The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.Storehouse Building 131 Galena.31A-86GOP ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 , �j� .�� (303) 925-2020 i/ LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63721 -47331 - 52100 - 63722 - 47332 - 63723 - 47333 - 63724 - 47341 - 63725 - 47342 - 63726 - 47343 - 63727 - 47350 - 63728 - 47360 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 00123 -63730 -47380 00115 -63730 -47380 County 00113 -63711 -47331 - 63712 - 47332 - 63713 - 47333 - 63714 - 47341 - 63715 - 47342 - 63716 - 47343 - 63717 - 47350 , 63718 - 47360 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 00123 -63730 -47380 00113 -63731 -09000 00113 -63732 -09000 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS - 52100 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - 52100 HOUSING - 52100 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL - 52200 GMP/GENERAL - 52200 GMP/DETAILED - 52200 GMP/FINAL - 52200 SUB/GENERAL - 52200 SUB/DETAILED - 52200 SUB/FINAL - 52200 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 52200 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - 52200 HOUSING - 52200 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. - 52200 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 -09000 - 52200 COUNTY CODE - 63063 -09000 - 52200 ALMANAC - 63062 -09000 - 00000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 -09000 - 00000 COPY FEES - 63069 -09000 - OTHER Name: Address: Check # Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: Date: # of Hours: 10 -t= L-7ML-- t7l,\ W-E-LL Ti4KI-ffT 5i4c)P 3 -7-- r:: i :7 A 0 w 19 JUL - 196 r f = f OC) c TAB L�l R-L -BUILD --- �yy�. (/`.RJR'i � L/`I , up fG 4-b Mt--C-1-?Ate ! C�tL 1_ =(f-' 1 ..r+--".e.'��...'u'-;_� �..w-. +•se_-1tr7�tyry�Y.-� a%�..M} `' Y� «g _. _ --f I LZ TTLIF'z CIL" N Em 1� 0 11 T� rc3) TIL kill CO G 0- - F AtVl - P,., W, T4 K I -ff P 14 OP —5�fjfl TI ,:L 1 L lipoliell, :516C� =-il 3' MEW W11W.11" b+en ict s%lAlth,'- do, id 1280 ute avenue aspen cc 81611 303-92,5.348� ri —0 -Z4 - Cl ---: 127-- IZ6 --F L 19 UP 14 1 1 1 AN CAL tj E <fj-f-= L+4 u 5L r N�- �c),, in) i--n- L. - -4, n TI IYI�i LIT—z"zi I Tt- Up, -- t_.. tee. ZN11, Ohl' ---CALE- it Yr • J U LY' -v7 I 'I oc ., �Do cc n) ------ in - EFT ICE- �- T'll T FRtYA 114ESE S UIRNi, i OVAL. !�AJII ULI) r ov i,ep F) LA L I D � Uj LL LL-- I rcu? im A UP KIT�"Em ON ell DN f ATURE3,3TOUE. C ETAIL ARE; -�R A, �T BATi T UP I A F CAFETERIA SEATING UP - FOR 48 UP ME NATOWP STPIV 'OUSE R Afti UP MECHANICAL RETAIL RE DOUGHNL T 6HO STORAGE' i mop", PIZ DN )7 0 W"F hQo Lu EE J U LY V', t 560 ROOM UP STORAGE BAKERY P r- 3: oRiu� f'Ll17_A i'U6LIG 5'{'P.Ga: oK iG iNt+.L tzf-v I E)r-D 33' i.r � too dx G LANDSCAPE PLAN '/e7" _ l' - L.g-hl- 107YOO) • C� o- cQ o - � lO E; m rm 11 of sheets 1 � THE � STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION PERRY HARVEY PO BOX 8720 ASPEN, CO 81612 (303) 920-2000 (303) 925-2182 IAugust 1, 1986 ' Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING aDear Mr. Burstein: According to Section 24-11.5 of the City of Aspen Zoning Code, I ' am herewith submitting a Commercial Growth Management application for a proposed project located at 121 S. Galena St. and known as the Storehouse Building. I am making this application on behalf of r'Ir. Gregg Gibb, the owner of the property. I am requesting an allocation for the 1986 commercial quota. Thank you for your assistance in the preparation of this application. I Should you have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me at 920-2000. ' Sincerely, ' Perry Harvey PH:mao ' Enclosure 11 rl A COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING APPLICANT: MR. GREGG E. GIBB 162 VIEW RIDGE LANE SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 IPREPARED BY: BENEDICT, SUTHERLAND, FALLIN, INC. 1280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, CO 81611 (303) 925-3481 AND ' PERRY A. HARVEY ' CONSULTANT PO BOX 8720 ASPEN, CO 81612 (303) 920-2000 (303) 925-2182 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE rI. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Project Description 1 1 1. Water System 2. Sewage System 4 4 3. Drainage System 6 4. Development Data 6 ' 5. Traffic & Parking 6 6. Proposed Uses 7 7. Impact on Adjacent Uses 7 8. Construction Schedule 8 9. Employee Housing Proposal 8 II. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 11 A. Quality of Design 11 1. Architectural Design 11 2. Site Design 12 3. Energy Conservation 13 4. Amenities 16 5. Visual Impact 18 6. Trash and Utility Access 18 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 20 1. Water Supply and Fire Protection 21 2. Sewage Disposal 21 3. Public Transportation and Roads 23 4. Storm Drainage 23 5. Parking 23 C. Provision for Employee Housing 23 D. Bonus Points 24 III. SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVALS 25 APPENDIX A. Exhibit 1, letter from Jim Markalunas, 26 Aspen Water Department B. Exhibit 2, letter from Heiko Kuhn, Manager, 27 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ' C. Exhibit 3, letter from Peter Wirth, Chief, 28 Aspen Volunteer Fire Department ' LIST OF DRAWINGS DRAWING PAGE ' 1 Location/Zoning 3 2 Existing Conditions 5 3 Floor Plans 10 ' 4 Site Plan 15 5 Exterior Elevations 17 6 Circulation 22 i F I I. INTRODUCTION This application is submitted pursuant to Section 24-11.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code and requests a Commercial Growth Management allocation to develop the 3,000 square foot parcel of land at 121 S. Galena (Little Cliff's) hereinafter referred to as the "STOREHOUSE BUILDING". The property consists of Lot 5, Block 87, City of Aspen. It occupies the Northwest corner of E. Hopkins Avenue and Galena Street and is zoned CC, Commercial Core. As verified by the Pitkin County Building Department, the ' property's existing improvements consist of a one story concrete block building of 1,326.40 square feet and a walk-in cooler of 92.51 square feet, or 1,420 square feet of improvements currently occupied by Little Cliff's Bakery. The owner as of this date is the Rowland Estate. The applicant is Mr. Gregg Gibb who has the property under contract for closing on August 26, 1986. The ' agent for this application is Perry Harvey. A) Project Description ' There are two phases to this project, both of which provide tangible benefits to the Aspen Community. The first is the ' removal of the most rundown and least notable building in the Aspen Core area. The second is the construction of a new building with quality materials and sensitive design, to house two quaint and established businesses; Nature's Storehouse and Little Cliffs Bakery. The applicant, Gregg Gibb, is the owner of Nature's Storehouse and is creating a permanent home for this ' Aspen institution through this project. Little Cliffs has been offered space for a bakery and retail outlet but has not yet ' committed to a lease. In the event Little Cliff's does not occupy the space, Nature's Storehouse will open a bakery and yoghurt cafe, thus ensuring the preservation on the site of the infamous "Donut Tree". This project makes economic sense only because it is owned by the owners of Nature's Storehouse. The ' success of this application means two distinctive Aspen Business will be preserved. The new building will contain 4,497 square feet (external floor area). The ground floor of some 2,100 square feet will contain the retail bakery area and Nature's Storehouse, which ' will move from its present location in the C-1 district at 620 E. 1 Hyman. The basement of some 3,000 square feet is configured for a bakery, mechanical room, storage areas and a bulk goods display area for Nature's Storehouse. The second, or top floor, will consist of roughly 1,180 square feet of professional office space has with a separate entrance off of E. Hopkins Avenue. The roof been designed with a parapet to conceal the building's mechanical systems. rThe Storehouse Building will result in a net increase in commercial external floor area of 3,077 square feet, the new floor less the building's 4,497 square feet of external area 1,420 square feet of existing commercial floor area to be reconstructed as part of this proposal. L� pajeiodio- Biel puepay}ns loipeuaq 1. Water System: Existing utilities in the immediate area are shown on Drawing 2; Existing Conditions, Page 4. Water ' service to the project will be provided by a new service line connected to the existing 8" main in Galena Street. The preliminary fixture count will include four bathrooms with four ' sinks, one urinal, and four toilets. The bakery, restaurant and offices will have four sinks, two dishwashers and one shower. The water department has indicated that a connection to the existing service is acceptable and thus the existing City infrastructure has the capacity and facilities to accommodate the ' proposed Storehouse Building (see Exhibit 1, Appendix Page 26.) 2. Sewage System. The project will be served by either the existing 8" sewer located in the alley or the 20" sewer located in Galena Street. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated the anticipated flows will be accommodated by the current facilities, with no need for improvements to existing lines or treatment plant capacities (see Exhibit 2, Appendix, Page 27). - �GL[StB [O[ �t9iB o� u�E�� nu��v •I OBL� pa�eiod�oow uglel ONICIlins II pueliay}ns 3snOH3UOlS joipauaq j 3. Drainage System. Currently the site has no provisions for control of runoff so all runoff is collected in the City's storm drains. A sophisticated system will control virtually all runoff on site. Roof drains will collect water and channel it into a drywell beneath the building. Runoff from impervious surfaces will also be directed into drywells. Grading of open space and heating of the Plaza and walks for snow melt will eliminate existing problems of standing water and ice buildup. These measures will also increase pedestrian safety on the site. The City Engineer has indicated that this plan represents a substantial improvement to the City storm sewer system as a whole. 4. Development Data. The following table summarizes the site and development data for the Storehouse Building. TABLE 1 STOREHOUSE BUILDING SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA LOT AREA 3,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2,114 SQ. FT. OPEN SPACE 750.5 SQ. FT. EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA 4,497 SQ. FT. EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO 1.49 TO 1 EXISTING COMMERCIAL CREDIT 1,420 SQ. FT. 1986 COMMERCIAL GMP REQUEST 3,077 SQ. FT. 5. Traffic and Parking. The City Engineer has indicated that the proposed project will have no negative impact on the existing street system. Galena Street and E. Hopkins Avenue currently function below allowable capacity levels. The I location is in itself an auto disincentive as it is one block from the mall and the City bus serves the corner of Main and ' Galena. The current number of parking spaces on the streets will be maintained by the project. Currently the owner of Little Cliff's parks from time to time on the site between the Galena Street sidewalk and the building. We feel that this is not only ' an unsightly use on the property, but also should not be accepted ' as an off-street parking space by the current City administration. As Nature's Storehouse has a large local and ' tourist clientele, locating this well known business in the commercial core rather than the C-1 district should reduce ' overall auto traffic within the City. As a further auto ' disincentive, bike racks will be provided in the Plaza area. 6. Proposed Uses. The Storehouse Building is being ' custom built for the Nature's Storehouse format of market and cafeteria restaurant and for Little Cliff's type of bakery. The owner of the property is the owner of Nature's Storehouse so this ' use is assured. Little Cliff's has not as yet committed. In the event Little Cliff's elects not to rent space, the Nature's ' Storehouse management will open a bakery and yoghurt cafe in the northern most space. Given the architectural design, the second floor space of ' 1,180 square feet will be leased as professional office. 7. Impact on Adjacent Uses. The Storehouse Building site has for many years housed the Little Cliff's wholesale and retail bakery. The site is zoned, CC, Commercial Core. The ' proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the zone and are compatible with adjacent land uses. The Storehouse serves a 7 I large population of locals and tourists. This central location will encourage pedestrian access. Finally, having an attractive ' new building with a large open plaza for seating will enhance this block of Galena, encouraging pedestrian traffic between the ' mall and the commercial area at the corner of Mill and Main. 8. Construction Schedule. Upon successful receipt of a growth management allocation and approval of all incidental ' reviews as required, construction will begin immediately. The current lease for Nature's Storehouse expires in the spring of 1987, so the goal is to have the new building completed by ' spring. Should this plan prove impractical construction will begin in early spring of 1987 for completion in the summer. 9. Employee Housing Proposal. In meetings with the Housing office the following employee generation formula was ' arrived at: A. The second floor space, consists of 1,078 square feet of net leasable office space and generates 3.0 ' employees per 1,000 square feet resulting in a total of 3.2 employees. ' B. The ground floor 1,902 square feet consists of 245 ' feet of retail/wholesale bakery at 3.5 employees per 1 ,000 square feet, for a total of .86 employees. ' Nature's Storehouse will occupy 1,657 square feet, divided equally between retail/wholesale sales and ' cafeteria restaurant. The former generates 3.5 ' employees per 1,000 square feet, or 2.9 employees, while the latter generates 5.0 employees per square ' foot, resulting in 4.1 employees. C. The basement, net of storage, mechanical room, ' hallways and bathrooms, totals 852 square feet of retail/wholesale space. This is computed at 3.5 employees per 1,000 square feet, for a total of 3.0 employees. Thus the Storehouse Building will generate 14.0 employees. The existing 1,420 square feet of commercial space is categorized as retail/wholesale with an employee generation factor of 3.5 per ' 1,000 square feet. This results in a credit for the project of 5 employees, resulting in a generation of 9.0 new employees due to construction of the Storehouse Building. it 7 'L i J r- L We propose to provide housing for 3.5 employees, or 39% of the new employees generated. Specifically, we will comply with Section 5 of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1986, in which a new Section 24-11.10 (i) (3) provides for payment of an employee housing dedication fee based on the formula as approved by the City Council's housing designee. This formula calls for a cash payment at time of building permit of $20,000 per employee for low income housing, $13,300 per employee for moderate income housing, or $9,000 per employee for middle income housing. We will contribute to the creation of low income housing by paying $20,000 per employee, for a total contribution of $70,000. In agreeing to this cash payment (increasing the building cost by $15.50 per square foot) we maintain the right to work with the Housing Office in a development partnership to create a housing project specific to the Housing Office goals for 1986- 1987. This option could create immediate housing rather than funding for a future project. I I 1 I 1 II. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The following section addresses the specific review criteria for evaluation of the Storehouse Building. The information presented herein represents the applicant's best efforts to comply with the letter and the intent of the criteria. In every category the project meets or exceeds the minimum standards. At the end of each section we have given our requested scoring based on our understanding of the criteria and our degree of compliance therewith. As needed, please reference the appropriate sections in 1.A of this submission for support of the following representations. A. Quality of Design. The design presented herein has received preliminary approval from the Historic Preservation Committee and will receive final HPC approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. Architectural Design The design is of great importance in that this is the first building seen by residents and visitors alike when turning south onto Galena. It is the entrance to the heart of historic Aspen. The building has been designed to establish the elements of the streetscape without competing with the significant buildings on Galena; the Brand Building, Elks Building, and Independence Lodge. The basic building form is linear to define the Galena Street frontage and provide maximum open space in the south facing portion. The building is thirty-three (33) feet high at the tallest point, well below the allowable forty (40) feet in the CC zone. The building design is segmented into three separate masses; the retail space on the north end, the center section with a pitched roof and the southern facade defining the entrance to Nature's Storehouse and the plaza. The principal building material will be brick, with some sandstone, to effectively tie the building visually to the color and texture of City Hall and the Brand Building. The large ground floor windows integrate the building into the bright outdoor dining space and echo the shop fronts of Galena Street. The Storehouse Building has been designed to lead the eye up Galena Street, to echo historic elements in the material and detail while respecting the existing street scape. We are ' responsible in keeping the building low and in maintaining a contemporary design at street level so as not to compete with, ' and in fact complement, the historic buildings which gracefully lead the eye toward the mountains. Requested Score: 3 points. ' 2. Site Design. The concept for the project's design is to achieve the perfect proportion between the one lot, linear site and the structure. The goals are to minimize perceived building bulk while maximizing usable open space and blending 1 with the streetscape of Galena Street. As the site plan demonstrates, the pedestrian plaza is landscaped with specimen sized trees and planters to incorporate ' garden seating with pedestrian flow along sidewalks. Sidewalks patterned with brick and concrete have been designed to create an open feeling and a blending of the walks with the plaza. The ' entire open space/sidewalk area will have snowmelt to increase pedestrian safety and maximize the usability of the plaza. There 1 are two open space areas; the plaza, which qualifies under the 1 12 ' code and meets the 25% of open space and, the area in the front of the bakery. This space of almost 50 square feet, is for outdoor seating and has been incorporated into the project even though we receive no credit under the code for its inclusion. This open space has been created to maintain the tradition of ' Little Cliff's for outdoor seating and to break up the mass of the building. Additionally the applicant will spend the money to ' create a brick facade on the exposed wall of the thrift shop where it abuts the plaza so as to create a unity of richness for the plaza area and the brick of the Storehouse Building. All ' utilities in the area will be placed underground. Access for service and delivery vehicles will be via the alley, eliminating ' the intrusion into spaces which currently of vehicles people ' exists from vehicles sitting on the Galena Street frontage of the site. ' Requested Score: 3 points. 3. Energy Conservation. The project has been designed to maximize the conservation of energy and the use of the site for exposure to, and retention of, solar heat gain. Specific measures include the following: ' a) Building siting and orientation. The building has been oriented to give all spaces eastern and southern ' exposure. The upper floor will have an additional ' southwestern orientation. The greatest benefits for this site are derived from early morning and midday solar gain to heat the building during business hours. b) Solar utilisation. The flooring on the southern ' end of Nature's Storehouse will be tile to collect and 1 13 1 ' store solar energy. The light well from the patio to the lower level tiled floor will create additional solar gain for the building. It is anticipated that the building will be heated largely by passive solar in the brick tile flooring. gain, stored walls and c) Insulation. It is expected that the heat loss will be significantly reduced through the use of insulation ' in the walls and roof far in excess of current energy code requirements. td) Mechanical. The Storehouse building will be heated, cooled and ventilated using the latest state- of-the-art minimum energy technology. Heating and cooling will employ an energy efficient pulse system. Exhaust systems will be installed to transfer excess ' heat from cooking areas throughout the building. Cooling and ventilation will be provided by an indirect -direct evaporative air handling system. Air ' from this system will be circulated through ducts to provide conditioned air to the occupied systems. ' The building spaces will be heated primarily by ' solar gain with supplemental forced air and electric baseboard units. The mechanical systems will be zoned ' to allow shut off of unoccupied spaces and efficient control throughout the day and under all conceivable occupancy conditions. tRequested Score: 3 points. 1 14 I I 4. Amenities. The provision of amenities for the users of a project and for the community as a whole is relative to the location of the project and amount of available land. The objective for this property is to create a special use building for Nature's Storehouse and Little Cliff's bakery. These businesses have provided inviting and functional open space and the owners intend to expand on that tradition. The open space meets the City requirements and occupies the most visible and attractive portion of the site. Additional outdoor space has ' been created by the bakery for pedestrian and customer use. These spaces, combined with the snow melt on the sidewalk and the use of patterned, concrete and brick in sidewalks and the patio, enhance the experience for pedestrians. The size of the site and location relative to established and proposed pedestrian and bicycle paths makes inclusion of these amenities unnecessary. As mentioned in Section II.A.2., the open space and sidewalks will be heavily landscaped. Specimen size trees and ' planters will enrich the plaza and enhance the softness of the architecture. Dining furniture will further encourage the public ' enjoyment of this plaza amenity. Requested Score: 3 points. 1 16 i thus we are requesting special review approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to section 24 3.5 (b) for a trash and utility access area variance. The proposed area is eight (8) feet by twelve (12) feet by twelve (12) feet vertical. ' Discussions with the City Engineer, suppliers for the tenants of the building and with Tony Vagneur of B.F.I. Waste Systems have resulted in approval of the design based on the ' following solutions: a) An efficient delivery system will result from finstallation of a motor driven conveyor belt from I inside the service door to the basement storage room. Unloading will be accomplished by employees and suppliers efficiently with no need to stack boxes in the service access area. Deliveries to the bakery are made by two suppliers, one on Tuesday and one on Friday. Nature's Storehouse receives supplies six days a week, from one supplier each day. b) The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the placement of all utility meters on the west wall of the trash and utility access area. c) B.F.I. Waste Systems serves the current bakery three times weekly to empty a two cubic yard container. Nature's Storehouse historically generates two cubic yards of refuse daily. Assuming seven days a week operations, this is fourteen cubic yards, or twenty cubic yards weekly with a bakery. According to Mr. Vagneur the 19 1 5. Visual Impact. Great care has been taken with the scale and location of the Storehouse Building. It sits at the ' entrance to Galena Street, Aspen's primary North -South artery for residents and visitors alike. This is a street of historic ' buildings with storefronts from Main Street to Durant. The applicant has created a building in keeping with the storefront 1 scale of Galena, beginning with the one story bakery, rising to a maximum height of 33 feet (the CC zone allows 40 feet) and ending on the south end of the property with the warmth of the plaza and ' outdoor summer dining. This conscientious approach to the site accomplishes three goals; 1) Creation of a warm and human scale to this extremely important streetscape, and 2) Creation of open space and circulation patterns which highlight the public views of the scenic buildings and Aspen Mountain from the plaza and from the interior of the building itself. 3) Maintenance of views for all other buildings. The siting of the Storehouse Building is such that no view ' from any other building is affected and overall views are improved by this building's existence. ' Requested Score: 3 points. ' 6. Trash and Utility Access. Section 24-3.7 (H-4) of the Aspen Zoning Code requires a utility/trash service area for a building site up to 6,000 square feet of twenty (20) feet by ten (10) feet. Of this space, fifteen feet is for box storage, utility transformers or building access, and five (5) feet for ' trash facilities. This lot is only thirty (30) feet wide and 18 I L, P 1 r, generation from the office space will be "minimal". In discussions with Mr. Vagneur, the building will require installation of a compactor. Space analysis indicates that if a compactor will not fit in the service area adjacent to the alley, a compactor will be placed in the basement storage room in proximity to the conveyor belt. As the belt will be motor driven, transportation of trash to the container will present no problem. The proposed compactor provides a four to one reduction, creating five cubic yards weekly, or fifty percent of capacity, requiring service three times weekly. This system and schedule of service, should it under estimate actual volume, need only have an increase in removal frequency to insure its adequacy. While this project requests a reduction from code requirements due to site constraints, we meet all the requirements of adequacy of trash and delivery vehicle access, unique measures for compaction of trash, adequacy of area for utility meter placement and access, and unique measures for facilitating and expediting deliveries to the building. 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. 20 1 F 1. Water Supply and Fire Protection. The water department has stated that the project will be serviced by the existing service in the area. No upgrades will be required to the water system, treatment plant or the facilities. Water saving fixtures will be specified throughout the building. The intersection of E. Hopkins Avenue and Galena Street is one of the few remaining corners in the Commercial Core without a fire hydrant. The site is only one-half a block from the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department Station and response time will be virtually immediate regardless of the time of day. None the less we will install a new fire hydrant as part of the project. The exact location will be decided as a function of detailed project design. Provision of a new hydrant will improve the quality of service in the area of the project. Please see the letter from Fire Chief, Peter Wirth (Exhibit 3, Appendix, Page 28). Requested Score: 2 points. 2. Sewage Disposal. The Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated the building will be handled by the existing level of service in the area with no need for system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrade. Requested Score: 1 point. 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I u 11, I I I I 2 0 C E i cr 'a CL co 0 r M 1 0 < t2 cn CL 20 a III 11 3. Public Transportation and Roads. The City Engineer has stated that the Storehouse Building will be easily served by the existing street system as Galena, Hopkins and Main are currently functioning below allowed capacity. Public bus transportation is available on -half block away, at the corner of Main Street and Galena. Further bus access is available three blocks away at Rubey Park, the center of the City/County public transportation system. Requested Score: 1 point. 4. Storm Drainage. The Storehouse Building in and of itself improves the quality of the City storm drainage system. Currently the site provides no on -site retention of water runoff, so all runoff flows into the City storm sewer system. The installation of on site drywells will retain 100% of site water runoff. The City Engineer has stated that this will be an upgrade to the area and City-wide system. Requested Score: 2 points. 5. Parking. The Commercial Core Zone requires no on - site parking and, given the size of the site, on -site parking is impractical. The existing street parking will remain the same in the vicinity. There are no residences proposed for the site, so no parking is needed. Requested Score: 1 point. C. Provision for Employee Housing. The applicant proposes to house 3.5 employees, or 39% of the new employees generated by the project. This criteria will be met through the cash in lieu program specified in Ordinance 2, Series of 1986. The guidelines 23 1 to be met are for the low income housing guidelines. During construction we will work in concert with the Housing Office to develop a specific plan for the use of the money to create specific housing according to the desires and goals of the Housing Office. Requested Score: 9.75 points. D. Bonus Points. The Storehouse building achieves an exceptional standard in architecture and site design and is entirely deserving of bonus points. The site creates an open space plaza of unique appeal, perfectly sited for views and solar gain and creates a second open area by the bakery. The owner wants to put a brick facade on the wall of the thrift shop, an added expense, but one which will integrate the building and the site. The architectural design shows unusual sensitivity to the site and surrounding buildings by breaking the mass up to emphasize a low visual impact and by keeping the roof height well below the allowable forty feet in the code. You have the opportunity to reward and encourage this type of sensitivity by awarding bonus point. Specific noteworthy elements include the system and area improvements of a fire hydrant and 100% retention of surface runoff on the site. Finally the applicant is housing employees in excess of code requirements. 24 III. SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVALS We are seeking two special reviews. The first is under ' Section 24-3.5 (b) for reduction of the trash and utility access requirements provided for in Section 24-23.7 (h) (6). Secondly ' we are seeking a special review approval to utilize the open ' space for outdoor dining for some thirty-three (33) seats under Section 24-3.7 (d) (8)• 1 1 25 APPENDIX EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 July 16, 1986 Perry Harvey P.O. Box 8720 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Little Cliff's Building Dear Perry: In response to your inquiry, this is to verify that water is available via the 8" main in Galena Street, in sufficient quantity, and can be provided to the above referenced building, which we understand will accommodate a (59) seat restaurant and the bakery, upon payment of any applicable tap fees. S'ncerely, Jim Markalunas, Director Aspen Water Department /ab 26 APPENDIX EXHIBIT 2 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537 Perry Harvey P. 0. Box 8720 Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 17, 1986 RE: Storehouse Building Dear Mr. Harvey: We have researched this proposed project at 121 S. Galena and see no problem in providing sanitation service to this proposed project at 121 S. Galena. Sincerely Heiko Kuhn, Manager Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 27 I APPENDIX EXHIBIT 3 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5532 July 22, 1986 Mr. Perry Harvey 520 E. Durrant Street Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: The Little Cliff's Property Dear Perry: Based on our very brief discussion, the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department should have no problems in providing service to the proposed commercial project to be constructed on the Little Cliff's property. The Fire Department would like to see the addition of a fire hydrant on the corner of Galena & Hopkins on the proposed site. As you are aware, the fire station is located on the same block as your project and our response time is approximatley three (3) to five (5) minutes regardless of the time of day. if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely Peter Wirth Fire Chief a CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 0��3,,��DATE RECEIVED:�6- I � CAOSl' E N0. •�) DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE:,/ STAFF: PROJECT NAME: - J hy _ LAO r`r h fgI APPL ICANT • Gr G i 613 Applicant Addres hone: 1(, REPRES EN TAT IV E: Representative Addres Phone: Type of Application: I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat II. Subdivision/PUD 1. Conceptual Submission 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Final Plat III. All "Two Step" Applications IV. All "One Step" Applications V. Referral Fees - Environrpental Health, Housing Offices/ 1. Minor Applications 2. Major Applications Referral Fees - Engineering• 0 t,'/A 20 - 2060 92S - 21(' z 20 $2,730.0O 12 1, 0 6 820 .00 14 $1, 900 .00 9 1,220.00 6 820 .00 11 $1,490.00 5 $ 680.00 5 $ 125.00 Minor Applications Major Applications l o� C�J� -ab lik( 80.00 Pd'��I 200.00 P&Z \ CC MEETING DATE: Salo PUBLIC' H EAR ING : YE NO DATE REFERRED: �Z� G INITIALS: Z� REFERRALS: City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric Statei3wy Dept (Gr.Jtn) j City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn I Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: -------------------------Roaring -Fork -Transit - Roaring Fork Energy Center ------------ `------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:�--�S- INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer �. Building Dept. i Other : FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Oth er : CASE DISPOSITION Reviewed bv: ,�en Pf�Z City Cou*l � j 1 17�;;L,; l.lWi.l , ciririt 'ry is�''.` ✓L`l'�"./ `'l.i I�'j ',r'.• ` r T /' / r / t2 v^z� 6k?.+ /L`l':'! �,P'7C'•i.r l i,;:�'�LtLCI� 4 f06%C';:'/'� L�L�4�st.f �.j, Lr•,71,�5 r�;ifvj'�f� Reviewed B-: F.spen P&Z �. City Counci AAM V .0 �, F• , "fir ��c i� �i f lilt r Ltl CanZ�'1 �►� ' '� .v� Lr f�l6MGtR�s�v og 3 .lc:.- 0. 6°�� 04 OY"•R,CI l r'/' i !l i) �t Cti'm�na^�un� /,�'� r�G►t ' 7(�,tic*w , �1 (I C— RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves -------------------------------- -- - RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1986) A RESOLUTION GRANTING COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENTS TO PITKIN CENTER, HUNTER PLAZA AND THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING THROUGH THE 1986 CC/C-1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.5 (a) of the Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of application for commercial development allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, a total of three applications were submitted for evaluation in the CC and C-1 competition category, listed as follows: Project 1. Pitkin Center 2. Hunter Plaza 3. Storehouse Bldg. ;and GMP Allocation Requested 3,067 sq. ft. 7,260 sq. ft. 3,077 sq. ft. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on September 30, 1986 to consider the CC and C-1 GMP Competition, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the projects; and WHEREAS, all three projects met the minimum threshold of 25.8 points by scoring as follows: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Proj ect Pitkin Center Hunter Plaza Storehouse Building ; and 100 Leaves ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Total Points Given by P&Z (avg.) 31.7 30.4 29 WHEREAS, the quota available in the 1986 Commercial GMP competition is 14,813 sq. ft. within the CC and C-1 zone dis- tricts; and WHEREAS, The Commission considered the representations made by the applicants in scoring these projects, including but not limited to the following: 1. Pitkin Center A. Rusticated sandstone and old or tumbled brick will be used on the front and side facades of the building. Final approval of the design by HPC shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. B. Useable public open space will include a plaza area with planting beds, high canopy trees, and benches, and a 5 foot wide mid -block pedestrian link on the east side of the property. C. Insulation and solar energy features will be used as represented in the application. D. All storm drainage water will be retained on - site. E. Two covered parking spaces will be provided on - site for residential tenants. F. The 250 sq . ft. trash and utility area will be paved and screened by a brick wall. G. A dumbwaiter or separate elevator for food service will be installed if a restaurant is located on an upper story of the building. K RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves H. The applicant will deed -restrict four (4) studio units in the building to the low and moderate income employee housing guidelines. 2. Hunter Plaza A. Architectural elements of the building will include a recessed second story, height not to exceed 28 feet; second floor terrace with land- scaping and use of brick and terra cotta. B. The courtyard will contain planting boxes, ornamented fountain, benches, bike racks, and a street light. "Snowmelt" will be installed under exposed aggregate and brick parcels in the courtyard. A minimum of nine (9) street trees in tree grates will line Cooper Avenue and Hunter Street. C. Curb cuts will be removed from Cooper Avenue and Hunter Street; curb and gutter will be replaced where required; and a handicap ramp will be provided at the intersection. D. Insulation, solar energy and a high efficiency gas boiler will be installed as represented in the appl icati on. E. All storm drainage water originating from the building will be retained on -site; and the run-off on the adjacent City right-of-way will mainly be intercepted by the tree wells and landscaping. F. The applicant will make a cash -in -lieu payment, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit to provide housing for, 8.0 low income employees. 3. The Storehouse Building A. Design elements of the building will include a height not to exceed 33 feet, breaking up of the massing, vertical proportions of windows, doors and dormers and use of brick. The exposed wall of the Thrift Shop abutting the pl az a will be given a brick facade or another treatment that is accept- able to the H PC . 3 U • ; and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves B. Included in the plaza open space will be restaur- ant seating, planters, bike racks, and street trees as represented in the application. Snow melt will be installed under the patterned brick and concrete plaza and sidewalks. C. Energy conservation measures including solar massing, skylights, insulation and an energy efficient heating and cooling system will be used. D. A fire hydrant will be installed on they rt east�norlAnn7 corner of Galena and Hopkins at the ap s S° expense. E. All surface run-off will be retained on the site. F. The applicant will provide a 96 sq. ft. trash and utilities area, install a trash compactor in the basement and install a conveyor belt from inside the service door to the basement storage room. G. The applicant will make a cash -in -lieu payment, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit of $70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low-income employees and .687 moderate income employees. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the recommended Aspen Planning and zoning Commission scoring for the three projects on October 27, 1986 and did pass a motion granting the allocation of the requested allotments; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council determined that the unused 1985 quota in the CC and C-1 zone districts should not be carried over because the annual quotas are adequate for the relative growth needs in those zone districts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that: 4 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves a) From the available 14,813 sq. ft. of the 1986 com- mercial quota in the CC/C-1 zone category (1) 3,067 sq. ft. is allocated to Pitkin Center, (2) 7,260 sq. ft. is allocated to Hunter Plaza; and (3) 3,077 sq. ft. is allocated to the Storehouse Building. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that the above allocations shall expire pursuant to Section 24-11 .7 (a) of the Municipal Code in the event plans, specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the proposed commercial buildings are not submitted on or before May 1 , 1989. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that the 1,409 sq. ft. which remains unallocated in the and CC/C-1 zones category shall not be carried forward. Dated: 1986. William L. Stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting to be held on the SB.45 day of Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 5 , 1986. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager l't FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office �_ RE: 1986 Commerical GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews DATE: October 21, 1986 Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council grant commercial growth management allotments to Little Nell, Wesson Building, Pitkin Center (520 E. Hyman), Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse Building. The Planning Office also recommends that you carry over the unallocated square footage in the office zone but not that in the CC/C-1 or NC/SCI zones. Requests: The following applications have been made in this year's commercial growth management competition: GMP Reconstruction Allocations Space/On-site Project Zone District Project Requested Housing Total Quota Competition 1. Little Nell 6,992 sf 12,339 sf 19,331 sf CL and Other 2. Wesson Bldg. 2,487 sf 2,906 sf 5,393 sf Office 3. 700 E. Hyman 9,000 sf - 9 ,000 sf Office 4. Pitkin Center 3,067 sf 8,933 sf 12,000 sf CC/C-1 5. Hunter Plaza 8,125 sf 4,740 sf 12,835 sf CC/C-1 6. Storehouse Bldg. 3,077 sf 1,420 sf 4,497 sf CC/C-1 Quota Available: Quota for the Commeri al GMP competition is calculated as follows: 1 • • Zone District Annual Exemptions/ Total Quota Category Quota Additions Available Quota Requested CL and Other 3,000 sf 0 3,000 sf 6,992 sf Office CC/C-1 NC/SCI 4,000 sf 0 4,000 sf 10,000 sf +4,813 14,813 sf* 7,000 sf 0 7,000 sf 11,906 sf 14,269 sf X *See Alan Richman' s Memorandum of Sectember 22, 1986 for details of the CC/C-1 quota calculation (attached) . Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, Pitkin Center, and the Storehouse Building. The above projects needed HPC conceptual approval to be eligible to submit GMP applications according to Section 24-11,3 (d) . The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the six commercial GMP applications at their regular meer-i ngs of September 2, 16, and 30, 1986. Scoring was done individually by each Commission member, and the scoring summary sheets for each project are attached hereto. Also considered and approved by P&Z were the following special reviews: 1. Wesson Bldg.: a. Parking Reduction: P&Z unanimously granted a reduction in on site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on the condition that the two residential spaces shall be demarked for the use of those tenants. b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9:1 subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge of the property in conjunction with the adacent landowner. 2. Pitkin Center: a. Parking Requirements: P&Z approved 5 in favor and 1 opposed two parking spaces for the two 1-bedroom free market residential units. b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously approved an FAR of 2:1. 2 0 • 3. Hunter Plaza: a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the requested 25 ft. by 10 ft. trash/utilities area. 4. Storehouse Building: a. Trash and Utilities Area: P&Z unanimously approved the requested 8 ft. by 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject to the placement of a trash compactor in the basement of the building. b. Restaurant Use of Open Space: P&Z unanimously approved the requested restaurant use of required open space. Allocation Issues: All of the projects except 700 E. Hyman met the minimum thresholds and are eligible for allocations. The one successful Office Zone Competitor (Wesson) and all three CC/C-1 competitors (Pitkin Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse) can be given allotments from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Little Nell project was granted an allotment by Council on September 22, and is included in this discussion only to formalize that action by the attached resolution. The Planning Office recommends that these five projects be given the requested allocations, as would be accomplished by Council Adoption of Resolution (attached) . Carry -Over of Unused Quota: Over the past several years, the allotments remaining from the Council can either carry-over follows: CC/C-1 544 sf Office 1,513 sf NC/SCI 7,000 sf Council has generally eliminated prior year. The quotas which or eliminate this year are as The Planning Office believes that there is little rationale to carry over the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone district categories. In the CC/C-1 zones, we are seeing development in both 1985 and 1986, at a rate within the framework of the growth management policy. There is no apparent need to increase the quota for 1987. The NC/SCI zone district has seen no development activity since the imposition of the quota. While some activity may be necessary to keep up with growth in the residential sector, a carry-over would create a 1987 quota in these zones of 14,000 sf, which we believe could encourage one or two projects of a scale inconsistent with our development and growth policies. 3 The Office Zone is seeing the first new development this year since the quota was established in this zone district. We believe that carry-over of the unused 1,513 sf is reasonable because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office space in the community. Office space may be needed in response to recent residential, lodging, and ski area expansion. Of equal importance are the circumstances surrounding the failure of the 700 E. Hyman Building to meet the competitive threshold. A major issue which arose with respect to this building was the applicant's use of covered parking above grade and his request for a Planning Office interpretation of whether such space should count in the project's FAR. Due to an unusual workload this summer, we were unable to adquately analyze this issue prior to the August deadline. When this issue was analyzed in the review process, an agreement could not be reached between staff and the applicant and the P&Z was required to make the interpretation. Although P&Z agreed with the applicant that such space is exempt from FAR under the Code, they felt that the applicant's design was flawed because of this approach and scored the project accordingly. The applicant has appealed the scoring (see attached letters from Dave Myler) but has agreed at the Planning staff's urging to drop the appeal if Council carries over the unused square footage to next year. We strongly recommend that you carry the 1,513 sf over to address the unfortunate problem which occurred with respect to this project. Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends adoption of Resolution , Series of 1986, to grant allocation to Little Nell, Wesson, Pitkin Center, Hunter Plaza, and the Storehouse Building, to grant a future year allocation to Little Nell, eliminate the unused quota in the CC/C-1 and NC/SCI zone districts and carry-over the unused office quota. Ancillary Reviews: 1. Pitkin Center: a. Employee Housing Parking: Council sets off-street parking requirements for employee housing units, according to Section 24-4.1 (c) . The applicant would provide two on -site parking spaces for the use of the two free market residential units, and no parking spaces for the four employee units. The Planning Commission accepted the two spaces and recommended to Council to establish no parking requirement for the employee units in a vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed. The Planning Office position is that some on -site employee parking is needed. The one space per bedroom standard used in other zone district would result in four spaces for the four employee studios. We believe 4 some reduction from this standard is reasonable because (1) some low and moderate income tenants living at Pitkin Center may not be able to afford a vehicle and (2) location within the downtown makes walking very convenient, and a car is not necessary. Staff supports setting the parking requirement at two spaces for the 4 employee units. It should be noted that few options for off -site parking exist in this location. Parking on adjacent streets is limited to two hours or less during the day, and is occupied day and night in winter and summer. There is no municipal parking garage that might serve this need; and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed (although it is a possiblility in the future) . Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends estab- lishing a requirement of two parking spaces for the four employee studio units. b. Pitkin Center Employee Housing GMP Exemption The Applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to Section 24-11.2 (f) of the Municipal Code for four (4) on -site employee units. Each unit would contain 450 square feet. On September 11, 1986, the Housing Authority recommended approval of the proposed program. P&Z unanimously recommended approval on September 30, 1986. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the requested GMP exemption for employee housing subject to the following condition: 1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed - restricted to the low and moderate income employee housing guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Pitkin Center including procedures and regulations stated in Ann Bowman' s memorandum dated September 9, 1986 and summarized below: a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his selection. b. Units shall be restricted to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies, as stated in Section 24-3 .7 (0) (1) of the Municipal Code, as amended. 5 • 0 c. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing Office. d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Autority prior to recordation with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office." 2. Storehouse Building: The applicant has proposed to pay $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for the equivalent of 3 9% of the employees generated. This calculation was made based on misinformation on employee generation. Subsequently, revised calculations were made for payment of $70,000 to house 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income employees, to the satisfaction of the Housing Office and Housing Authority. The Planning Office also supports this employee housing program. Section 24-11.10(i) (3) of the Code provides that applicants may obtain credit for employee housing via a cash -in -lieu dedication, subject to the approval of this option by the City Council. In making their recommendation to you on this issue the Planning Commission expressed concern that the cash -in -lieu be sufficient to build employee housing and the Housing Authority develop a program to build employee housing units in a timely manner. A joint P&Z and Housing Authority meeting is scheduled for November 25, 1986 to begin to address this issue and to initiate the Housing Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. P&Z voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed to recommend Council to accept the proposed cash -in -lieu for employee housing. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment of $70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income employees as adjusted to the current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit." 3. Hunter Plaza: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Authority for housing the equivalent of 9.2 low income employees. The Housing Authority recom- mended approval of this program on September 11, 1986. P&Z recommended approval on September 30, 1986. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000 to provide housing for 9.2 employees at the low income level , as adjusted to the current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. " R. 4 . Hunter Pl az a Existing Floor Area Credit Issue: The applicant has requested a technical clarification on the calculation of existing FAR to include the covered area over the gas pumps, in addition to the area within the building, for which we have already given the applicant credit. A letter from Vann Associates is attached presenting rationale for this interpretation. The Planning Office agrees that technically this area should be included in FAR. However, it is our understanding that the only reason the applicant wants to obtain this additional credit for 865 square feet, is merely to reduce the size of the cash -in -lieu dedication which must be made. Since employee generation is based on net leasable square footage, Whether we include or exclude the gas pumps is irrelevant to the applicant's net employee housing generation. It would be inappropriate to allow this area to be included in the Reconstruction FAR, therby reducing the amount of GMP allocation, and consequently reducing the employee housing commitment. We recommend that you find the canopy does not count toward a floor area credit. 5. Wesson Building: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in - lieu payment to the Housing Authority of $16,625 to house 1.25 moderate income employees. The Housing Authority recommended approval of this program and P&Z accepted it on September 16, 1986. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the cash -in -lieu payment of $16,625 to provide housing for 1.25 moderate income employees, as adjusted to the current payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit." City Manager's Re/commendation: 6V Qf� (4N '4 �W 4Wi✓0yy Seeps 51POWA r ^1 , 4Sf/ ,✓,.' C I E ti o f /- J,, 3 om f 19' Y ,, • ; s Ste, 5 r'a 7Wd S AIIs-e 1� / r- 7f f> 7441 A7U QR(1'4-1N 17Rt of 6 0Pr« i��Wsi�✓c. ��si� y A'r�. iS� , A,-e i/- M -' �k,ft if vie 4 � fi rhC�..e G,� d' ii✓ A ; lust a r�c e `� l�h� /GyY-¢e 1/0'If N[ � lewS - - (40 U S i - Fait figm /G /Ci 6W , 1/- G � I �d PvJ� /)7/ /7 AQh - 7 Yyg - 4fM*fl k /✓h S-Zx) rvt 0 1` e I Ilk If) 415 1X4 (A- & (, 4 -11e5,E /"ices , 7 i C A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 30, 1986 - Tuesday 5:00 P.M. City Council Chambers lst Floor City Hall SPECIAL MEETING I. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hunter Plaza CC/C-1 Commercial GMP Scoring Session B. Nature Storehouse CC/C-1 Commercial GMP Scoring Session C. Pitkin Center CC/C-1 Commercial GMP Scoring Session III. NEW BUSINESS A. Pitkin Center FAR Bonus; Employee Housing GMP Exemp- tion; Parking Reduction B. Nature Storehouse Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing; Reduction of Trash and Utility Requirements C. Hunter Plaza Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu Employee Housing; Reduction of Trash and Utility Requirements IV. ADJOURN MEETING A. COY MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 1986 Commercial GMP Competition in the CC and C-1 Zone District DATE: September 25, 1986 INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review are the Planning Office recommended points allocations for the three applications submitted on August lst for the Commercial GMP competition in the Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts. QUOTA AVAILABLE AND REQUESTED: By Resolution 29, Series of 1985, City Council did not carry over the unallocated quota for commercial development in the Commercial Core and C-1 Commercial Zones and set the 1986 quota at 10,000 square feet. Given the additions and deletions to the commercial inventory from 9/l/85 to 8/31/86 as explained in Alan Richman's September 22, 1986 memo (attached) the available 1986 quota is 14,813 s. f. Quota allotment requested for this competition is as follows: 1. 520 E. Hyman (Pitkin Center) 2. Hunter Plaza 3. Nature's Storehouse Total Quota Request 3,067 sq. ft. 8,125 sq. ft. 3,077 sq. ft. 14,269 sq. ft. DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND ANCILLARY REVIEWS: 520 E. Hyman: The proposed building is located in the vacant lots between the Pitkin County Bank and Trust and the Wachs Building (Cheapshots) . 7,133 sq. ft. of the new building would be reconstructed space, including two free market residential units. The building would contain in total 7,822 sq. ft. of commercial space, including retail shops, a restaurant, and professional offices, and 4,178 sq. ft. of residential space, including two free market and four deed -restricted employee housing units. Prior approvals given this project include (1) a GMP exemption for demolition and reconstruction of commercial space and two residential units, approved by Council on 11/23/81; and (2) a subdivision exception to split merged townsite lots into four (4) separate parcels, Lot 0, Lot P, Lot Q and Lots R and S of Block 94, approved by Council on 12/27/82. Ancillary reviews in this application include: a. Employee Housing GMP Exemption to deed restrict four (4) on - site units to low income. b. Special Review for Bonus FAR of .5:1 bringing the total FAR to the maximum allowable of 2:1. C. Special Review to set the residential parking requirements for the two (2) free market and four (4) employee units. HUNTER PLAZA: The proposed building is located on the northeast corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue in the C-1 zone district and would replace Palazzi's Texaco Service Station. 4,740 sq. ft. of the new building would be reconstructed space. In total, the two (2) story building would contain 12,875 sq. ft. of commercial space (external floor area) , entirely devoted to retail commercial purposes. A cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000 (as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 9.2 low income employees would be provided to the Housing Authority. Ancillary reviews in this application include: a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash - in -lieu to house 9.2 low income employees. b. Special Review for reduction in trash and utilities area requirements. THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING: The proposed building would replace Little Cliff's on the northwest corner of Galena and Hopkins. 1,420 sq. ft. of existing commercial space would be recon- structed. In total, 4,497 sq. ft. (external floor area) would be built to house Nature's Storehouse Restaurant and Store, a retail bakery and 2nd floor offices. A cash -in -lieu payment of $70,000 (as currently calculated) to house the equivalent of 3.73 employees would be provided to the Housing Authority. Ancillary review in this application include: a. Consideration of the applicant's proposal to provide cash - in -lieu to house 3.73 low and moderate income employees. h. Special review for reduction in trash and utilities area requirements. PROCESS: The Planning Office will summarize these projects at your meeting of September 30, 1986, review procedures with you, and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of the applications. The applicants will give brief presentations 2 0 of their proposals. Public hearings will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of each hearing, the Commission members will each be asked to score the appli- cant's proposal. The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to each project. A project must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, and 3 amounting to 25.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the points available in each category 1, 2, and 3 to be eligible for a GMP allotment. The minimum points are as follows: Category 1 = 5.4 points; Category 2 = 3 points; and Category 3 = 8.75 points. Should an application score below these thresholds it will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will be considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an application over this minimum threshold. PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points to each application as a recommendation for you to consider. The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and objectively score the proposals. The following table is a summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached score sheets, including rationales for the rating. Quality of Design Availability of Public Facilities of Services Employee Housing Bonus Total Need Points Points 520 E. Hyman 13.5 5 10.4 0 28.9 Hunter Plaza 14 5 10 0 29 Storehouse 13 5 9.75 0 27.75 ANCILLARY REVIEWS: If you concur with our rating, all three applications meet the minimum threshold for GMP allotment. Since there is sufficient quota to address the needs of all three projects, meeting the threshold will make each project eligible for an allotment. The Planning Office has the following comments regarding special reviews associated with each project. 9�1 520 E. HYMAN (PITRIN CENTER) Application: A. Employee Housing GMP Exemption The applicant requests a GMP exemption pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (f) of the Municipal Code for four (4) on -site employee units. Each unit would contain 450 square feet. On September 11, 1986, the Housing Authority recommended approval of the proposed program. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority and Planning Office recommend approval of the 520 E. Hyman employee housing subject to the following conditions: 1. The four 450 square foot units shall be deed -restricted to the low and moderate income employee housing guidelines. Deed restrictions shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 520 E. Hyman Building, including procedures and regulations stated in Ann Bowman' s memorandum dated September 9, 1986 and summarized below: a. Owner shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his selection. b. Units shall be restricted to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies, as stated in Section 24-3 .7 (0) (1) of the Municipal Code, as amended. C. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing Office. d. Deed restrictions shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. B. Special Review for Reduction in Parking The Planning Commission has final review authority over free-market residential parking requirements in the CC zone and the ability to recommend employee housing requirements to Council. Sections 24-4.6 and 24-4.1 (c) of the Code give the applicable provisions for the two actions. The applicant would provide two covered parking spaces for the use of the two free market residential units. This meets the standard of 1 space per bedroom required in other zone districts, and is acceptable in staff's 4 view. No on -site parking would be provided for the use of the four employee studios. The 1 space per bedroom standard would result in four more spaces required on - site. Some reduction from the standard is reasonable given the following factors: 1) Low and moderate income tenants would live there and some may not be able to afford a vehicle, and 2.) Location within the downtown makes walking to work, grocery stores, and entertain- ment very convenient, and therefore, a car is not necessary. Consequently, the Planning Office believes it is reasonable that over the long term, at least 1 of the 4 employees will not have car, and we would support setting the parking requirement at three (3) employee parking spaces for the project. It should be noted that few options for off -site parking exists in this location. Parking on adjacent streets is limited to two hours or less during the day, and is occupied day and night in winter and summer. There is no municipal parking garage that might serve this need, and cash -in -lieu for parking is not allowed (although it is a possibility in the future) . RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the parking special review f or the two spaces for the two 1-bedroom free market units. Staff recommends P&Z to recommend Council to establish a requirement of 3 parking spaces for the four employee studio units. C. Bonus FAR Special Review: The applicant requests approval of a special review for bonus FAR to add 1200 square feet of commercial space (.2 : 1 FAR) and 1_800 square feet (.3 : 1 FAR) of employee housing space. This amounts to .5:1 FAR increase, which is the maximum allowable in the CC Zone district according to Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code. Section 24-3 .5 (a) of the Municipal Code states the criteria for P&Z's review: "(1) Compatibility of the development with surrounding land uses and zoning,, including size, height and bulk, proposed site design characteristics, including landscaping and open space and visual impacts such as viewplanes. (2) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the availability and adequacy of water supply, sewage treatment, storm drainage, roads and parking 5 facilities to serve the proposed development. " Staff believes that the 520 E. Hyman Building is mainly compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning. As noted in the Planning Office recommended scoring of this project, the building size and height are not out of character with other buildings on the block. The open space and landscaping schemes are acceptable and no important public views are affected. Service areas of water, sewer, storm drainage, and roads are adequ- ate. Parking, however, is not adequate in staff's view for the six units on -site, as discussed in comments on parking special review. If the objective is to successfully maximize usage of the site, then parking needs should be handled on the site for the employee housing component enabling this bonus FAR. Little rationale has been given in the application to demon- strate that no employee housing parking is needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of the bonus FAR special review based on the deficiency of residential parking. If the applicant is willing to work on providing additional parking, the application should be tabled to review the new site configuration. HUNTER SQUARE APPLICATION: A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The applicant proposes to make a cash -in -lieu payment to the Housing Authority for housing the equivalent of 9.2 low income employees. The Housing Authority recommended approval of this program on September 11, 1986. Ordinance 2, Series of 1986 gives Council the option to accept or deny the employee housing dedication fee proposed. The Planning Office believes that it is incumbent upon the Housing Authority to develop a program to create housing with the funds given it from this and other developments. Low income dormitories and senior citizen housing have been the top priorities identified. We recommend that you make a recommendation that some such program be developed within 6 months and brought before the P&Z prior to review of any of the 1987 GMP applications. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend that Council approve of the cash -in -lieu payment of $184,000 to provide housing for 9.2 employees at the low income level, as adjusted to the payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. C. B. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and Utilities Area: Section 24-3.7(h) (4) sets the size of the trash/u- tility service area in the CC and C-1 zones and allows for the P&Z to vary the required area by special review pursuant to Section 24-3 .7 (b) (attached) . On page 31-32 of the application, rationale for this reduction is stated, including: ( 1) The building is only 835 square feet larger than the building size that requires a 25 ft. x. 10 ft. area. (2) Based on actual trash generation calculation for similar buildings, the 25 ft. x. 10 ft. area appears to be sufficient. (3) The trash area will be paved, covered, enclosed on three sides and be large enough for three two -yard dumpsters (4' x 71). (4) Trash compaction will be neither required nor provided. The Engineering Department stated they do not have any problem with the requested reduction, however, they recom- mend installation of a trash compactor. The Planning Office also notes that the alley service entrance (approximately 5 feet wide) also goes through the 25' x 10' area for trash and utility. While it appears that two dumpsters may fit in with utility boxes, three may constraint service flow from the alley into the building. With a compactor, as recom- mended by Engineering, such a problem should not occur. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested 25 ft. x 10 ft. trash/utility area subject to installation of a trash compactor, as meets the approval of BFI, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING Application: A. Consideration of Cash -In -Lieu for Employee Housing: The applicant has proposed to pay $70,000 cash -in -lieu to the Housing Authority to provide for the equivalent of 39% of the employees generated. This calculation was made based on misinformation on employee generation. Subsequently, revised calculations were made for payment of $70 ,000 to house 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income employees, to the satisfaction of the Housing Office and Housing Authority. As discussed in regard to the Hunter Square cash -in -lieu proposal, we support the acceptance of this option but recommend that the Housing Authority must develop a housing 7 program to utilize this payment which should be reviewed by P&Z before the next round of GMP applications in 1987. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P&Z to recommend Council approval of the cash -in -lieu payment of $70,000 to provide housing for 3.043 low income employees and 0.687 moderate income employees. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. F. Special Review for Reduction of Required Trash and Utilities Area: The applicant proposes an area of 8 ft. x 12 ft. for trash and utilities off the alley, while 20 ft. x. 10 ft. is the standard required for buildings up to 6,000 sq. ft. in size. Rationale provided include: (1) The provision of a trash compactor and motor driven conveyor for efficient delivery of goods. SB.64 (2) Calculations of the historic trash generation of Nature's Storehouse, Little Cliff's Bakery and that projected for other tenants, as effected by the 4:1 compaction. (3) The 6 or 7 days per week pick up service from BFI anticipated. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the area reduction given the trash compactor. Engineering also recommends that the compactor be placed inside the building and not next to the dumpster. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested 8 ft. x 12 ft. trash/utilities area subject to the placement of a compactor, as meets the approval of BFI, in the basement of the buildino. Installation shall be accomplished prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occu- pancy. N. CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: THAT REHOUSE BUILDING _ DATE: 9/22/86 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 poi nts) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Fate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 2.5 COMMENT: The proposed building would contain 4,497 s.f. (FA 1-5:1) and be 33 feet high at the tallest point, It woul d be a relatively small brick structure with two storefronts, The HPC MEMOII ! • • !• ! • •!- •�• •• • doors an• windows shouldecho ! • complement thehistoric Galena WheelerStreet streetscaipe, including City Hall, Brand Building an • ., The alpiplicanthas also committed to create a brick facade • ! the Hopkins Avenue - of 1e Thrift Shon./ should help unify the Hopkins streetscape. 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: CO MMEN T: Two oipen space/outdoor dining areas would be provide as usable open sipace, for a total of 25 percent of the site, Th e accom-- modate nine tables, A smallerof •• 1 s.f. is next to the pronosed bakery and could accommodate 2 tables without extending into the right-of-way. The street trees and planters in the diagonal plaza should help screen the building and make the sitting space more inviting. The service entrance off the alley would appear to work safely and efficiently. C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2 !' • • - • -!- •� a !! , •1 11• - - ! !" • d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2 COMMEN T: The outside dining areas, snowmelt and bike r appear to be standard amenities of this project, A e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: Concepts for the scaling and location of the building include to create a storefront that is complementary in scale and materials with the historic buildings along S. Galena Street and to keep the structure small enough to not overpower the small 3,000 s f lot No major public views will be impacted. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2 494- -21 11111111 - _WW kle-dViMM 11 - • - • •! �- - !- tor/dumpster arrangement, Engineering recommends that th • 1 ). • • - iplaced inside the building ! not next • ti d_11! 2 SUBTOTAL: 13 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ( maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following f or m ul a: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing 1 ev el 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. a . 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, consi- dering 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 -• �. �- • �- - ..-. • .•• 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: The Sanitation District stated that this T)roject can be served with existing lines and sewage treatment capacity. 3 • C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: • - • - •!- •_ W. • _! - 10 !- • • row• • ! ! ! • !" l • •. 0 "! d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: 1 • 11 ! - •• •! • • �• • ! • ! • • ! ! !1*10 a InflIM• !.. • eliminated, however the Planning Office cienerally only fee s that service to the neighborhoods is improved when all run-off would be retained •! 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 SUBTOTAL: 5 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City 4 0 0 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 f or each 12% housed RATING: 9.75 COMMENT:1 • • originally proposed • !• 1 for the eauivalent of 39 pex-cent of the total emiployees gener- - ! to be •, income emiplQyees1 1 11 After meetings wit1 the HoUSipq QQuaiLiq 1 • 1• 1• !I11•• 9 I. •timiloompm- for theeauivalent of 1 • , 1 • 11 - emr,,lovees! • 0,687 moderate income1 ` vercent of - • revised iproposal, recocrnizinQ that misinformation was theonly reason for changing the •_ p 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT: The Planning Office does not award bonus points. 5 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGE1ENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: " �� DATE: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING : 2 ` COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 2 ` COMMENT C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 • 0 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: -21 COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: -Z' COMMENT: 2 SUB TO TAL 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: v COMMENT: b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: COMMENT: 3 • • C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: ' COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) - The Commi s- n 0 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: COMMENT: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING: Ir-� 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. COMMENT: 5 BONUS POINTS: • 0 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 (minimum of 5.4 points needed /"*'to remain eligible) (minimum of 3 points needed to ,x-emain eligible) (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) /11 Ifi-e-V ( minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: N. tp • CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGE1ENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: s`�I ' /� /((i�s L DATE: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - ConsiderinG the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: CO MATE N T : b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 2- COMMENT C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING COMMENT : f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: Z- COMP'IENT: rd SUBTOTAL: 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING: / COMMENT: 3 • C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. / RATING COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point f or each 4% housed 41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed ter,, RATING : D7r COMMENT: 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT: 5 1 • • 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to eligible) Points in Category 3:�.,_\,,/remain (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- 20 / gories 1, 2, & 3 L-UvA (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: swi �, //�// /q� ZjW nw_,(� 0 /4s /,t,/v CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: T/l/"�� S�U,9 DATE: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING/: Z COMMENT • G/GG' ` Z b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING COMMENT: C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: L COMMENT : d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: 2- CO M rlE N T : e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: COMMENT: tl SUBTOTAL: 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: _ COMMENT: b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. J RATING: COMMENT 9 C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: COMMENT• e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENT SUBTOTAL: (1 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point f or each 4% housed 41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed q RATING: COMMENT: 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS :`O- COMMENT Gq 9 • 5. TOTAL POINTS 11.5 Points in Category 1: ( minimum of 5.4 points needed remain eligible) �o Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: Y,_?_r_(minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- 2g-7i gories 1, 2, & 3 ��_ (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 Z�7� TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: 51 WP lton Anpvv o�_ • • CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: DATE: �� qt0 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 2. 5 COMPIENT b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 2' S COMMENT C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 • u orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: 2' COMMENT : d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: I COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 2 COMMENT: SUB TO TAL : 13 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. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT: bazi-RA or) IAA b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. COMMENT: 91 RATING: c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainaae facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: 2- COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: I COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 Sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed COMMENT: RATING: 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT 5 • 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: 13 (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) 7 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) �S (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) �� ( minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) J Name of Planning and Zoning member: C CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: DATE: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Fate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING - COMMENT: _ C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 • orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: -z___— COMMENT : d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: 'Z- COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: _ COMMENT: 2 SUB TO TAL : I" 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services. according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. COMMENT: 3 RATING: ' 0 • C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: �- COMMENT e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENT: SUBTOTAL 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point 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 r RATING: �f 7 S COMMENT: 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: ( minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: z (minimum of 3 points needed to eligible) QQemair_ Points in Category 3: ( (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 � (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: l r CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: S 1 -A �f J -/ U I -(D) Q (- _ DATE: 9 - 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: � COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: )/ COMMENT • — c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING: COMMENT : d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING: COMMENT : f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: CO MME N T : 2 SUB TO TAL : _Z✓ 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision. of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering sewers to dispose of the wastes without system extensions and other facility upgrading. COMMENT: 3 the capacity of sanitary of the proposed development without treatment plant or RATING: r c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: COMMENT e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENT SUBTOTAL: 3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING ( maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11 .10. Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point f or each 4% housed 41 to 1000 of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed COMMENT: RATING: `•'7 �' 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT 5 5. TOTAL POINTS % Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2:_ (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: �� J (minimum of 8.75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member: MEMORANDUM TO: Growth Quota Files FROM: Alan Richman RE: Quota Available - 1986 CC/C-1 Competition DATE: September 22, 1986 Following is a summary of the status of the quota for the CC/C-1 competition in 1986: 1. The annual quota in the CC/C-1 zone district is 10,000 sq. ft. 2. There is no square footage to carry over from prior years due to Council' s action in Resolution 85-29 . 3. There have been the following additions/deletions to the inventory between 9/1/85 and 8/31/86 which need to be accounted for in the inventory since they were exempt from the competition requirements: Additions Deletions Hotel Jerome + 5162 sq. f t. Hotel Jerome - 6836 sq. ft. The Grill + 145 sq. ft. Brand Bldg. - 3284 sq-ft- Total + 5307 sq. f t. -10 ,120 sq. ft. 4. The quota available is therefore as follows: 10,000 sq. ft. (original quota) - 5,307 sq. ft. (additions to be deducted from quota) +10,120 sq. ft. (demolitions to be added to quota) 14,813 sq. ft. (available CC-C-1 quota for 1986) I(f) CMOWE SEP 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department DATE: September 10, 1986 RE: The Storehouse Building GMP Application ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application, the Engineering Department has the following comments: TRAFFIC AND PARKING This project will not significantly impact adjacent streets as these are currently operating below capacity. The CC zone does not require on -site parking for uses other than residential and this project does not offer any. The addition of bike racks will serve as an auto disincentive. E The sidewalks must be at least 8' wide. The plan for the sidewalk area must be approved by CCLC. If any permanent planter boxes are to be installed in the sidewalk, an Encroachment License must be obtained. DRAINAG E The application proposes to retain 100% of the water run-off. This would improve the historic drainage of the site. We would like to see more detailed plans of their retention system. UTILITIES The application commits to underground all utilities. TRASH/UTILITY AREA Nature's Storehouse presently generates two cubic yards of trash daily. In their new location, I assume that their hours of operation will be extended through dinner. This would probably add another cubic yard of daily refuse. For an operation of seven days per week, the trash generation would be 21 cubic yards plus six cubic yards per week for the bakery, a total of 27 cubic yards per week. The applicant proposes to use a trash compactor. We strongly ny1w S+orenoUSC AV6cC .Mleh I S (c) �-� b ) Page Two September 10, 1986 The Storehouse Building GMP Application support this proposal. If the compaction ratio is 4:1, then there will be about seven cubic yards of trash per week. A dumpster for this amount could be contained within the proposed area. we request that the compactor be placed inside the building and not next to the dumpster. I i1s/2iN /?m Fine 41 August 14, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Steve, I am acting as agent for Gregg Gibb, owner of Lot 5, Block 87, City of Aspen., known as the Storehouse Building to be located ort the sit cui-rentiy occupied by Little Cliff's Bakery. Pursuant to section 24-3.5(b), I am requesting special review approval for reduction of the trash and utility access area provided for in Section 24-3.7 (h). While the code states this review must be accomplished prior to the Growth Management competition, it is my understanding it will be reviewed at the time of the scoring. The code requires a utility trash service area for a building site up to 6,000 square feet of twenty (20) feet by ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet verticle. Of this space, fifteen (15) feet is for box storage, utility transformers or building access and five (5) feet for trash facilities. As the site consists of only one lot thirty (30) feet wide, we are requesting special review approval for a trash and utility area of eight (8) feet by twelve (12) feet by twelve (12) feet verticle. Discussions with the City Engineer, suppliers for the tenants of the building and with Tony Vagneur of B.F.I. Waste Systems have resulted in ap- proval of the design based on the following solutions: a) An efficient delivery system will result from installation of a motor driven conveyor belt from inside the service door to the basement storage room. Unloading will be accomplished by employees and suppliers efficiently with no reed to stack bo::es in the service access area. Deliveries to the bakery are made by two suppliers, one on Tuesday and one on Friday. Nature's Storehouse receives supplies six days a week, from one supplier each day. b) The City Engineer has reviewed and approved the placement of all utility meters on the west wall of the trash and utility access area. c) B.F.I. Waste Systems serves the current bakery three times weekly to empty a two cubic yard container. Narure's Storehouse historically generates two cubic yards of refuse daily. Assuming seven days a week operations, this is fourteen cubic yards, or twenty cubic yards weekly with a bakery. According to Mr. Vagneur the generation from the office 520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000 Aslte41 /?Mf ffA A 11slouattl space will be "minimal". In discussion with Mr. Vagneur, the building will require installation of a compactor. Space analysis indicates that if a compactor will not fit in the service area adjacent to the alley, a compactor will be placed in the basement storage room in proximity to the conveyor belt. As the belt will be motor driven, transportation of trash to the container will present no problem. The proposed compactor provides a four to one reduction, creating five cubic yards weekly, or fifty percent of capacity, requiring service three times weekly. This system and schedule of service, should it under estimate actual volume. Need • my f'ave an increase in reinoval. f-oqulenc _ i^.sur It,& adequacy. While this Proiect requests a reduction from code requirements due to site constraints, we meet all the requirements of adequacy of trash and deliv- ery vehicle access, unique measures for compaction of trash, adequacy of area for utility meter placement and access, and unique measures for facilitating and expediting deliveries to the building. The second special review being requested is pursuant to Section 24-3.7 (d) (8) and is for a commercial restaurant dining. The site plan shows garden seating for thirty-three (33) seats. Nature's Storehouse has traditionally had outdoor dining at the present location and hopes to continue this tradi- tion. The siting of the open space is such that it is ideal for outdoor dining. As the intent of open space is for the public views and public use allowing outdoor dining enhances the public use of open space with no distur- bance of the public views. Thus granting special review approval will in no way derogate the purposes of the open space requirements and will in fact, enhance the usability of the open space. PH/lw Should you have any questions or need further information please call. Sincerely, Perry Harvey 520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000 �r— ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 MEMORANDUM TO: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford, Director RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications Review comments on energy related aspects of The Storehouse Building Commercial GMP INSULATION No actual.. R-values are stated in the proposal. They specify insulation "far in excess of current energy code requirements." This leads us to hope for the best, but actual R-values for each building component need to be defined before any evaluation can be made. SOLAR ENERGY The site has good potential for daytime passive solar heating. The use of the floors and brick walls is commendable as it provides necessary mass to store some of the sun's energy as it enters the building. There is no consideration of using solar energy to heat water. The skylight should, in addition to solar gain, provide daylighting to lessen the need for electric lighting. WATER CONSERVATION No mention of water conservation devices appears in this proposal. Since a restaurant uses a considerable amount of water, it would seem prudent to use some conserving fixtures (eg. faucets, showerheads, toilets, dishwashers). MECHANICAL SYSTEMS If we assume this heating system is at least 80% efficient, the zoned capabilities are used to shut off unoccupied space and heat exhaust is used to heat other areas, the heating should be quite efficient. • PJ tip ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 Storehouse page 2 OTHER COMMENTS Until there are established performance criteria for energy use, our comments are very relative. We cannot tell from the information in this proposal what the estimated energy needs are for the Storehouse Building. It does appear that the developers are very conscious about conserving conventional energy and using solar energy. We would need more information to perform an energy analysis that would help define just how "energy efficient" this proposed building will be. �i M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: JANET RACZAK, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 23, 1986 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, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3077 sf of commercial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena (Little Cliff's) . The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct and approximately 4,497 sf commercial structure. This application is submitted pursuant to Section 24-11.5 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The property consists of Lot 5, Block 87, City of Aspen. It occupies the northwest corner of E. Hopkins Avenue and Galena Street and is zoned CC, Commercial Core. As verified by the Pitkin County Building Department, the property's existing improvements consist of a one story concrete block building of 1,326.40 sf and a walk-in cooler of 92.51 sf or 1,420 sf of improvements currently occupied by Little Cliff's Bakery. There are two phases proposed for this project. The first is the removal of a rundown building in the core area. The second is the construction of a new building to house two established businesses; Nature's Storehouse and Little Cliffs Bakery. Little Cliffs has been offered space for a bakery and retail outlet but has not yet committed to a lease. In the event Little Cliff's does not occupy the space, Nature's Storehouse will open a bakery and yoghurt cafe. The ground floor will contain 2,100 sf of retail bakery and Natures' Storehouse. The basement (3,000 sf) is configured for a bakery, mechanical room, storage area and bulk goods display area for Nature's Storehouse. The second or top floor, will consist of roughly 1,180 sf of professional office space with a separate entrance off of E. Hopkins Avenue. The roof has been designed with a parapet to conceal the building's mechanical systems. The Storehouse Building will result in a net increase in commer- cial external floor area of 3,077 sf. The new building's 4,497 sf of external floor area less the 1,420 sf of existing commer- cial floor area is to be reconstructed as part of this proposal. The applicant proposes the following employee generation: 1 1. The second floor space = 1,078 x 3.0/1000 = 3.2 emp 2. The ground floor space = 1,902 (245 of retail/wholesale bakery at 3.5/1000 or .86 employees. 3. Natures Storehouse will occupy 1,657 divided equally between retail and cafeteria restaurant. Retail 3.5/1000 or 2.9 employee and 5.0/1000 x 1,657 = 4.1 emp 4. The basement net of storage, mech. rm. etc. total 852 or retail or 3.5/1000 for 3.0 employees The Storehouse Building will generate a total of 14.0 employees. The existing 1,420 sf of commercial space is categorized as retail/wholesale with an employee generation factor of 3.5/1000. This results in a credit for the project of 5 employees, result- ing in a generation of 9.0 new employees. The applicant proposes to provide housing for 3.5 employees, or 39% of the new employees generated and will comply with Section 5 .,f Ordinance No.2, Series of 1986, in which a new Section 24- 11 .10 ( i) (3) provides for payment of an employee housing dedication fee based on the formula as approved by the City Council' s housing designee. The applicant states he will pay a low income housing contribution of $20,000 per emp for a total contribution of $70,000. In agreeing to this cash payment (increasing the building cost by $15.50 per sf) we maintain the right to work with the Housing Office in a development partnership to create a housing project specific to the Housing OFfice goals for 1986-1987. This option could create immediate housing rather than funding for a future project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I met with Perry Harvey, applicants representative, and we discussed the employee generation. I suggested that he add the additional employee as calculated below and address the cash -in -lieu as follows: 1. The second floor space = 1,078 x 3.5/1000 = 3.7 emp 2. The ground floor space = 1,902 (245 of retail/wholesale bakery) at 3.5/1000 or .86 employees. 3. Natures Storehouse will occupy 1,657 divided equally between retail and cafeteria restaurant. Retail 3.5/1000 or 2.9 employee and 5.0/1000 x 1,657 = 4.1 emp. 4. The basement net of storage, mech. rm. etc. total 852 or retail or 3.5/1000 for 3.0 employees. Total employees generated 14.56 Credit for existing = 5 emp. TOTAL FOR PROJECT 9.56 or 10 employees The applicant had stated that he would pay a low income housing contribution of $20,000 per em p for a total contribution of $70,000. However with the new employee the calculation will be 1.5 emp. at low income $20,000. = $30,000 and 3 employees at moderate income or $13,300 = $39,300.00 for a total of $69,300. ACTION NEEDED: Approval of staff recommendation. 3 • 0 PERRY HARVEY PO BOX 8720 ASPEN t CO 81612 (3031 920-2000 September 16, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Steve: 1E@1E0W[2'K�) will* This letter is intended to clarify my position regarding employee generation for the Storehouse Building 1986 GMP submission. When I began to compile the submission I re -read the applicable code sections. Section 24-11.5 (3) discusses employee generation for new commercial projects. Under CC/C-1 the section outlines the applicable ratios . . ."based on review of the City Council's housing designee." Further this section states "provided that upon the demonstration to the City Council's housing designee that these standards should not be applied to a particular project, the commission may employ an alternative standard recommended by the designee." Given these clear references to the housing designee, I contacted the Housing Authority to review my measurement of square footage and employee generation ratios to assure that my submission would accurately reflect the calculations of the Housing Office. The special nature of Nature's Storehouse as a cafeteria restaurant indicated an employee generation factor of 5.0 per 1,000 for that portion of the space used as a restaurant. This was recommended by the Housing Office as the correct standard for this restaurant. The day before the submission went to the printers the Housing Office called me twice telling me to use an employee generation factor of 3.0 per 1,000 square feet for the top floor office space. I changed my figures from 3.5 to 3.0 because of these calls. The code uses 3.5 for space in the commercial core because it could be office or retail. In reality, the architecture of this building is such that the top floor will not work as retail space because of the recessed windows. This floor will be leased as office space. Mr. Steve Burstein September 16, 1986 Page Two On August 28th the Housing Authority Board met to review the CC/C-1 GMP submissions. In an unanimous action the Board stated that their guidelines should be followed rather than the Code's because they were more timely than the Code's. This left me in a quandary because I had used 3.0 employees per 1,000 square feet while the guidelines used 3.9 per 1,000. I had acted in good faith and discussed my situation with the Housing Office stated that validation of my figures by the Planning Office and the Commission is vital to this applicant. The GMP process often favors larger projects, as pointed out in Alan Richman's August 20, 1986, memorandum regarding the interviewees for code simplification. The Storehouse application requests 9.75 points, providing for 3.9% of the employees generated. The housing office has refigured my employee generation to a total of 10.0 new employees. The Housing Office has approved a provision of 1.5 employees as low income and 3.0 employees at the moderate income level. Thus I am now housing 4.5 of the 10 employees generated, for a point total of 10.4. In complying with Section 59 Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1986, we will pay an employee housing dedication fee of $69,900, based on the formula as approved by the City Council's housing designee. According to the Code, I have the right to discuss with the Housing Office the standards to be applied to a given project. I reached an agreement with the Housing Office regarding the treatment of employees generated by the Storehouse Building. Candidly, the Housing Office gave me an erroneous formula for office generation. I was informed of this by Ann Bowman and further informed of the proposed solution, to which I agreed. Thus, in the Storehouse GMP Application, Section II C on page 23. Provision for Employee Housing Should read as follows: The Applicant proposes to house 4.5 employees, on 45% of the new employees generated by the project. This criteria will be met through the cash in lieu program specified in Ordinance 2, Series of 1986. The guidelines to be met are for 1.5 low income and 3.0 moderate income employees. During construction we will work in concert with the Housing Office to develop a specific plan for the use of the money to create specific housing according to the desires and goals of the Housing Office. REQUESTED SCORE: 10.4 POINTS • • Mr. Steve Burstein September 16, 1986 Page Three Please contact me if you have any questions. I would appreciate your including this letter of clarification in the package for the Commission members. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Perry Harvey PH:mao As/tk ReaQ CiAtZ 1100c;4As AUG206 August 18, 1986 Mr. Alan Richman Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 19111 Dear Alan, I am writing you in reference to our conversation about the Storehouse Building 1986 Commercial Growth Management application. As I explained I used the Employee generation figures as given me by the Housing office. These figures are 3 employees per 1,000 square feet for office and 5 per thousand for restaurant. I am aware that the code prevails and the code figures are 3.5 and 5.25 respectively. Using the figures supplied by Ann Bowman, I show a net generation of 9 employees. Using the code figures I generate 9.8 employees and still make the threshold of 35%, or 3.43 employees. However, my submission calculations provide for 39% of the employees, or 9.75 points. I am trying to contact the owner to determine whether he wishes to ammend the employee generation calculations. I appreciate your allowing me to amend my submission prices to the scoring. As soon as I have word from the owner as to his preferenced course I will contact you. PH/lw Sincerely, y Perry Harvey 520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000 /1s/te4 /?"f rfAte fig August 13, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Burstein, 'tc.tIvt This letter will serve as authorization for Perry Harvey to serve as my representative for submitting the Growth Manage- ment package for the Storehouse Building. Thank you. GEG/lw Sincerely, L legg E. Gibb 520 E. Durant, Suite 204, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000 11 • MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Housing Director City Engineer Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Janet Lynn Raczak, Planning Office RE: CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP Applications DATE: August 20, 1986 Attached are the 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP applications received by the Planning Office. A brief overview of the applications follows: PITRIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067 s. f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman. The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s. f. of commercial space and tow residential units (2,3785 s. f.) which were removed in 1982. BUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f.. commercial GMP allotment.. The property is located at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots R and L and all of Lots M, N and O, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct an approximately 12,835 s. f. commercial structure on the property. THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s. f.. of commer- cial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena (Little Cliff's) .. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct an approximately 4,497 s. f. commercial structure. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than September 8th in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare its presentation at a public hearing. Thank you. • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1986 CITY OF ASPEN CC/C-1 ZONE DISTRICT COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 30, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider three 1986 City of Aspen CC/C-1 Zone District Commercial GMP applications. A brief overview of the applications is as follows: PITKIN CENTER COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Pitkin Center Joint Venture, is requesting a 3,067 s.f. commercial GMP allotment in order to construct a building on the two vacant city lots west of Pitkin County Bank, 520 E. Hyman. The applicant proposes to reconstruct 4,755 s.f. of commercial space and two residential units (2,378 s.f.) which were removed in 1982. HUNTER PLAZA COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Hunter Plaza Associates, is requesting a 8,125 s.f- commercial GMP allotment. The property is located at the corner of Hunter Street and Cooper Avenue (Palazzi Texaco, Service Garage and a parking lot) , more specifically, southerly portion of Lots K and L and all of Lots M, N and 0, Block 100, City of Aspen, Colorado. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct an approximately 12,835 s.f. commercial structure on the property. THE STOREHOUSE BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP The applicant, Gregg E. Gibb, is requesting 3,077 s.f. of commercial GMP allotment. The property is located at 121 S. Galena (Little Cliff's) . The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct an approximately 4,497 s.f. commercial structure. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/C Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 28, 1986. City of Aspen Account. N.12 10WW-AYYL1lAT1UN C:UNYLKENCE SUMMARY • 6`6-66 PROJECT- Ljf#'r C I' f K A?PLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE: PMX�, N&NIft REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME: SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: r�✓' r,n1r. ^( 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: Rec�nsk��t,,� i tin 1300 4 GMP - fin IZ000 , INc✓l,( dh I t` ort, . 6�,%t u fao J 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments Veii1a,kTjo. Auto"w/ ►I) 4u •-v7'► e�c� ��"MJ _ CbnSifrr,,�h nopL � i�t !� d�i),�'�1 uM�9"� �ry1/�jr,�{S%vp )jr {;,tMr►t�1A1� Ti4 Reid1* 4 PC,ej..' _ Ihgy'tL,"? ✓'iJ 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES)-• (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 8. Anticipated date of submission: A✓%'� 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE iS' cam nl x7.0(; Ih p Gvti,�f^t„y� ^.�v+,� rr� br., I� 'Fri ' %k-,{'�Sl,,q� anl�Ouft►� A tf�� U- • ProF� Ihtfreii ►- AI oiJQ's S-{ ire kou5-P, c,m I f plIco, � ASPEN OFFICE The printed portions orthis form approved by the I rh/dh ® 514 E. Hyman Colorado Real Estate Commission (SC 22-'2-N11 A.Den, Ca 81811 (303) 925.7000 THIS IS A LEGAL INSTRUMENT. IF NOT UNDERSTOOD, LEGAL. TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL SHOULD BE CONSULTED BEFORE SIGNING. 0 SNOWMASS OFFICE Snowmasa Mall P.O. Box 5039 Snowmaaa Village. Co. 81815 COMMERCIAL (303) 923.3020 ❑ CARBONDALE OFFICE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE 711 Main P.O. Box 1284 (Seller's Remedy limited to Liquidated Damages) Carbondale, Co.81623 (303) 983.3300 M881111eMOR8e May 28 19 86 NCORPORATED The undersigned agent hereby acknowledges having received from Gregg Gi bb the sum of $- .go, 000 • 00 in the form of_.4-9QV&eM1 d`tobeheld by- Mason & Morse, Inc. i broker, in broker's escrow or trustee account, as earnest money and part payment for the following described real estate in the City of Aspen_ - __ _-_ County of _ _ P1 tki n , Colorado, to wit: Lot S, Block 87, City of Aspen, together with all easements and rights of way appurtenant thereto, all improvements thereon and all fixtures of a permanent nature currently on the premises except as hereinafter provided, in their present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, known as No. 121 South Galena. Aspen. Colorado 81611 (Street Address, City, 7.ip1 and hereinafter called the Property. 2. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 17, the undersigned person(s) Gregg Gi bb (as joint tenants/tenants in common), hereinafter called Purchaser, hereby agrees to buy the Property, and the undersigned owner(s), hereinafter called Seller, hereby agrees to sell the Property upon the terms and conditions stated herein. 3. The purchase price shall be U.S. $ 380 , 000.00 payable as follows: $ 20 000_00 hereby receipted for; $56,000.00 cash plus customary closing costs to be deposited in the form of wired funds at Stewart Title Company of Aspen one (1) day prior to closing. Purchaser to obtain a loan in the amount of $304,000.00 at no more than 11°i and 22 points. 4. Price to include the following personal property: None to be conveyed by bill of sale at time of closing in their present condition, free and clear of all personal property taxes, liens and encumbrances,>�>(t� Oyiv4ivany personal property liens in any encumbrance specified in paragraph 11. The following fixtures of a permanent nature are excluded from this sale: None. 5. If a new loan is to be obtained by Purchaser from a third party, Purchaser agrees to promptly and diligently (a) apply for such loan, (b) execute all documents and furnish all information and documents required by the lender, and (c) pay the customary costs of obtaining such loan. Then if such loan is not approved on or before July 25 19_Z6, or if so approved but is not available at time of closing, this contract shall be null and void and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. & haser-agrees-4e-a4) 1 required and agrees to pay (1) a loan transfer fee not to exceed $ an 21ar1ltteest rate not to exceed % per annum. If the loan to be assumed has prow' fa a shared equity or variable interest rates or variable payments, this contract is condit�"po urchaser reviewing and consenting to such provisions. If the lender's consent to a loan ass ptaorfls required, this contract is conditioned upon obtaining such consent without change in the t conditions of such loan except as herein provided. 7. If a not made payable to Seller as partial or full payment of the purchase price, this contract shall not F19-1-mrFll, by Qt rehn -ine thout-writteneonsen"f geller. No. SC 22-2-81. ('onilart In Itu% and Sell Rval };sl ate wommerrial) RroulforJ F'u Lhshi n41'u., Lx2i W. 6th A%,•.. La kr ..... ('„6rndsn±Id—i:;u ;, •_+:ia (iOtto _. 10-81 .t 8. Cost of any appraisal for loan purposes to be obtained after this (late shall be paid by Purchaser. 9. $� Ap?tl 9q'lf current commitment for title insurance policy in an amount equal to the purchase price, at Seller's tlww.� expense, shall be furnished to Purchaser on or before June 5 ,198./�i��d�1��l�c�t�s��itirlii/s�✓s�i/d�tit�e'>v�tia�i��dor�ii��it� Seller will deliver the title insurance policy to Purchaser after closing and pay the premium thereon. 10. The date of closing shall be the date for delivery of deed as provided in paragraph 11. The hour and place of �. closing shall be as designated by __ Mason & Morse, -Inc. 11. Title shall be merchantable in Seller, except as stated in this paragraph and in paragraphs 12 and 13. Subject to payment or tender as above provided and compliance by Purchaser with the other terms and provisions hereof, Seller ghall exe Lite and deliver a good and sufficient general warranty deed to Purchaser on August 19 86 , or, by mutual agreement, at an earlier date, conveying the Property free and I clear of all taxes, except the general taxes for the ,year of closing, and/WW free and clear of all liens for special improvements installed as of the date of Purchaser's signature hereon, whether I assessed or not; free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except none, I i! except the following restrictive covenants which do not contain a right of reverter: N/A, and except the following specific recorded and/or apparent easements: reservations and restrictions, including and not limited to those set forth in the Title Insurance Commitment which do not render the Title unmarketable, and subject to building and zoning regulations. 12. Except as stated in paragraphs 11 and 13, if title is not merchantable and written notice of defect(s) is given by Purchaser or Purchaser's agent to Seller or Seller's agent on or before date of closing, Seller shall use reasonable effort to correct said defect(s) prior to date of closing. If Seller is unable to correct said defect(s) on or before date of closing, at Seller's option and upon written notice to Purchaser or Purchaser's agent on or before date of closing, the date of closing shall be extended thirty days for the purpose of correcting said defect(s). Fxcept as stated in paragraph 13, if title is not rendered merchantable as provided in this paragraph 12, at Purchaser's option, this contract shall be void and of no effect and each party hereto shall be released from all obligations hereunder and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. 13. Any encumbrance required to be paid may be paid at the time of settlement front the proceeds of this transaction or from any other source. Provided, however, at the option of either party, if the total indebtedness secured by liens on the Property exceeds the purchase price, this contract shall be void and of no effect and each party hereto shall be released from all obligations hereunder and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. 14. General taxes for the year of closing, based on the most recent levy and the most recent assessment, prepaid rents, water rents, sewer rents, FHA mortgage insurance premiums and interest on encumbrances, if any, Oy shall be apportioned to date of delivery of deed. Purchaser shall be responsible for any sales and use tax that may accrue because of this transaction. 15. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Purchaser on delivery of Deed, subject to the following leases or tenancies: The current month -to -month lease with Clifford Little, If Seller fails to deliver possession on the date herein specified, Seller shall be subject to eviction and shall be liable for- a daily rental of $_Z-Q K___-- . -_- until possession is delivered. 16. In the event the Property shall be damaged by fire or other casualty prior to time of closing, in an amount of not more than ten percent of the total purchase price, Seller shall be obligated to repair the same before the date herein provided for delivery of deed. In the event such damage is not or cannot be repaired within said time or if the damages exceed such sum, this contract may be terminated at the option of Purchaser and all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser. Should Purchaser elect to carry out this contract despite such damage, Purchaser shall be entitled to all the credit for the insurance proceeds resulting from such damage, not exceeding, however, the total purchase price. Should any fixtures or services fail between the date of this contract and the date of possession or the date of delivery of deed, whichever shall be earlier-, then Seller shall be liable for the repair or replacement of such fixtures or services with a unit of similar size, age and quality, or an equivalent credit. 17. Time is of the essence hereof. If any note or check received as earnest money hereunder or any other payment due hereunder is not paid, honored or tendered when due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not performed as herein provided, there shall be the following remedies: (a) IF PURCHASER IS IN DEFAULT, then all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited by Put -chaser and retained on behalf of Seller and both parties shall thereafter be released from all obligations hereunder. It is agreed that such payments and things of value are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and (except as provided in subparagraph (c)) are the SELLER'S SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for the Purchaser's failure to perform the obligations of this contract. Seller expressly waives the remedies of specific performance and additional damages. (b) IF SELLER IS IN DEFAULT, (1) Purchaser may elect to treat this contract as terminated, in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned to Purchaser and Purchaser may recover such damages as may be proper, or (2) Purchaser may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Purchaser shall have the right to an action for specific performance or damages, or both. (c) Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, in the event of any litigation arising out of this contract, the court may award to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expense, including attorneys' fees. • 0 18. Purchaser and Seller agree that, in the event of any controversy regarding the earnest money held by broker, unless mutual written instruction is received by broker, broker shall not be required to take any action but may await i any proceeding, or at broker's option and discretion, may interplead any moneys or things of value into court and may recover court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 19. Additional provisions: I See Addendum attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. j 20. If t is proposal is accepted by Seller in writing and Purchaser receives notice of such acceptance on or before 31 this instrument shall become a contract between Seller and Purchaser and shall i ure to the ene it o e,r. ccessors and assigns of such parties, except as stated in paragraph 7. Broker MASON & MORSE, INC. r�,�n�.e� ut t • arc Gk�edberg Purchaser's Address CZQ / 5 � 7Do I (The following section to be completed by Seller and Listing Agent) 21. Seller accepts the above p op al this ___ _ day of __ ,��-.L _ 19 rand agrees I' to pay a commission of — ( 101___% of the purchase price for services in this transaction, and agrees that, in the event of forfeiture of payments and things of value received hereunder, such payments and things of value shall be divided between listing broker and Seller, one-half thereof to said broker, but not to exceed the commission, and the balance to Seller. I Seller SOIL-[ `d• I Seller's Address Listing Broker's Name and Address_____ I� i I i OPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIP 130 S. Galena Street Aspen,'Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Dea r This is to inform you that the Plannin Off ice has completed its preliminary review of your �'��c�n�:.� �;�,c� application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application _. is complete. _ is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list (one copy onlyn needed) . Additional copies of entire application. Authorization 'by owner for representative to submit application. Response to th,e attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance, with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. ,Y A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it for review by the 1 rr_ ' on 7n We will be calling ycau if we need any additional information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum �.vailable to you. Please note that it !? �Yn_(is not) your responsibilityto post your property with �a sign, which we can , provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. Please feel free to call lLecrr�;c�;�•-�chP-c-,- who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OF�ICE v /blan Richman, Planning and Development Director AR: jlr a &EN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Pz r-1_ \ t� t LA Dear This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its � preliminary review of your ��-- ^- �� - application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application _. is complete. ✓� is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: vI'L Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed) . / Additional copies of entire application. Authorization by owner for representative to submit / application. Response to the attached list of items demonstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ _ is due. A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it f or review by the on We will be calling you if we need any additional information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. Please f eel free to call +� who is the planner assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director AR: j1r