i II �I II �P 11I a 11 r11 1 1111 Ili f
1I� t1
a.' s " lII�Is:alx 111 II' 11;.1,1
1= ,IIP
9p{ 11 �N I� II 4 ri 1 joum�N V� gyp, ,.1111 ,j111 i inn
ill' . . r d It „III 1 ii U O a .RSOSp<gn'
�� I,I, �1.11111� i 4 >
J
1'1111 I IO1161I1.,1111IF111 1 �i 1 I S la
NI 1
CDJ
� j �� I "1"1 I II r���I'11 s rc,_,,
I.
� llllll i1,1 � IuIiVdlll6;jl ti iii I 2
1'ep�'p'erym��1.mme1�11(^�qee'I ■■ y{II t t iti' .1111' L.•'. 9F I�I�
1..
la 11 1 ��� F I f
I, I I it 1 IlI'111 ill [ryE
II %i III I'{p lI �-1 11
IIIIIAIIIIIA1111
{
I� I>I� t �� II 1 MP
�1 111 ; :L I �� a
I { J'
2 DJ
F- 6iEleI\, ; o LL
I m
Et
ai =. Acs S AS, I Ce
•
It /
i ,'\,
ill I {
{
Pe,or Ha��e As Box 8
-_� Aspen,co 8>612
Real Estate Consulting&Marketing (303)920-2000
(303)925-2182
July 28, 1987 fl � ( ,
Mr . Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen , CO 81611
Dear Steve :
In response to your letter of July 17th regarding the application
to amend the Storehouse GMP, let me address your concerns.
A. 1 ) Architectural Design
Regarding the exposed wall of the Thrift Shop , the
architects have looked at putting a brick veneer on the wall .
This will not work, because where it meets the concrete block on
the south facade , the joint will be visible and unattractive .
Currently, we are looking at painting the wall to blend with the
brick and stone colors of the Storehouse Building with enriched
planting along or on the wall .
A. 2) Site Design
You are right about improving the corner open space . We
plan to improve the site design by eliminating the planters on
the corner and the skylight to the basement . Planters will be
installed next to the building to soften the feel for
pedestrians. The removal of the planters, skylight and seating
will open up this area for more intensive use by the public . We
are contacting the Parks Department to determine their preference
for benches, bike racks or strictly open space . Our goal is to
make this a summer activity center in Aspen.
A .4) Amenities
Regarding the amenities of the project as they affect the
public of Aspen, the opening up of the plaza by eliminating the
seating and planters will enhance the accessibility of the site .
The sidewalks will now flow directly into the plaza, allowing for
greater ease of access to pedestrians . The removal of the
snowmelt will have no negative affect . Manual snow removal will
maintain all walkways and plaza spaces in accordance with the
laws of the City of Aspen. There is a positive change in the
quality of open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways by opening
up the plaza area.
A . 6 ) Trash and Utility Access
The prior approval was based on the use of the building for
a restaurant and retail store and a bakery with office space on
the top floor . The revised building format calls for retail on
Mr . Steve Burstein
July 28, 1987
Page Two
the ground floor with office on the top floor . In conversations
with Tony Vagneur of B.F . I . The generation of trash from the
office space will be "minimal" . The prior approval called for a
two cubic yard dumpster with a compactor in the basement to
result in a required pick—up of three times weekly.
At this time, we do not feel a compactor will be required as we
will have a two yard dumpster with pick up five days weekly. In
the event trash generation requires a compactor , space will be
made available in the basement for the installation .
The review with Tony Vagneur was done over the phone. Tony is
out of town this week . I will meet with him prior to the
Planning and Zoning Hearing and will have further details at the
meeting . I have enclosed a detailed drawing of the trash and
utility area.
I have spoken with Jay Hammond regarding storm drainage . He
feels that a developer ' s duty is to retain the historic flow on
site . The prior building on this site had a great deal of
impervious surface, but no system for retaining any runoff on
site . The Storehouse Building has a system of roof drains with
drywells to collect and channel runoff . All water from
impervious ground surfaces will also be directed into these
drywells. These measures will increase safety, will eliminate
standing water and represents a substantial upgrade to the City
storm sewer system as a whole.
Please call me immediately if you have further questions, as we
are anxious to proceed through the review process to continue the
construction process .
Sincerely yours,
Perry H rvey
PH:mao
_ .
r
_ / 1_[10 o 1
$ o 1 11-40
r
.
,b__--
_� - — -.
a _ 1� t=- 1_ t
.
- -, _
Lt. . •
• IN y
A
. 1,,) —{ /
C
ware re entree r -ere ..,..,
4 ____„:,,,--0, . a, ,\,„ \
-, 0
V
4.,,,
,,,, . -- ...„.. b ,,T3, ---:",,,r-
r I A _ n H r i�\
,.� L•\� - � -1• a° .
Sc
Tt 6Tolff_-OU 5t 5 U I LPI N6+ .LE. Ve " -b' -
-c2Kis,v1 1ric+ ittoJ't1 No S -R'JGE Ac E . _) Kam- fz o ectIl-c1NG,
,emu-T-fCrL°o-ID i\L1-1tf 1 rc-. As r -'H w JUL <4 I I T-, -7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Storehouse Building GMP Amendment/Reduction in Trash
and Utilities Area
Case Number 2737-073-30-007-20A-87
DATE: August 20, 1987
LOCATION: 121 S. Galena Street, Lot S, Block 87, Townsite and
City of Aspen.
LOT SIZE: 3 , 000 Square feet
ZONING: Commercial Core/H (Commercial Core/Historic Overlay
District) .
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to amend
the 1986 Storehouse GMP application to accomplish the following
changes to the project: (a) reconfigure space from the basement
to the second floor and enlarge storefront windows, (b) eliminate
seating and planters in the corner plaza area, (c) delete
snowmelt, (d) replace brick and concrete sidewalk/plaza treatment
with aggregate concrete, (e) delete fire hydrant, (f) delete
conveyor belt to basement storage, (g) delete trash compactor,
(h) reduce trash and utilities area, and (i) recalculate employee
housing cash in lieu. Reduction in trash and utilities area is
requested through special review approval.
BACKGROUND: The Storehouse application was one of three projects
in the CC/C-1 Commercial GMP competition in 1986. All three
projects received scores above the threshold and were given
allocations through Council Resolution No. 37 (Series of 1986) .
Respective scores were:
Project Total points Given by P&Z (average)
Pitkin Center 31. 7
Hunter Plaza 30. 4
Storehouse Building 29 . 0
The Storehouse Building also received special review approvals
from the P&Z for (a) reduction of trash and utilities area from
200 square feet to 96 square feet subject to the placement of a
trash compactor in the basement of the building, and (b) restau-
rant use of required open space.
Construction of the building is proceeding based upon the
approved project. When construction reaches any of the items
affected by this application it will stop until appropriate
approvals are received. If approvals are not granted, the
project will be required to meet its original commitments.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24-11.7 (b) of
the Municipal Code requires rescoring of substantial changes to
GMP proposals to determine whether the allocation should be
confirmed or rescinded. If the scoring remains above the minimum
threshold and the applicant's position relative to others in the
competition does not change, the Planning and Zoning Commission
"shall make a recommendation to Council as to the appropriateness
of the changes and any further conditions of approval. "
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1. Engineering Department: In an August 17, 1987 memorandum
from Elyse Elliott the following comments were made:
a. Removal of the sidewalk snowmelt system poses no
problem.
b. The sidewalk plan cannot include raised planters
around the trees. Tree grates should be used instead.
The final sidewalk plan should be approved by CCLC.
c. It is recommended that the trash and utility area
that has already been reduced to 96 square feet, not be
further reduced.
2. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark stated in an August 4 , 1987
memorandum that he is adamantly opposed to deletion of the
fire hydrant from the northwest corner of Galena and
Hopkins.
3. Water Department: Jim Markalunas stated in an August 20,
1987 memorandum that he concurs with the Fire Marshal that a
fire hydrant should be installed. Jim clarified the size
and locations of water mains and observed that since the
water main in Hopkins St. is located at or near the north
side of the street, a minimal amount of paving would be cut
in installing the fire hydrant.
4. CCLC Streetscape Guidelines Consultant: Wayne Ethridge,
landscape architect working with CCLC to revise the City's
Streetscape Guidelines, made the following verbal comments
on August 24 , 1987 :
a. Acceptable street tree species are Marshall Seedless
Ash, Norway Maple ("Cleveland" subspecy) , and Cotton-
2
wood. Minimum caliper should be 3" .
b. Drip irrigation of street trees is recommended.
c. Spacing of trees and diameter of tree grate area is
adequate for the trees' health. Grates should be flush
with the sidewalk to allow for unimpeded pedestr-
ian passage. If no grouting were used between brick
pavers near trees, more water would get to roots,
similar to how the Cantina's plaza works.
d. Snowmelt is not critical as the plaza is south-
facing.
e. The distance from the building entrance to the
street corner is 35 ' , indicating the large size of the
plaza area. A focal point such as a specimen tree,
with planters and benches attached, would do much to
make this space attractive.
f. There is a qualitative difference between brick and
concrete treatment and the aggregate concrete treat-
ment.
5. Building Department: In an August 24 , 1987 memorandum
Zoning Official Bill Drueding stated that after calculating
FAR for the first and second floors in the approved building
permit plans (basement space was entirely exempt from FAR)
3 ,738 square feet is being utilized, leaving a credit of 759
square feet from the total FAR allocated. This credit is
less than the applicant had calculated, however, it is
adequate for the proposed second floor expansion and trash
and utility area decrease. If these changes are approved we
estimate that a credit of 116 square feet would remain.
5. Roaring Fork Energy Center: Steve Standiford explained in
his memorandum received August 7, 1987 that the deletion of
snowmelt and clarifications of insulation allow him to
understand that there will be energy savings in the project
as amended. North facing glass could utilize triple glazing
or Heat Mirror windows to minimize heat loss. Solar heat
will have a small contribution to heating needs because of
the building' s orientation.
6. Housing Authority: As stated in a memorandum from Ann
Bowman dated August 10, 1987, employee generation has been
recalculated based on the new building configuration and
replacement of restaurant and bakery by retail space. New
employee generation has been estimated at 5.22 employees
instead of 9. 1 employees. The applicant continues to commit
to house 39% of the net employee generation, for a cash in
3
lieu payment of $40, 720. The Housing Authority recommends
approval of the recalculated cash in lieu payment.
B. Staff Comments: The Planning Office recommends a revised score
of 26. 25 points for the amended Storehouse GMP application. Some
of the important differences in the scores from the original
application include:
1. Recommended scoring for Architectural Design decreased
from 2 . 5 points to 2 points. The amended architectural
design contains additional bulk on the second floor,
affecting in a small way the quality of massing. Widening
of the storefront windows along Galena Street is less
compatible with the character of the building and does not
compliment as well the vertical windows of nearby historic
structures. Both of these changes were found to be accept-
able to HPC and approved. Painting of the adjacent Thrift
Store wall is not as attractive as bricking first consid-
ered.
2 . Recommended scoring for Site Design decreased from 2 . 5
points to 1. 5 points. The deletion of planters and seating
within the plaza and replacement of the patterned brick and
concrete with aggregate concrete leave the open space with
minimal texture, greenery or interest. We note that the
seven (7) street trees and small planters near the northeast
entrance remain. Quality of service access off the alley has
also decreased with the loss of the conveyor and decrease in
trash and utility space that had also served as a small bay
in front of the rear access door.
3 . Recommended scoring for Trash and Utility Access Areas
has gone down from 2 points to 1 point. The Engineering
Department believes that the proposed 50 square feet would
make for a substandard situation for both the dumpster(s)
and utility meters.
4 . Recommended scoring for Water Supply/Fire Protection has
decreased from 2 points to 1 point because the proposed fire
hydrant is no longer part of the plan.
5. Recommended scoring for energy conservation increased
from 2 points to 3 points based on the deletion of snowmelt
and a higher RFEC evaluation of the insulation and glazing
specified.
6. Amenities has been scored lower by staff due to removal
of site design amenities. Recommended scoring decreased from
2 points to 1 point.
Following is a summary of your prior and our proposed scores.
Please note that the minimum threshold is 25. 8 points.
4
P&Z Original Recommended
Score Revised Score
1. Quality of Design 12 . 75 10.5
2 . Availability of Public 6. 5 6
Facilities & Services
3 . Provision of Employee Housing 9 . 75 9.75
4 . Bonus Points 0 0
Total 29 26.25
The Planning Office is concerned that the quality of the project
would be reduced if the amended application were accepted as
proposed. We suggest that the following aspects of the project
be changed or clarified to retain the overall project quality:
1.Site design: The brick and concrete pattern in the original
application should still be installed. This surface texture
would compliment the building and extend the mall character down
Galena, which is becoming increasingly commercialized as a result
of this project. Snowmelt is not a necessary feature of the
project, wastes energy and should not be required. Review by the
Commercial Core and Lodging Commission should not be required at
this time because it was not subject to CCLC review at the time
of original submittal and would cause unnecessary overlapping of
review.
On-site landscaping should take on a more significant role in the
development' s character than that presented in the amended plan,
in our opinion. The corner plaza area should have more abundant
landscaping (probably in planters, as the basement extends under
the entire plaza) , seating and a bicycle rack. Without restaurant
tables there is more space for greenery. We felt that the tree
shown on the original plan in the plaza was a desireable amenity
and suggest that a good sized specimen tree still be planted in a
planter on site.
Seven (7) street trees should be planted in the public right-of-
way in on-grade grates. It should be noted that three of these
trees are simply replacements of City-planted Norway Maples that
were cut down during construction, according to the Parks
Director.
2 . Trash and utilities access area: The question of trash and
utilities access area is both a GMP scoring category and subject
to a special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Section 24-3 .5 (b) of the Municipal Code provides the criteria P&Z
must consider in reducing trash and utilities area reduction,
including:
5
" (2) The amount of trash which might be expected to be
generated given the nature of the proposed uses of the
building and the total square footage of the building;
(4) Any provisions for trash compaction which would be used
by the development and potentially by other land uses on the
block; and
(6) Adequacy of area for public utility placement and
maintenance. "
The Engineering Department recommends that P&Z deny the requested
special review for further reduction in trash and utilities area.
Elyse Elliott found there would be significantly greater volume
of trash generated without a compactor; the proposed trash area
is only large enough for one dumpster when two dumpsters should
be accommodated; and the utilities area should be big enough to
house all of the building' s utilities on-site. Dependence on
everyday trash pickup service to compensate for minimal trash
area is not acceptable rationale for area reduction according to
the code criteria. The trash and utilities access area should
remain at 96 square feet in the prior configuration or another
configuration approved by the Engineering Department.
3. Fire hydrant: Staff agrees with the Fire Marshal that the
fire hydrant to be located on the northwest corner of the
intersection should be provided as originally committed to. Cost
considerations and competition standing are not valid reasons to
delete a feature that would be a clear public benefit.
4. Employee Housing Cash Payment: The loss of restaurant and
bakery occupants from the building has reduced the employee
generation by almost 4 persons and cash payment by $29, 280. The
applicant should agree that a change from retail to restaurant
use in the building can only occur after a GMP amendment, during
which time the employee housing cash-in-lieu would be recalcu-
lated.
In summary, the purpose of the GMP amendment process is to allow
changes to a project necessitated by technical problems and
functional changes discovered after the project was reviewed, and
not for removing project amenities that were committed to.
Evaluation of proposed amendments is accomplished by P&Z through
rescoring the application and recommending to Council the
appropriateness of changes and further conditions of approval.
Staff finds both technical and qualitative changes proposed in
this application. Changes in building massing and materials and
in employee generation/cash in lieu due to the change in occu-
pants are technical changes. Removal of site design features,
further reduction in trash and utilities area and deletion of the
fire hydrant are qualitative changes which we do not believe are
appropriate.
6
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends the Planning and
Zoning Commission to rescore the amended Storehouse application
above the minimum threshold and to recommend City Council to
confirm the GMP allocation for the project subject to the
following conditions and clarifications of representations:
1. Design elements of the building will include a height not to
exceed 33 feet, use of brick and sandstone, addition of structur-
al enclosure in the northern portion of the second floor, and
widening of storefront windows with kickplates. The exposed wall
of the Thrift Shop abutting the plaza will be given a brick
facade or another treatment that is acceptable to the HPC, to be
approved and executed prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
2 . The brick and concrete pattern treatment of the plaza area and
sidewalks will be installed as shown in the original application
prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Snowmelt shall be
excluded from the site.
3 . Included in the plaza open space will be a specimen tree,
planters, seating and bicycle racks. Window box planters will be
installed next to the northern entrance. Seven (7) Norway Maple
("Cleveland" subspecy) ,Marshall Seedless Ash, or Cottonless
Cottonwood trees, 3" minimum caliper, shall be planted in on-
grade grates in the City right of way served by drip irrigation.
The revised site plan showing all landscape improvements will be
presented to the Planning Office prior to issuance of building
permit. Landscaping improvements shall be installed prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
4 . Energy conservation measures including insulation, skylights,
solar massing and an energy efficient heating and cooling system
will be used as represented in the original amended applica-
tion.
5. A fire hydrant will be installed by the applicant on the
northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
6. All surface run-off will be retained on the site.
7. The applicant will provide a 96 square feet trash and utili-
ties area on grade with the alley in the configuration shown in
the original application or in a configuration approved by the
Engineering Department. All utility meter boxes shall be located
on site.
8. The applicant will make a cash in lieu payment of $40, 720 to
the Housing Authority to house 2 . 036 low income employees.
9 . A change from retail use to restaurant use shall only be
7
allowed subject to approval of a GMP amendment during which time
the trash and utility access area and the employee housing
program will be reconsidered.
The Planning Office also recommends that P&Z confirm its prior
approval of special review for the reduction of trash and
utilities access area to 96 square feet in the configuration
shown in the original application or in a configuration approved
by the Engineering Department, and that you deny the request for
further reduction to 50 square feet.
storehouse
8
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING GMP AMENDMENT DATE:8/20/87
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENT:The building as proposed would contain 3 , 892 square feet
(FAR 1. 3 : 1) compared to the original application having 4 , 497
square feet (FAR 1. 5: 1) ; however, some 460 square feet of
additional bulk would be added to the second floor. The building
would still be a relatively small structure. Height (33 ' at
tallest point) , massing, brick and sandstone treatment remain
positive features of the design. HPC approved the widened
storefront window along Galena, finding them acceptable although
less complimentary than the orginial design. The second floor
expansion was also approved by HPC as it does not substantially
increase bulk. Painting of adiacent Thrift Shop wall is not as
attractive as bricking first considered. Recommended score
changed from 2 . 5 to 2 .
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 1. 5
1
COMMENT: In the orginal design the two open space areas were to
be used for outdoor dining with planters to give greenery andhelp
screen the building. Brick and concrete sidewalks with street
trees along Galena and Hopkins including a tree in plaza,
further made the site inviting. Aggregate concrete small
planters along the side of the building and moving the one tree
off the plaza will diminish the site design character making it
very ordinary and perhaps dead space not nearly as interesting as
the Thrift Shop next door. While "flow through" circulation is
improved, it is at the expense of the prior site amenities.
Service access may also be more difficult in the alley because
the trash area has been reduced and the conveyor system has been
removed from plans. Recommended scoring decreased from 2 . 5 to
1. 5.
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT: Energy conservation remains the same, except snowmelt
has been deleted. Roaring Fork Energy Center (RFEC) noted
snowmelt deletion will save a lot of energy. Specification on
insulation is far above code according to RFEC. Solar energy
gain is limited, although skylights and solar mass flooring will
help. Efficient mechanical systems remain quite efficient .
Recommended scoring increased from 2 to 3 points.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: Elimination of plaza seating, deletion of snowmelt,
reduction in landscaping and change of sidewalk plaza surface to
aggregate concrete provide fewer amenities. The plaza will
continue to allow for pedestrian movement. Recommended scoring
is decreased from 2points to 1 point.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: Impacts of the building remain substantially as they
were in the original application. No major public views will be
affected. Recommended scoring is unchanged.
2
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The amended application requests further reduction of
the trash and utility access area from 96. 5 s. f. to 50 s. f. and
deletion of the trash compactor and the conveyor belt. The
Engineering Department stated that without the compactor, trash
volumes will increase. Furthermore, there would not be adequate
space to house all utility meters on site. Recommended scoring
decreased from 2 points to 1 point.
SUBTOTAL: 10.5
2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points) . The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level
of service in the area, or any service improvement by the
applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the
general.
2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the
quality of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two services (i.e. , water supply and fire protec-
tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the
scores for each feature.
3 . WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: 1
CONMENT: Water is available and has been supplied to the property.
A fire hydrant on the northwest corner of the Galena/Hopkins intersec-
tion would be deleted. The Fire Marshal stated the hydrant would
3
have greatly improved service in the area. Without the hydrant,
response time from the Fire Department to this building should still
be good. Recommended scoring decreased from 2 to 1 point.
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: No change. Recommended scoring remains the same.
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: Bike racks will serve as an auto disincentive. Enginee-
ring Department stated this project will not significantly affect
adjacent streets. Recommended scoring is unchanged.
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: The applicant continues to commit to install roof drains
and drywells to insure 100% retention of on-site storm runoff.
Engineering Department continues to support this plan as an
improvement to service in the area. Recommended scoring is
unchanged.
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4. 5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: No on-site parking was provided in original applications
4
nor in the amendment. Recommended scoring is unchanged.
SUBTOTAL: 6
3 . PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11. 10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: 9 . 75
COMMENT: The applicant continues to commit to pay cash-in-lieu
for the equipment of 39% of the total employees generated.
Employee generation has decreased from 9. 1 to 5.22 employees,
therefore, reducing the 39% cash payment from $70, 000 to $40,720.
The Housing Authority has recommended approval of the amended
proposal. _
5 . BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
record.
BONUS POINTS: 0
COMMENT: No bonus points are awarded from the Planning Office.
5
6 . TOTAL POINTS Amended Application
Points in Category 1: 10.5 (minimum of 5. 4 points needed
Original Application 13 to remain eligible)
Points in Category 2: 6 (minimum of 3 points needed
Original Application 7 to remain eligible)
Points in Category 3: 9.75 (minimum of 8.75 points
Original Application 9. 75 to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2 , 3 & 4 26.25 (minimum of 25. 8 points
needed to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
TOTAL POINTS: 26.25
Name of Planning and Zoning Member: Planning Office Recommended
Scoring
scoresheet. aug
6
CITY OF AStg1 O PERCIAL GAP APPLICATIONS
TALLY SHEET
PROJECT NAME: The Storehouse Date: 9/30/86
1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS Eggai Welton David Al Jim Jasmine
A. Quality of Design
1. Architectural
Design 2.5 1_ 1- 2 2.5 2.5
2. Site Design 2.5 1.5 2.5 3 1.5 2.5
3. Energy 1.5 2 2 2 1_ 2
4. Amenities 1__ 1_ 1__ __2_ 1- 2
5. Visual Impact 1_ _2_ 1- 1- 2
6. Trash and Utility
Access 1__ 1__ 1__ _2_ 1- 2
SUBTOTAL: 13.5 12.5 12.5 13 12- 13 12.75
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1. Water Supply/Fire
Protection 1._ 1- 1- 1- 1-_ 2
2. Sewage Disposal 1- 1- _1_ 1
3. Public Transporta-
tiorVRoads
4. Storm Drainage a.5._ 1-
5. Parking _1_ 1_ 1- 1- 1- 1
SUBTOTAL: 6.5 6.5 _6____ _7 A__ 7 6.5
C. Provision of Employee
Housing 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75
TOTAL: 29.75 28.75 28.25 29.75 27.75 29.75 29-
D. Bonus Points _ _4_ Q_ __ _Q_ 0 0
TOICAL ADMITS
CA' IFS A, B, C
a n d D 29-75. 2B 1c 7Q 7c 2p mr 22 2 =a.
D, and E
1
•
/ .- j 'OO
- I- G O
_ . . g.--------- -- . <
F f
-_-
- ' . r--Lr.V TIort .
VI il,
g
_,, ihk!. $
;-\
� � s Lei
\ilk\ __
1:
I�
1
•
tLA . 1 .
TOTAL_ -G6_Sca FT.:..-- ._
TH . 6Tolt-I0U5t 5uILPIN61 .A-.L VA. _- I'-cf__
-pRANN I riG -t loy4.1 146 -.7f{ZAIG-E f EA, e .tz OF III-DING
-t'u-4EKLAt;17 1-AL.1-t*l I >Ic,. Asi.r1 co =Ei rEMEER_ 1 , I f)t i
HEM DUN
NT-
TO: City Attorney O C� �
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Fire Marshall
Zoning Official
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Amendment
DATE: July 30, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Perry Harvey requesting GMP Amendment to the Storehouse
Building. Changes from the original application are highlighted
below for your information.
o Space would be reconfigured from the basement to the second
floor.
o Seating and planters on the corner will be eliminated.
Sidewalks will flow directly into the plaza.
o Snowmelt will be deleted.
o Energy conservation commitments are clarified in the
application but not changed according to Perry Harvey.
o The brick and concrete treatment of the plaza will be
replaced with aggregate concrete.
o Fire hydrant on the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins
will be deleted.
o Trash compactor will be deleted and the trash and utilities
area will be further reduced.
o The storm drainage plan has been changed.
o Employee generation has been recalculated and the employee
housing commitment has been reduced.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter that addressed the criteria
needed by the applicant before the application was complete.
Please review this material and send your comments to the
Planning Office no later than August 18, 1987 in order for this
office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
before P&Z.
Thank you.
i� / I
-- -
----- - _ - --- --
—
—E..) - -CV= -____ ___ _
.
, ____,
.
- ,
1
___-_--1-r-[---r.VIATlo
rr -
. . 41151.41 tr.
��e
I1' KI/If//H///7 PI ..GU/IUl'
li ii:
,. i
- 171JIDHa -
TH n oTO t-I°u Ut F/ u 1 LY I N --- _ u.►e _ s:.0�- 1,'�'_
ivs.,1^4INo F�11okiNo {Z�/IG� A1ZE. 2 KF_A•tzOF P�}II-DINGO -
LIT-IE:LAMP rA1-1- r-} I t'jC. A5rm-1-I co. J IEME R. I -; 1',81
6 0 ; 1 '6i11) -iA pIsin yiti,tinfe fJ2 ii-/-3 7
_ - ..
__ __. _ ......__.__ --v —... - _ _. ___ _ 1 T__ _ _ ._
I 0
.-- __
I s _O O =
_ _ -' !al
I
_'_ LviATI _____
1 1:' 7 -Wricv) ,: . rArt E.L.1 t r
S. ...�'411*A = d V, / 11' tom"
Y^ .�fa C�vr�=.,� Z'CONC TGct="-44 "I '
- 1 l.✓ i ibG N {'
40 �_ fl> - ��° /C, gyp'
C d, e �V' !. a
to ifira;t--
spy f
+ _ r h- -
•
l it 4/ ,j /i N�9E
II i M� �I ,% to ,
` ,- —'K
d ,--
L--_, 1
, _. _ ki_ _,_S nhITES ws 713
I %
7 PI /
II a 1 $
u to"x
. T
A j y ipr - En o i yi`
I _ _ _
aagd Viii AiLtih." .f.iof 0
•
041 I
N ' , - , we fate _ 'fir. "a.r. 'ra
O D n
•
1
I LAN
E,-pi y of Ilie1 4, I, IILd icon .111,d t:00 i I°
, h1/4,,o, 4 y., b1/44-6. s
-
I(D-o '`
. sic-
4IRST BOOR PLAN'
M E M O R A N D U M
AUG 3 1 '
TO: Elyse Elliott , Engineering Department
FROM: Perry Harvey
DATE: August 26 , 1987
RE: THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING
I am writing in response to your memo of August 17 , 1987 ,
regarding the Storehouse Building GMP Amendment .
Regarding the comment on raised planters around trees on the
sidewalk , there will be no raised planters . The current plan
calls for flowers to be planted around the base of trees.
The original area for trash and utilities was to be 96 square
a: feet and included the areas for utility meters , box storage ,
;OT , dumpster and the entrance to the building . The current
k;;' configuration calls for an area of 4 X 8' 8" for the dumpster and
'wS' boxes, 3 ' 4" X 1 ' 4" for the utility meters and 5 ' 2" by 3 ' 4 " for
;Iro ' the entrance . This is a total of 61 square feet which should be
;W , compared to the 96 square feet in the approved plan .
*.V.
It'
t��; In a meeting with Tony Vagneur of BF'I Waste Systems, I discussed
g the proposed reconfiguration . Tony was pleased to see the
::
separation of trash and the entrance . His comments were that we
should elevate the pad for the dumpster to allow for winter , when
the alley snowpack makes it hard to move the dumpster. We will
do this . The dumpster is 80" in overall length, and we are
providing 104" of space. When Tony saw the original plan, it was
92" and he felt it would be a tight fit for the dumpster and box
storage. We have added one more foot to the length, for a total
of 104" , which leaves two feet clear for box storage . If this
proves to be too little , we will provide additional box storage
space in the basement and feed boxes into the dumpster as space
allows. Tony said Frank Woods does this at the Abetone building,
and it works perfectly.
M.
Our GMP approval called for a compactor in the basement and trash
y pickup three times weekly. The new configuration of users will
eh
b, ;, substantially reduce the trash generation . Additionally, we will
:s4 increase pick up frequency to daily. Tony and I agreed that in
l'" the event it was needed , a compactor would be installed in the
frt basement. As this proposed program satisfies the requirements of
' BFI Waste Systems , I feel it also meets the requirements of
Section 24-3.5 (b) for reduction of the trash and utility access
requirements provided for in Section 24-43.7 (H) (G) . We comply
with each of the specifics outlined in Section 24-3 . 5 (b ) as
follows:
[1 ii
Memorandum
Elyse Elliott, Engineering Dept .
August 26 , 1987
Page Two
1 ) Trash vehicle access is adequate and raising the
dumpster pad will ease winter pick up.
2 ) The amount of trash to be generated is less than daily
pickup will handle .
3) We will make the trash bins easier to move by the
ramped , raised enclosure .
4) We have made provisions for trash compaction , should
1Fs. BFI or the City so require .
5 ) The comments of the head of BEI Waste Systems are that
we have fulfilled their requirements.
±41'? Regarding the gas meter , we will either negotiate an easement
with the Thrift Shop or it will be moved onto our property.
Please contact me if you need further clarification or
information on the amendment .
dui
•4
fp}
Il
PeirgHatveg
P.O.Box 8720
Aspen,CO 81612
Real Estate Consulting&Marketing (303)920-2000
(303)925-2182
•
August 14 , 1987
The Honorable Mayor Stirling
Aspen City Council Members
131 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mayor Stirling and Aspen City Council :
I am writing to request that council continue your regular
meeting on August 24 , 1987 , to September 8 , 1987 , to review
the amended GMP application for the building at 121 S . Galena,
formerly known as the Storehouse Building. The new owners
are trying to complete the building for late fall occupancy.
Let me give you the background for my request. On June 26 ,
I met with Alan Richman and Steve Burstein for a pre-application
conference to amend the GMP approval. I was told that if I
submitted the completed application by July 6th I would be
scheduled for P&Z review on August 18th. I submitted my
package of materials on July 6th, on July 20th I received a
letter from Steve Burstein requesting nine items of added
information. The majority of these were fully included in the
submission and the balance required only clarification. Through
some miscommunication I was not placed on the agenda for the
August 18th P&Z . Rather I learned I was placed on the Planning
and Zoning, September 1st schedule with Council review on
September 14th.
The result of this scheduling will be to shut down construction
because we cannot wire, plumb, or frame certain sections of the
building without proper approvals. To avoid an expensive
construction delay and to ensure the completion of this building
at the entrance to Aspen' s historic Galena Street in a timely
fashion I will be greatly appreciative if Council will continue
the August 24th regular meeting to the 8th of September. I
feel I will need fifteen minutes at the beginning of the meeting
to resolve this item.
Thank you in advance for your favorable consideration of this
request.
Sincerely yours,
Ye/MX/7617
Perry Hafvey
PH:kh
C. ASSOCIATES
P.O. BOX 11629
ASPEN,COLORADO 81612
(303)925-8803
August 31 , 1987
To: CCLC Members
City of Aspen, Colorado
Dear CCLC Members,
Enclosed you will find a revised site plan for the 121 South
Galena Building (formerly Little Cliff 's/Natures Storehouse
Building which is located on Galena Street across from
City Hall.
As you can see from the enclosed tree and planter locations,
we have significantly opened up the plaza area for pedestrian
use from the original plan of the plaza area. Additionally,
the sidewalk and plaza areas have been ammended to a
continuous aggregate surface so that the entire area shall
visually read as a single element.
The purpose of this ammended plan is to enhance the walking
public' s use of the area by creating a pedestrian anchor at
the north end of the Galena Street retail corridor, similar
to the Volk Plaza open space at the south end of the Galena
Street retail area.
We believe that these changes are a positive compliment to the
core area and hope that you will indicate your approval of
the proposed changes by your signature below. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Associates COMMENT-C :
Vlo Q c—° II, IYu`ksu`CL"`-Q"•3att iAias by CC'.0
CCLC Members : (� (J rite Q�Q
L/r �a G` ( I. ( L YYD�C'�'��t
� , " /�•
�{ 1� r-u.5 o-rc-c.-,• r.
73,,f Z�rc l K c4 'rN7"ca°o7w 7t�, y-e* �0-�a
cD dirrtho - o - �.,, .
CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO., INC.
Y.O.110X 11021)
ASPEN,COLORAllO 51012
(303)925-5505
July 3 , 1987
Perry Harvey
Real Estate Consulting
P.O. Box 8720
Aspen , Colorado 81612
re : The Storehouse Building
GMP Amendment Application
Dear Perry,
You are authorized to submit any documents or applications
as required for ammendment of the original GMP application
and approvals that were granted by the City Council on
October 27, 1987 . Furthermore, under our agreement, you will
respond to the municipal meeting time table as required to
ammend the original application and approvals .
As you are aware , under our agreement with the lender, and
in consideration of the need to complete the construction prior
to the winter , we are anxious to receive the required approvals
within the next 45 days .
Thank you for your consideration in this mater.
Sincerely,
/I- • 6. 1--
i . Associ. = , Owner
by Cunningham Investment Co. , Inc .
Managing Partner
cc : R. A. Knezevich , Esq .
IMC/zp
�e/ / Hatred, Aspen, 8229
—� Aspen,CO 81612
Real Estate Consulting&Marketing (303)920-2000
(303)925-2182
July 28, 1987
,1 " JUL 2 81987
Mr. Steve Burstein DIAL-
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office LLL!!!!_�
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve :
In response to your letter of July 17th regarding the application
to amend the Storehouse GMP, let me address your concerns.
A. 1 ) Architectural Design
Regarding the exposed wall of the Thrift Shop , the
architects have looked at putting a brick veneer on the wall .
This will not work, because where it meets the concrete block on
the south facade , the joint will be visible and unattractive .
Currently, we are looking at painting the wall to blend with the
brick and stone colors of the Storehouse Building with enriched
planting along or on the wall .
A . 2 ) Site Design
You are right about improving the corner open space . We
plan to improve the site design by eliminating the planters on
the corner and the skylight to the basement . Planters will be
installed next to the building to soften the feel for
pedestrians . The removal of the planters , skylight and seating
will open up this area for more intensive use by the public . We
are contacting the Parks Department to determine their preference
for benches, bike racks or strictly open space . Our goal is to
make this a summer activity center in Aspen.
A .4) Amenities
Regarding the amenities of the project as they affect the
public of Aspen, the opening up of the plaza by eliminating the
seating and planters will enhance the accessibility of the site .
The sidewalks will now flow directly into the plaza, allowing for
greater ease of access to pedestrians . The removal of the
snowmelt will have no negative affect . Manual snow removal will
maintain all walkways and plaza spaces in accordance with the
laws of the City of Aspen. There is a positive change in the
quality of open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways by opening
up the plaza area.
A . 6 ) Trash and Utility Access
The prior approval was based on the use of the building for
a restaurant and retail store and a bakery with office space on
the top floor . The revised building format calls for retail on
Mr . Steve Burstein
July 28, 1987
Page Two
the ground floor with office on the top floor . In conversations
with Tony Vagneur of B.F. I . The generation of trash from the
office space will be "minimal" . The prior approval called for a
two cubic yard dumpster with a compactor in the basement to
result in a required pick—up of three times weekly.
At this time, we do not feel a compactor will be required as we
will have a two yard dumpster with pick up five days weekly. In
the event trash generation requires a compactor, space will be
made available in the basement for the installation .
The review with Tony Vagneur was done over the phone. Tony is
out of town this week . I will meet with him prior to the
Planning and Zoning Hearing and will have further details at the
meeting . I have enclosed a detailed drawing of the trash and
utility area.
I have spoken with Jay Hammond regarding storm drainage . He
feels that a developer ' s duty is to retain the historic =flow on
site . The prior building on this site had a great deal of
impervious surface, but no system for retaining any runoff on
site . The Storehouse Building has a system of roof drains with
drywells to collect and channel runoff . All water from
impervious ground surfaces will also be directed into these
drywells. These measures will increase safety, will eliminate
standing water and represents a substantial upgrade to the City
storm sewer system as a whole .
Please call me immediately if you have further questions , as we
are anxious to proceed through the review process to continue the
construction process .
Sincerely yours,
Perry Harvey 7
PH:mao
fti'rgHatveg PO.Box8720
Aspen,CO 81612
Real Estate Consulting&Marketing (303)920-2000
(303)925-2182
July 6 , 1987
Mr . Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept .
130 S. Galena St .
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve:
Pursuant to Article 27-11 .7(b) , I am making application to amend
the Growth Management Allocation awarded in Resolution 37 (series
of 1986 ) dated October 28, 1986 , for The Storehouse Building at
121 S. Galena.
Since this allocation was received a basement was constructed on
the property. No other work was undertaken. On June 29 , 1987, a
new owner , C . Associates , purchased the property . Several
changes are being made in the plans which necessitate that the
approval be rescored by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
reviewed by the H. P.C.
Article 27-11 .7 (b) requires a review by Planning and Zoning when
there is a substantial deviation from the GMP proposal in any of
the following:
1 ) A change which would potentially alter the points
awarded during the GMP scoring;
2) Any change from the approved architecture and site
design of the project ;
3) Any change in the number , size, and type of employee
units ; and
4) Any modification to the type and level of physical
services and facilities of the project .
The enclosed material constitutes a review of all sections of the
GMP application with the changes noted in detail.
Please let me know if you need further information or
clarification on this amendment . I await your reply as to the
earliest date for the Planning and Zoning review. I am making
application to H. P. C . under separate cover .
Sincerely,
C g thi
Perry Ararvey
PH:mao
Enclosure
Petite/Wait-et P O. ,.&816 ,2
Real Estate Consulting&Marketing (303)920-2000
(303)925-2182
July 6 , 1987
Mr . Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept .
130 S. Galena St .
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve:
Pursuant to Article 27-11 .7 (b) , I am making application to amend
the Growth Management Allocation awarded in Resolution 37 (series
of 1986 ) dated October 28, 1986 , for The Storehouse Building at
121 S. Galena.
Since this allocatibn was received a basement was constructed on
the property. No other work was undertaken. On June 29, 1987, a
new owner , C . Associates , purchased the property . Several
changes are being made in the plans which necessitate that the
approval be rescored by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
reviewed by the H.P.C .
Article 27-11 .7 (b) requires a review by Planning and Zoning when
there is a substantial deviation from the GMP proposal in any of
the following:
1 ) A change which would potentially alter the points
awarded during the GMP scoring;
2 ) Any change from the approved architecture and site
design of the project ;
3) Any change in the number , size , and type of employee
units; and
4) Any modification to the type and level of physical
services and facilities of the project.
The enclosed material constitutes a review of all sections of the
GMP application with the changes noted in detail.
Please let me know if you need further information or
clarification on this amendment. I await your reply as to the
earliest date for the Planning and Zoning review. I am making
application to H.P .C . under separate cover .
Sincerely,
c7 th
Perry arvey
PH:mao
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Fire Marshall
Zoning Official
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Amendment
DATE: July 30, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Perry Harvey requesting GMP Amendment to the Storehouse
Building. Changes from the original application are highlighted
below for your information.
o Space would be reconfigured from the basement to the second
floor.
o Seating and planters on the corner will be eliminated.
Sidewalks will flow directly into the plaza.
o Snowmelt will be deleted.
o Energy conservation commitments are clarified in the
application but not changed according to Perry Harvey.
o The brick and concrete treatment of the plaza will be
replaced with aggregate concrete.
o Fire hydrant on the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins
will be deleted.
o Trash compactor will be deleted and the trash and utilities
area will be further reduced.
o The storm drainage plan has been changed.
o Employee generation has been recalculated and the employee
housing commitment has been reduced.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter that addressed the criteria
needed by the applicant before the application was complete.
Please review this material and send your comments to the
Planning Office no later than August 18, 1987 in order for this
office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
before P&Z.
Thank you.
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
( 303) 925-2020
Date: Ci t UV4/ 4 -
'i/I.LJ .4 ....
w I
26
r.d t j4
RE: // '" ,/1 ,
I r.�_ . , Cn2���n�v�Lrn�r
Dear
/
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of captioned application. We have determined
that your application NOT complete.
Additional items required include:
Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed)
Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy)
Additional copies of entire application
Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica-
tion
Response to list of items (attached/below ) demonstrating
compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the
Code, or other specific materials
A check in the amount of $
A. Your application s complete and we ha e scheduled it for
review by the ���
call you if we need any additional information rior to that
date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and
make available a copy of the memorandum. Please note that it
IS NOT your responsibility to post your
sign, which we can provide Y property with a
P you for a $3 .00 fee.
Oliti
B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it
review at this time. When we receive the materials we have
requested, we will place you on the next available agenda.
If you have any questions, please call (r[,(/-�� 1
the planner assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
ASPEN! ITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
\_J
tigfjf-
July 17, 1987
Perry Harvey
Real Estate Consulting and Marketing
P. O. Box 8720
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Amendment
Dear Perry:
This letter is in regard to your application that was submitted
to the Planning Office on July 6, 1987 . The following items must
be addressed before we can certify that the application is
complete:
o A site plan should be submitted showing any changes to
the corner open space area. Is there an opportunity to
improve the quality of landscape since there is no
restaurant use of this open space;
o Scale drawings of elevation, showing materials;
o Address in the area of architectural design: change in
storefront window design (mullions and width) and
replacement of kickplates with straight brick and sill;
o Address what is proposed with regard to the Thrift Shop
exposed wall in "architectural design" (p. 5) ;
o State any changes in site plan from the original, such
as use of aggregate concrete rather than brick and
concrete pattern (p. 5 & 6) ;
o Compare changes in energy conservation representations
from original to proposed (p. 6 & 7) ;
o Explain in "Amenities" (p. 7) : elimination of snow
melt, change from brick to aggregate sidewalks, and any
other site design changes effecting the quality of open
space and pedestrian and bicycle ways;
o Please give rationale and calculations for the antici-
pated reduction in trash generation and trash and
utilities area and show configuration of proposed trash
Perry Harvey
July 16, 1987
Page 2
and utilities area in scaled drawing, so to give enough
information for reviewing agencies to analyze; and
o Please talk to Engineering Department with regard to
the preferred approach to storm drainage (p. 9) .
Upon receiving this additional information, we will schedule this
application to go before P&Z at which time you will be advised of
the date.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call, and
thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Nancy Caeti
Administrative Assistant
NEC: slf