Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Stapleton 702 W Main.A52-935a 33< Stapleton Commercial GMQ. �.. Sppecial Review & GMQS Exe 2735-124-45-006 A52- " ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street / Aspen, Colorado 81611 Z 73 S Z Y � —VS�-O 0% (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Signif. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering - County 00115-63340-163 Engineering - City 00123-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL N� Name:_ Address: Phone: Project: f�� Check#: __Date: --- No of Copies: �- I WILLIAM C. STAPLETON AGENCY 1993 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ' SUBMISSION IN THE OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT ri a WILLIAM C. STAPLETON AGENCY, INC. 1993 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SUBMISSION IN THE OFFICE ZONE SPECIAL REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING September 15, 1993 Submitted to: The Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 920-5000 FAX: 303 / 920-1582 Applicant: Stape Limited Liability Company 533 East Hopkins Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-1230 FAX: 303 / 920-1582 Prepared by: Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8080 FAX: 303 / 925-8275 I CONSULTANT TEAM Attorney Gideon Kaufman The Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8166 FAX: 303 / 925-1090 ' Architects Sutherland Fallin, Inc. 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 925-4252 FAX:925-2639 tLand Planning Joseph Wells, AICP Joseph Wells, Land Planning 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 / 925-8080 FAX: 303 / 925-8275 [l I n I. COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATION (Sec. 8-106) A. Description of Proposal. This application, filed on behalf of David and Don Stapleton, who own the 4,000 square foot parcel located at 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Company, requests a Commercial GMQS Allocation sufficient to complete a new office building on the site under the provisions of Sec. 8-106(F), Special Review for FAR square footage in excess of .75:1 and off-street parking under Article 7, Division 4, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing under Sec. 8-104(c)(1)(c), Exemption from Park Development Impact Fees for affordable housing under Sec. 5-606 and Vested Rights under Sec. 20-25. The Stapletons propose to demolish the existing residence on the lot and build a new structure to relocate their insurance offices to the property. The new building will also include two deed -restricted housing units on the lower level. The site includes the east 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite, a total of 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Located on the northwest corner of Main and Sixth, the site is within the Main Street Historic District. The existing residence of approximately 1,200 sq.ft. is an undistinguished building which is a remodel of a barn which was moved onto the lot in the 1940's and converted to a dwelling at that time. In the late 50's, the pitched -roof shed was added in the back as a garage and later, in the 1970's, a second flat -roofed structure was added behind the house. Total existing square footage is approximately 2,100 sq.ft. The intent of the Commercial/Retail Action Plan of the Aspen Area Community Master Plan dated January 1993 is to "provide incentives for managed strategic growth by locally serving commercial and office uses..." The Stapleton's insurance company is one of the local services which has already been forced out of the commercial core by rising rental rates. This is a problem which is identified in the community plan as a concern which should be addressed. The purpose of the Office zone district is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual 1 1 L 1 11 1 F scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. The proposed office building is consistent with the intent of the zone district. The City's land -use regulations require that applicants for a commercial GMQS allocation for a site within an Historic District must first obtain Conceptual Development Plan approval from the HPC prior to filing for an allocation. The project received unanimous conceptual approval from the HPC on September 8. The HPC also approved demolition of the existing non- contributing structures on the site. In addition, a separate application for a variance from the minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 60 feet in the Office zone district to permit the construction of an office building and deed -restricted housing on the lot has recently been approved by the Board of Adjustment. The proposed structure is a simple rectangular building with the gable end of the rectangle facing Main Street. A partial cross gable is incorporated in the design approximately one-third of the depth of the building away from Main Street. A one-story roof element is attached to the front gable which extends out over the front porch to protect the entry and reduce the scale of the facade fronting on Main Street. The building has been raised up on a stone base by approximately 2' - 6" which is a common design feature in many historic residential buildings. Required handicapped access is incorporated along the west side of the building in order to maintain the natural appearance of the lawn area on the Main Street side of the building. Parking and a trash area are located off of the alley. A portion of the parking area is protected by an overhang which is incorporated in the design. The site will be maintained in the traditional pattern of simple lawn areas around the building. New cottonless cottonwood street trees will be planted. to reinforce the existing trees but no elaborate landscaping is planned. A new sidewalk will be built along Main Street; sidewalks are not encouraged into the residential area to the north, but a simple pathway will be maintained. F, 1 The new building which has been designed for the site is intended to complement the historic structures in the area. In an effort to work within 1 the HPC guidelines, careful attention has been given to avoiding the imitation or compromising of the established character of the historic landmarks in the area. In particular, the building's setbacks relate to other buildings in the area, the massing has been varied, and the rhythm of the fenestration of the proposed building is tied to that of historic structures. The new building is a clean and quiet structure which will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent structures. The Applicant requests Special Review approval for bonus square footage, as ' permitted up to 1.0:1. The FAR square footage of the project is 3,457 sq.ft., an FAR of 0.86 :1. Total area is 5,350 sq. ft. as indicated in the table on the following page. B. Application contents. A Development Application shall consist of the following information: ' 1. The general application information of Sec. 6-202. a. Application Form is attached as Exhibit 1. b. Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit 2. c. The street address of the project is 702 West Main Street. The legal description of the parcel is the east 10 feet of Lot R and Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen. d. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 3. e. The Vicinity Map, attached as Exhibit 4, locates the subject parcel. ' f. As required for Public Notice (Sec. 6-205 [E] ), a list of all owners of property within 300 feet prepared by Pitkin County Title is attached as Exhibit 5. Net Leasable FAR Non -FAR Total A. Basement 1. Affordable Housing 1,615 2. Accessory Space 652 0 374 1,893 2,267 B. First Floor 1. Reception Area 218 218 2. Conference Room 186 186 3. Employee Offices 836 836 4. Don's Office 118 118 5. Accessory Space 238 1,358 1,654 0 1,654 C. Second Floor 1. Conference Room (1) 110 110 2. Employee Offices 681 681 3. Producers Offices 73 73 4. David's Office 201 201 5. Accessory Space 362 1,065 1,429 0 1,429 TOTALS: 2,423 45 1,893 5,350 4 2. Commercial GMQS Procedures request written information covering twelve areas of concern, as follows: a. Water System. Water will continue to be supplied to the property by the existing 6" City water main in Sixth Street which is maintained at a pressure of approximately 100 P.S.I. Increased demand is estimated to be less than 5,000 GPD. Adequate capacity is presently available to service this project. b. Sewage System. The project is served by the existing 7" Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District line in the alley to the north of the site. Impact on the system resulting from the project is expected to equal water usage, or less than 5,000 GPD. Adequate capacity is presently available to service this project. c. Drainage System. On -site storm drainage for the proposal will exceed current City standards by detaining the equivalent of 100 percent of the runoff of the 100 year storm on -site, and by not releasing the amount equivalent to that which would flow onto the street from the undeveloped site, as permitted. Presently, water from the site flows to northeast corner of the site and then into Sixth Street. d. Fire Protection System. The site is located 11 blocks from the Aspen Fire Station, with a response time of less than five (5) minutes. A fire hydrant is located to the east of the site at the northeast corner of Main and Sixth intersection. The project can be accommodated within the existing level of service. e. Development Summary. The proposed project includes 2,423 net leasable sq.ft. of office space and 1,600 sq.ft. of affordable housing. FAR square footage 5 11 11 1 is 3,457 sq.ft. Office uses are permitted by right in the Office zone. A variance from the minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. and minimuim lot width of 60 feet has been granted by the Board of Adjustment. The height of the building is 25 feet to the midpoint of the roof and 30 feet to the ridge. Special Review for the proposed FAR of 0.86:1 and off-street parking is requested as permitted in the Office zone. f. Estimated Traffic Count Increases. All RFTA bus routes which serve areas to the west of Aspen are adjacent to the proposal. In order to estimate increased daily traffic on adjacent streets resulting from the proposal, the Pitkin County Road standards for daily trips from areas with strong transit service have been used: Office: 8 trips/1,000 sq.ft./day x 2,423 sq.ft. = 19.4 Apartments: 3 trips/day x 2 = 6_0 25.4 trips The increased number of trips from the project has therefore been estimated as 25.4 daily trips. The principal hours of operation of the office use is anticipated to be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. To some extent, the residential use complements the office use in that many residential trips to and from the site will occur at times which the offices will be closed. It would be preferable to the Applicant if employees in the building are housed in the units, further reducing auto trips to and from the building. Because of the limited alley frontage of the project, only four off-street parking spaces can be provided. The balance of the off-street parking requirement will be met by a payment -in -lieu. The Marolt bike path brings commuters from the housing areas near the hospital to the vicinity of the project. Hyman Street and Hopkins Street are the designated bike routes in this area under the Pedestrian Plan. 1 IThe location of the project and the housing provided on -site are the greatest disincentives to auto use. The site is within comfortable walking distance of the commercial core, the Post Office and Clark's Market. ' g. Affordable Housing. The Applicant proposes to provide two on -site affordable housing housing for 4.75 units which will provide employees, or 65% of the employee generation of the project. r h. Stoves and Fireplaces. The development will not include any woodburning devices. ' i. Location Relative to Public Facilities. The building is located between the public facilities in the downtown area and those to the west of Aspen, such as the rhospital, schools and the airport. Because the project is primarily an office project, it is not anticipated that there will be significant rincreased usage of public facilities. ' j. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets. This standard does not apply to commercial/office applications. rk. Effects of the Proposed Development. Mprimary The proposed building is located directly on Main Street, the for As traffic traffic artery the community. such, impacts from the project on adjacent land -uses will be minimized. The building has been limited to 2 stories in height as dictated by the height limit of the zone district. Alternative design solutions for the building have been reviewed by the HPC on three different occasions prior to their granting unanimous approval to the project on September 8. rIt 1. Construction Schedule. is presently anticipated that upon approval of all required review procedures and receipt of an adequate allocation, r 7 r construction of the project will proceed within the time limits established under GMQS procedures. Once construction begins, ' the project will be completed in one phase, with completion within 9 months of start of construction. ' C. Commercial and office development standards. A development application requesting development allotments for ' commercial and office development shall be assigned points by the commission pursuant to the following standards and point schedules: ' 1. Quality of Design (maximum 18 points). Each development application shall be rated based on the quality of the ' exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points according to the following standards and considerations: ' (a) Architectural Design (maximum 3 points). Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing ' neighboring developments. ' The proposed building is a two story structure with wood and shingle siding, sandstone base and painted wood windows. In addition to accommodating the required functions of the building, intention behind the design the is to the of project relate to the existing historic buildings in the area which vary ' considerably in scale, massing, proportion and materials. ' The principal building materials of the facades of the new building will be wood shingles on the upper level and 1" x 6" lapped siding on the lower level, with glass window units with wood trim. The roof will also be wood shingles. The front ' porch will be framed with wood columns as shown on the drawings. The building, is 2'- new which raised approximately 6" above natural grade, will rest on a stone base. Emphasis has been placed upon creating a vocabulary of forms ' and materials that will fit in comfortably with surrounding structures, and which are in keeping with HPC guidelines. The 8 1 1 I 1 concerns of the HPC have been addressed in the design revisions, as demonstrated by HPC's unanimous approval of the project. Careful attention has been given to avoiding the imitation or compromising of the established character of the building's neighbors. In particular, the setbacks generally relate to buildings in the area, the massing of the building has been broken through varying roof planes and the use of a recessed entryway at the corner of the building, and the rhythm of the fenestration of the building is tied to adjacent structures. The new building will be seen as a clean and quiet structure which will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent historic structures. (b) Site Design. (maximum 3 points) Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. The site will be maintained in the traditional pattern of simple lawn areas around the building. New cottonless cottonwood street trees will be planted to reinforce the existing trees but no elaborate landscaping is planned. A new sidewalk will be built along Main Street; sidewalks are not encouraged into the residential area to the north. Because the lot is a corner lot, there is an unusually large lawn area on the east side of the lot which the Applicant will continue to maintain. The open space results from the relatively narrow street within a wide right-of-way. Access to the main floor office space is provided from the sidewalk from Main Street up several steps to the porch; the entry area is reminiscent of older residential structures. Service and delivery access will be from the alley at the rear, where a service area has been provided. A handicapped ramp is OJ I I provided along the west side of the building where it will be a less dominating design element. At the request of the City Engineer, the Applicant has agreed to provide a new walk along Main Street which will be located partially on the property. This was requested because of the constraints caused by the width of Main Street within the existing right-of-way. It appears that a two -foot sidewalk easement should be adequate; however, more width can be provided if needed. The Pedestrian Plan suggests that a meandering sidewalk in this area of Main Street is desireable, so the site design anticipates such a solution. All proposed utilities will be undergrounded to lessen the visual impact. (c) Energy Conservation. (maximum 3 points.) Considering the use of passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in the construction of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed developments location, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. The new building will be designed to maximize benefits in energy conservation and operating costs while minimizing system complexity. Energy conservation efforts will be directed toward selection and design of systems which have proven performance over extended periods of time. All energy conserving devices will be simple to understand, operate, adjust and maintain so that the efficiencies achieved can be reasonably maintained over the effective life of the building systems. The following specific conservation features will be incorporated in the detailed design of the project. (1) Insulation. The greatest opportunity for energy conservation results from the types of materials specified in the construction of the building envelope. An 10 P infiltration barrier wrap such as "Tyvek" will be installed around the entire building exterior which will significantly reduce infiltration. All penetrations of the wrap will be carefully caulked and sealed to further enhance the effectiveness of the barrier. Windows and doors with contemporary closures will be specified throughout, and thermal resistance specifications will exceed criteria mandated by the Energy Code Amendment of the Uniform Building Code. Insulation values for the projects walls will be R-20 or better. A thermo-deck super - insulated roof system will be used which will achieve an R-value in excess of R-60. The location of the deed - restricted units are partially subgrade and take advantage of the insulating properties of the earth. In addition to the exterior barrier wrap and internal batt/rigid insulation, an interior vapor barrier will be provided. This vinyl vapor barrier will not only further decrease infiltration, but will tend to hold interior humidity levels at least 10% to 15% higher than exterior levels, resulting in a greater degree of occupant comfort at lower room temperatures. All penetrations of the vinyl vapor barrier such as at wall switches and outlets will be sealed. With the individual unit's envelopes sealed and insulated, an air-to-air heat exchanger will be used to control the indoor environment while significantly reducing energy losses. (2) Mechanical Systems. Comfort heating will be with boilers rated with AFUE efficiencies of at least 90%. Consideration will be given to integrated systems which provide optimum efficiency in the projection of both comfort level heating and domestic water heating. The use of programmable set -back thermostats for major occupancy areas will assure that building energy inputs can be matched to the occupants' daily use patterns. Primary heating systems will also be selected and designed to incrementally match the seasonal and daily demands of the commercial spaces. (3) Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures and fittings will be of a low flow, low water consumption type in compliance with Ordinance 37, Series of 1991. Faucet aerators and shower heads will be selected which provide the maximum apparent flow at relatively low actual flows. All plumbing will be fully insulated to prevent excessive 11 water usage at the point of use while waiting for desired temperatures to be achieved. Domestic water heaters will also be rated at at least 90% efficiency, and may be integrated with heat recovery from the heating system. Should the final selection be a stand-alone water heater, it will incorporate all of the current pilot, flue and flame efficiency designs, as well as storage tank insulation. (4) Glazing. Glazing is oriented to the south and east, with limited glazing on the west and north elevations. Large glass areas in offices reduce lighting demand. All of the glazing in this project will be selected with the highest "R" value practical. Glazing located within six feet of the floor will be low "E" type to enhance the warmth radiating between occupant and glazing. The use of low "E" glass will permit a significant improvement in the occupants' sense of comfort because of its effectiveness in re -radiating interior warmth. (5) Lighting. Both interior and exterior lighting will be specified utilizing the latest in energy efficient bulbs. Whether incandescent or fluorescent, high lumen output/low wattage bulbs will be specified. (d) Amenities. (maximum 3 points.) Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. The proposal will respond to the needs of pedestrians and bikers in this block with the inclusion of a bench along the new sidewalk to be installed by the Applicant and a bike rack at the rear of the building. The site is located directly on several bus routes and a bus stop is located across Sixth Street from the site. Pedestrian access for the project and for commuters will be enhanced through the installation of a sidewalk along Main Street. The Pedestrian Plan does not encourage sidewalks into the west - end residential neighborhood. Under the plan, bicyclists are 12 encouraged to use Hyman and Hopkins Streets through the area, to keep bikes off of Main Street as much as possible. (e) Visual Impact. (maximum 3 points.) Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. The Main Street area is characterized by its range of uses and building sizes. It is an area where smaller buildings are quite often side -by -side with more prominent structures. To some degree, the regular pattern of existing street trees tends to obscure these differences. A number of changes were made in the design to reduce the buildings impact on the adjacent building, including efforts to maximize the separation between the neighboring residence. The overall height of the building has been reduced by 3.5 feet to the rear to provide a transition in the visual impact of the project toward the residential neighborhood to the north; have been incorporated in the design to varying roof planes reduce the overall scale of the building. There are no designated viewplanes in the area of the project site. The project is consistent with established community goals relative to visual compatibility, as evidenced by the height limit established for the area, the Historic District Development Guidelines and HPC's review and unanimous approval of the design of the building. (f) Trash and utility access areas. (maximum 3 points.) Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility 1 placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. r 13 The proposed service area for this project is located at the northwest corner where it can best be screened from public view and is adequate to accommodate a standard dumpster so that it can be rolled directly into the alley. This compares favorably with the trash facilities provided with other projects in the area. The proposed dumpster location will be protected by an enclosure designed to complement the building's architecture. The enclosure will be less than six feet in height and slightly ice buildup. A be elevated to minimize gate will provided as a visual screen of the trash area. The owner does not presently anticipate a need for an individual 1 trash compactor system, given the fact that only office uses and two deed -restricted residential units are proposed and trash generation is expected to be very manageable. A portion of the service area will be set aside for utility equipment for the building. This area will be adequate to meet the needs of the building. 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 10 points). Each development application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations (Note: In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature): I(a) Water Supply/Fire Protection. (maximum 2 points.) Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to 14 C provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. The Aspen Water Department has confirmed that adequate capacity exists to provide for the needs of the project without system extensions or upgrading. Water service will be provided through the existing 6" City water main in Sixth Street. Estimated increased demand will be less than 5,000 GPD, as the proposed addition is limited to office uses, and two deed - restricted residential apartments. The Applicant commits to the payment of fees associated with the fixtures added as a result of the project. Fire protection service to the project can be provided without the necessity of upgrading fire protection facilities. The Fire Department is located 11 blocks from the project, and response time is estimated to be less than five minutes. The Applicant has agreed to fully sprinkler the building. An existing Y fire hydrant across the street at the northeast corner of Main and Sixth provides adequate coverage for fire protection without further upgrading of fire protection facilities. Water pressure and capacity is adequate for fire protection flow. in discussing the department, it However, the project with water is their opinion that the existing Pacific States hydrant is outdated; the Applicant commits to pay the cost of installing a newer model hydrant to be supplied by the City. (b) Sanitary Sewer. (maximum 2 points.) Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading r required to serve the proposed development. The site is served by a 7 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District main in the alley to the north of the site which flows east to the main in First Street. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 15 r 1 1 has confirmed that the capacity of the existing sewage collection is adequate to serve the project. The section of the main Iimmediately adjacent to the site has previously been slip -lined but the section between Fourth and Sixth has not been completed. The Applicant commits to contribute $5,000 toward the slip -lining of this section of sewer line. Since the location is not immediately adjacent to the project however, this commitment is conditioned on the award by the Planning and Zoning Commission of a score in excess of 1 point, since it is clear that the project merits a score of one point without this additional improvment. (c) Public transportation/roads (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazard or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. The project is located on all RFTA bus routes serving areas to the west of Aspen. The project will contribute only 26 additional trips to the street system and is located directly off of Main Street. No road network extensions are necessary to serve the project. On -site parking has been located off of the alley to minimize visual impact and traffic conflicts. (d) Storm Drainage. (maximum 2 points.) Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system„ the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. Site topography presently directs surface drainage to the northeast, where it is collected in the existing curb and gutter 16 system and directed to the northeast of the site. The drainage concept for the project is to exeed the requirements of the City of Aspen regulations as described in Section 7-1004C(4)(f). This will be accomplished by providing short-term on -site detention to maintain the historic rate of runoff for the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site. Prior to seeking a building permit for the project, the applicant will submit a drainage plan prepared by a is aqualified engineer to assure that this commitment acheived. It is presently anticipated that surface drainage will be directed and collected through surface grading. Collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to on -site drywell structures. Although current regulations permit property owners to discharge the equivalent of the runoff from the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site, the Applicant commits to detain this additional amount on -site in order to exceed the current city requirement. (e) Parking. (maximum 2 points.) Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required by 5, Div. 2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and safety. The off-street parking requirement for commercial uses in the Office zone district is three spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable, which may be provided via a payment -in -lieu pursuant to Special Review, Article 7, Division 4. Under the provisions of Sec. 5-301(B), the off-street parking requirements for all affordable housing are established by Special Review, as well. in Office is 3 For commercial space the zone, the requirement spaces/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable, or 7 spaces for the project. Only ' four off-street parking spaces can be provided off of the alley; therefore, the balance of the requirement of 3 spaces for the office space is subject to a payment -in -lieu of $15,000 per space, or a total of $45,000. i 17 IThe Applicant requests that no additional parking by required for the affordable housing which includes a total of 4 bedrooms; to help alleviate on -street parking problems from these two units, the Applicant will make available two of the four spaces during non -office hours for use by the residents of the two units. The proposed office project is, as stated previously, located on all RFTA bus routes which serve areas to the west of Aspen. A bike rack will be located at the rear of the building as an auto jdisincentive. 3. Provision of Affordable Housing (maximum 15 points). Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, ' income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109. The Applicant proposes to provide two deed -restricted affordable housing units in the basement level of the building. The Applicant proposes to restrict the 615 sq.ft. one -bedroom unit to Category 2 Standards and the 1,000 sq.ft. three -bedroom unit to Category 3 IStandards in effect at the time a building permit is issued. Employee generation for the project is 7.27 employees, based on the 2,423 leasable proposed program of sq.ft. of net office space, and using an employee generation factor of 3.0/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable. The applicant's commitment to provide housing for 4.75 employees therefore represents housing for 65.3% of the employee generation of 1 the project, and qualifies for a score of 10.66 points. Approval of the method by which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing shall be at the option of the Aspen City Council, upon the recommendation of the Commission. In evaluating the City's housing designee be applicant's proposal, the advice of the shall sought in considering the following factors: a. Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. 18 b. Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. c. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints development or historic preservation concerns. d. Whether the method proposed will result in employee ' housing being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. e. Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. If Council the by the shall not approve method which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing, the applicant shall be provided with direction as to which other method or methods would be preferable. 4. Bonus Points. (maximum four points.) Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8-106(F M through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Having been complemented by the HPC for being responsive to their concerns over the course of three meetings and having received unanimous approval by the HPC, the Applicant suggests that the design of the building has been judged by the HPC as an outstanding design meriting recognition and requests the award of bonus points in the design categories. a 19 1 II. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES (Article 7, Division 4) The Applicant is requesting Special Review approval to increase the External FAR of the project from .75:1 to 0.86:1, in order to accommodate the Applicant's need for 2,500 sq.ft. of office space in which to operate the insurance business in addition to 1,600 sq.ft. of required affordable housing. In addition, the Applicant is requesting approval of payment -in -lieu for 3 parking spaces required for the office program and a waiver of any parking for the affordable housing. ' In 1992, in order to provide the parking mitigation flexibility in the Office Zone District that other commercial zone districts offer, a code amendment was adopted to increase the percentage of the required parking which can be approved for payment -in -lieu. No development subject to Special Review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the request, as discussed below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to Special Review, the Development Application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. The project is otherwise designed in conformance with the dimensional requirements of the zone districts. HPC has requested that we seek a variance to reverse the side yard setbacks to give relief to the adjacent structure. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, ' including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. During the review of the project by HPC, a number of design changes were made to mitigate the impact of the building on the one adjacent structure affected by the proposal. There are no viewplans in the area. 20 B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment or reduction by Special Review, the Development Application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. In all zone districts where the off street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that the parking be provided on -site, the commission shall take into consideration: a. The practical ability of the applicant to place parking on -site. The roject's alley frontage is limited to only 40 feet, of which a portion P J Y g Y must be set aside for trash storage. It is therefore physically impossible to provide more than four off-street parking spaces for the project, unless surface parking is provided directly off of Sixth Street. b. Whether the parking needs of the development have been -site. adequately met on While only four on -site parking spaces are provided, adequate on - street parking is readily available adjacent to the site. A number of transit routes provide regular service adjacent to the site. C. Whether the City has plans for a parking facility which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the parking on -site. iThe project site is located approximately 10 blocks from the recently completed parking structure. There are currently no plans to build a ' second such facility in a location closer to the project. 21 2. In all zone districts, where the off-street parking requirement may be provided via a payment in lieu, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment -in -lieu of parking to the City, in the amount of $15,000 per space. Approval of the payment -in -lieu shall be at the option of the commission. The development application for special review shall include the following: a. The general application information required under Section 6- 202. See Exhibits and the balance of the application. b. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review application. rRefer to the architectural drawings included above. c. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same zone district and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility service area requirements which is subject to special review. Given the desireability of limiting access to off-street parking on Main Street to the alley, all small lots along Main Street have a problem siting the required parking when it is not feasible or physicaally possible to provide subgrade parking. u 22 i III. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMQS PROCEDURES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Sec. 8-104(c)(1)(c) The Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and b PP q PP Y the City Council of an Exemption from GMQS Procedures for development of the two affordable housing units in the project. The Applicant would like to house its own employees, if possible, and is requesting the right to first rent the restricted units to qualified employees within the building. Under the provisions of Sec. 8- 104(c)(1)(c), development which may be exempted by the City Council includes all ' housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review of any request for exemption of housingpursuant to this section shall q P include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. 23 r IV. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Sec. 5-606) The Applicant from Park Development Impact Fees for requests exemption the affordable housing in the project under the provisions of Sec. 5-606. Whenever the ' city council shall have determined that any part of a proposed development constitutes an affordable housing development and wishes to subsidize its ' construction, the city council may exempt that part of the development from the application of the park development impact fee, or reduce by any amount the fees ' imposed by this section. I Ll 24 � IV. EXHIBITS C I CITY OF ASPEN 1 `Q PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: - APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE: W Q. DO REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: - O OWNER' S NAME: 00 SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: oj_'L� LiE 2. •4 Describe action/type of development being requested: ., n n _ n .7 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Comments _ czy_� 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) �P&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: S (NO) 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:_ 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:39Q2� +334 (10 141 0113. �ta 8. Anticipated date of submission: . I 9. COMMENT$/UNIQUE CONCERNS: C1 5 � O � frm.pre_app Az�:aa��s 1 1AND USE AMXCATICH FaN 71�oi ��Gll�tr� C f EXHIBIT 1 1) FToject. Name r2) Project 10mtion 1 3) 5) J (irdi,cate street address, lot & n ocx ruaviePr, . imm-4-L -Lyres appropriate) 4) Ian Size Present Zoning Applicant's Name, Adoxess & Phone 6) epresentatsvess Name. Address & Phone # /-4 -7 /�i./� � Rom, 7) � of Applicati.,on (Please check all that apply) = � Historic Dev- conditional use Oome�a]- SPA - Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev 8040 Greenline Qocxoeptual PUD Minor Historic Dev- Stream Margin Final PUD Y— Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Des i gnaticn, niumi zation Text/Map Amendment/\ QVS Allotment Int spi-it/int tie cK�S MOMPtim Adjustment Dusting Uses and of ela�ctioar stry ores; g) n�-iTt-ion of bd � (� t'Yi� approximate sq. ft. ; r tuber of bedrooms; any PEevicus aPPX'Yv� nt'ed tb the 4ra property) - G 311�� cation , 9, � of Dever _ X5es7�Pqt0l,( of a 4a-41 10) nave you attached the fallowing? ✓ F�oazse to Attac3� 2, Minimmm Submission Q�ntents ' -47- p,?sp se to Attactuncnt 3, Specific Subm ssicnContents � to Attad�nt 4. Review for Your Application EXHIBIT 2 September 14, 1993 Ms. Diane Moore Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Diane: Our letter is to confirm that we own the parcel located at 702 West Main Street under the name of Stape Limited Liability Company. We have authorized Joseph Wells to prepare and submit the attached GMQS Application on our behalf. Please call Don Stapleton or Joe Wells if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Don Stapleton David Stapleton Enclosures 1 EXHIBIT 3 1 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the 1 State of Colorado hereby certifies that STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is the owner in fee simple of the following described property: THE EAST 10 FEET OF LOT R AND ALL OF LOT S, BLOCK 18, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF 1 ASPEN. COUNTY OF PITKIN, ' STATE OF COLORADO. Subject to encumbrances, easements and rights of way of record. 1 This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. ' PITKI COUNT LE, INC. 1 BY aut�'horizUb signature CERTIFIED T0: 1, 1993 @ 8:30 A.M. 11 I Rcc.,rded ::t 731 120 Reccptua, N QUIT CL-IM M-1-ED 642 44 'rilis DEED. Mack th,, 22nd I•o ^IPobruary • 1991 Ir•t\\ecn DAVID E. STAPLETON and DON N. STAPLETON „t the 'Counts of Pitkin and State of Colorado, crantort.t. and STAPE LIIdITED LIABILITY COMPANY Mwwlecaladdresso 533 E. Hopkins Av•a., ASoen, 81 (l 1 of the County of P i t k i n and State of Coluradu. granted( I. WITNIiSSETII. That the gramorts,, ILr:md ,I towideratilm of the num of $ 5. 00 and ether good and sufficient consideration DOLLARS the receipt :md suflicienc%of which is hercM acknou IedgeJ, ha remised, released, sold. conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED. and by these present% do renu.e. releaw. %ell. consey and QUIT CLAIM unit, the granteeM. hero, successors and assigns. fomwvr. all the nghl, tide. inter:%l. slain, and demand which the granu,rlsf ha vein and to the n d property, together with C •;-nly of and State of improvements. ,f .my, situate. living and being in the Pi tki n Colorado, dcccrihcd as folhmv. The East 10 feet of Lot P., and all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen akoknownby%,rcetanti nun,bcrav 702 Hest Main Street �I I 'ro H.\\'I? AND 10 1101.D m the sae. u,gcther with all and singular the appurtenances and privilepes there helunging or in answisc there,, do apperiaming. and:dl the estate, right. title, inivest :rod claim whatsoever, of the granior(O. either in law or equity, to the only prope- use, benefit and behold of the granicc(O. beirs and assigns forever. IN Wl'r\p.SS WIII:Rli()h. 1 he grantorrsl have executed this deed on the date set forth above. C; -- — b. id E. t� -- Don N. Stapl..Lon S'G\Tli 01; COLOR A I X ). Counts of ••. 1991. Thelorcgoinemstnunentwas:rkinmlydgeJtx•lurcmcthi. 22n\1 daynt PobYUaY;' by. DiVid E. Strjnl_ton and Don N. Stnnleton r con,n,iy.inn esp,rc. In vV'fitness my hand and official seal. �'vAtsmber 17 , 19 n 3 it ^F C01 3216 5. Clayton Dcnve,, CO 80210 'If nl I)emrr. insert ••/'its :rod " No, 911, K". 1.115, 11, if /'1. %1%1 ti111, 11,'i . - :s N n11, \•. —:11 i , n/�i �' •�� lm a M- ma -I law. VC-2 li • EXHIBIT 5 ' Vincent J. Higens President PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX 300' OWNER'S LIST Christina Davis Vice President Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list of property owner's within three hundred feet of the East 10 feet of Lot R, all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESSES TAR SCHEDULE NUMBER -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Qj--- �- ,� Q a (-j AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Qcc c,", w 93 -gy 617 MAIN STREET PROFESSIONAL COMMONAREA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O CLAIRE KRAUS 617 MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 700 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC. COMMON AREA C/O RESORT MANAGEMENT ATTN: JOHN CAHILL P.O. BOX 7026 ASPEN CO 81612 ALFRED P. WEST, JR. LOTS K & L, BLOCK 25 LORALEE S. WEST 634 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 ANN R. CROCKETT LOTS Q-S, BLOCK 24 TRUSTEE OF PRICE LIVING TRUST 10898 MORA DRIVE LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94024 ANNE S. FELD LOTS D-F, BLOCK 24 1700 PACIFIC AVENUE DALLAS TX 75201 ARTHUR S. LAZARUS VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 6 KATRINA D. LAZARUS C/O LAZARUS COMMUNITIES, INC. SUITE 405, 1575 SAN IGNACIO AVENUE CORAL GABLES FL 33146 ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY LOTS A-G, K-S, BLOCK 23 620 W. BLEEKER ASPEN CO 81611 AUGUSTUS F_ HALLUM LOTS G-I, BLOCK 24 MARGERY L. HALLUM 410 SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 B. JOSEPH KRABACHER LOT Q, W 20' LOT R, BLOCK SUSAN SCOTT KRABACHER 18 415 EAST HYMAN #201 ASPEN CO 81611 BRIAN & SUZANNE O'NEIL 700 WEST HOPKINS, #11 11995 SW 222 STREET MIAMI FL 33170 BURTON D. OLSHAN 112 LITTLE VICTORIAN, #3 KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 112 5408 LEEDS ROAD BRIMINGHAM AL 35210 BURTON D. OLSHAN 1/2 LITTLE VICTORIAN, #4 KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 112 5408 LEEDS ROAD BRIMINGHAM AL 35210 BURTON D. OLSHAN 112 LITTLE VICTORIAN, #5 KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 1/2 5408 LEEDS ROAD BRIMINGHAM AL 35210 BURTON D. OLSHAN 112 LITTLE VICTORIAN, #7 KATHLEEN W. OLSHAN 112 5408 OLD LEEDS ROAD BIRMINGHAM AL 35210 CHAKERES LAND CO. SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #101 C/O THE HUNTINGTON TRUST CO. P.O. BOX 1558 COLUMBUS OH 43126 CHAKERES LAND CO. SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #102 C/O THE HUNTINGTON TRUST CO. P.O. BOX 1558 COLUMBUS OH 43126 CHAKERES LAND CO. SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #4 C/O THE HUNTINGTON TRUST CO. P.O. BOX 1558 COLUMBUS OH 43126 CHARLES B. DOLAN LOTS A & B, BLOCK 18 TRUSTEE OF DOLAN REALTY TRUST 170 SANCY POND ROAD LINCOLN MA 01773 CHARLES L. HALL LOTS G-I, BLOCK 18 NANCY W. TATE P.O. BOX 1819 ASPEN CO 81612 CHERYL BARKER SHONK 700 WEST HOPKINS, #8 7457 SOUTH CLARKSON LITTLETON CO 80122 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY LOTS K & L, BLOCK 18 C/O ASPEN/SNOWMASS, INC. 734 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 CHRISTINE N. LESTER 700 WEST HOPKINS, #6 ROBERT A. LESTER P.O. BOX 9696 ASPEN CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN WEST HOPKINS TOWNHOMES (EMPLOYEE HOUSING) 120 S. GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 DAN B. LEVINSON LOTS E-G, BLOCK 25 LYNNE LEVINSON P.O. BOX 2012 ASPEN CO 81612 DAVID KRUIDENIER LOTS A-C, BLOCK 24 ELIZABETH S. KRUIDENIER 3409 SOUTHERN HILLS DRIVE DES MOINES IA 50321 DEBBIE KLEIN 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #A A COLORADO CORPORATION 546 MCSKIMMING ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 DON MCGILL, INC. LOTS M & N, BLOCK 25 A TEXAS CORPORATION 11800 OLD KATY ROAD HOUSTON TX 77079 DONALD L. YOUNG 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #E 617 W. MAIN ASPEN CO 8161.1 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #H 530 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81612 EDGAR F. BARBER 700 WEST HOPKINS, #15 P.O. BOX 9678 ASPEN CO 8161.2 GALE M. PAKER 700 WEST HOPKINS, #9 P.O. BOX 1490 ASPEN CO 81612 GERD M. ZELLER VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 1 P.O. BOX 37 ASPEN CO 81612 GRAEME MEANS LOTS E & F, BLOCK 18 P.O. BOX 4956 ASPEN CO 81612 HISPATEL CORPORATION SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #E A DELAWARE CORPORATION 550 BILTMORE WAY CORAL GABLES FL 33134 J. ROBERT WEIEN LOT G, BLOCK 19 P.O. BOX 3506 ASPEN CO 81612 JAMES C. KEMPER LOT B, BLOCK 25 SHARON M. KEMPER P.O. BOX 25 SUGAR LAND TX 77487 JANICE M. SCHUBERT 99% 700 WEST HOPKINS, $12 JEAN T. SCHUBERT 101 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 JAY WEINBERG VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 3 111 NE 1ST STREET MIAMI FL 33132 JAY WEINBERG VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 7 Ill NE 1ST STREET MIAMI FL 33132 JIM IGLEHART 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #B 610 WEST HALLAM ASPEN CO 81611 JOHN W. TAYLOR 700 WEST HOPKINS, #4 31050 W. THOMPSON LANE HARTLAND WI 53029 LINDA VIEIRA 1/3 & TERESA HALL 1/3 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #103 KAREN OWNES & MALLORY T. HARLING 1/3 605 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 8161.1 LINDA VIEIRA 1/3 & TERESA HALL 1/3 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #104 KAREN OWNES & MALLORY T. HARLING 1/3 605 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 LISA CELESTE D'AGOSTINO LITTLE VICTORIAN, #1 SUITE 1 634 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 LITTLE VICTORIAN COMMON AREA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O COATES, REID & WALDRON 720 EAST HYMAN ASPEN CO 81611 LOUIS F. SABATASSO VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 4 MARY LOU SABATASSO 225 NORTH 6TH STREET ASPEN CO 81611 MARCIA A. SOUTHWICK 700 WEST HOPKINS, #2 2915 S. 29TH STREET LINCOLN NE 68502 MARIDEE CHRISTOPHER SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #A P.O. BOX 1325 ASPEN CO 81612 MARIDEE CHRISTOPHER SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #B LYNN B. PIPER 3415 MORRISON T NW WASHINGTON DC 20015 MARK WRYAN SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #A P.O. BOX 11591 ASPEN CO 81612 MARTHA W. MADSEN LOT S, BLOCK 25 APARTMENT 9 608 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 MARTHA W. MADSEN LOTS Q & R, BLOCK 25 APARTMENT 9 608 W. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 MARY E. HAYES LITTLE VICTORIAN, #6 209 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN CO 81611 MATTHEW B. KELLNER VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 5 4140 WHISPERING OAKS LANE DANVILLE CA 94526 MERLE ELLEN JABLIN 700 WEST HOPKINS, #14 P.O. BOX 778 ASPEN CO 81612 NANCY J. HADDAD 700 WEST HOPKINS, #3 P.O. BOX 11453 ASPEN CO 81612 NANCY JANE MANGHAM LOTS C & D, BLOCK 18 9021 DICKSON ROAD FORT WORTH TX 76179 PATRICIA J. STRAIGHT 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #I P.O. BOX 59 WOODY CREEK CO 81656 PATRICIA J. STRAIGHT 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #L P.O. BOX 59 WOODY CREEK CO 81656 RICHARD A. VOSSLER LITTLE VICTORIAN, #8 KATHLEEN C. VOSSLER 5000 RIVERSIDE DRIVE COLUMBUS OH 43220 RICHARD E. LONG LOTS Q-S, BLOCK 12 LOIS N. LONG P.O. BOX 1314 ASPEN CO 81612 RICHARD E. RUDOLPH 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #F P.O. BOX 1089 ASPEN CO 81612 RICHARD E. RUDOLPH 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #G P.O. BOX 1089 ASPEN CO 81612 RICHARD E. RUDOLPH SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #B CAROL J. RUDOLPH P.O. BOX 1089 ASPEN CO 81612 RICHARD HUTCHESON VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 2 DELORES A. HUTCHESON 575 EAST LOCUST FRESNO CA 93720 RICHARD J. FLEISHER, 112 LOS A, BLOCK 24 I.F. ASSOCIATES 112 SUITE 1505 111 WEST WASHINGTON CHICAGO IL 60602 ROBERT H. THROM 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #C PHYLISS A. THROM 617 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 RYANCO PARTNERS XXX 1 LOTS D-F, BLOCK 19 715 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 S. MICHELLE OUNSDON 617 MAIN ST. PROF., #D DAVID A. BORKENHAGEN P.O. BOX 2225 ASPEN CO 81612 SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LOTS D-I, BLOCK 1.2 C/O HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS 600 E. COOPER STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SEVENTH & MAIN VENTURE A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP P.O. BOX 10147 ASPEN CO 81612 SHADOW MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES 1989 SUITE 201 121 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SHADOW MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES 1969 SUITE 201 121 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SHEILAH JUDITH BRYAN P.O. BOX 976 ASPEN CO 81612 SHERIE MATILDA LE BLANC SUITE 2 634 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SKANDIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C/O CASTLE CREEK MANAGEMENT ATTN: RON KINNELL P.O. BOX 542 ASPEN CO 81612 SMB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION (NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE) SUSAN TAN P.O. BOX 12020 ASPEN CO 81612 SUSI R. COCHRAN P.O. BOX 11673 ASPEN CO 81612 SUZANAH V.K. REID P.O. BOX 10443 ASPEN CO 81612 LOTS A-C, BLOCK 19 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #2 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #3 700 WEST HOPKINS, #13 LITTLE VICTORIAN, #2 COMMON AREA COMMON AREA SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #C 700 WEST HOPKINS, #5 700 WEST HOPKINS, #1 700 WEST HOPKINS, #10 TED LENIO P.O. BOX 9854 ASPEN CO 81612 SKANDIA TOWNHOUSES, #D TERRY END 700 GILLESPIE STREET ASPEN CO 81611 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #1 TETSUJI AOYAMA AKIKO AOYAMA 4523 48TH AVENUE NE: SEATTLE WA 98105 SMB CONDOMINIUMS, #A TETSUJI AOYAMA AKIKO AOYAMA 4523 48TH AVENUE NE SEATTLE WA 98105 THE JAY N. WEINBERG TRUST VICTORIA SQUARE, LOT 8 SUITE 600 Ill NE FIRST STREET MIAMI FL 33132 700 WEST HOPKINS, #7 THOMAS MARSHALL 300 RIVERSIDE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 VICTORIA SQUARE PUD COMMON AREA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION C/O ASPEN SNOWMASS CARE P.O. BOX 6028 SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO 81615 W. EVERETT & ELEANOR B. BIGGS 1/2 LOTS M-P, BLOCK 18 AND WILLIAM D. BIGGS 1/2 1036 CRAIGLAND COURT KNOXVILLE TX 37919 LOTS H & I, BLOCK 19 WESTON ANSON SUSAN ANSON P.O. BOX 7953 ASPEN CO 81612 LOTS 0 & P, BLOCK 24 WILLIAM A. LEVIN P.O. BOX 3004 ASPEN CO 81612 WILLIAM LENTZ, JR. LOT N, BLOCK 24 P.O. BOX 1098 LINCOLNTON NC 28092 WILLIAM V. UHLHORN FLORENCE M. UHLHORN P.O. BOX 10832 ASPEN CO 81612 LOTS 0 & P, BLOCK 25 TM 7, , t�k T7 7 7 7 �4'. LLI i� Ul \j 7 , t�k T7 7 7 7 �4'. LLI i� Ul \j 7 -- 1- S " 1__ N -A /\ 7=-] S z 9 I 0 Z w C Ln N . F) 0 FA -- - - w a- 8 0 r r r r r� rr r r r r r rr r r r r rr r r 3 1 J LL 0 F� y � nt a z a i ct> :: i d w 3 I M M M = M M i �x �c = N g I m = = w = = r m ■v = m m= m = = r CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 09415/91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: Cl'2735-124-45-006 A52-93 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Stapleton Commercial GMQS, Special Review, GMQS Exemption & Vested Rights Project Address: 702 W. Main St. Legal Address: APPLICANT: David & Don Stapleton. Stage Ltd. Liabilitv Co. Applicant Address: 533 E. Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO 925-1230 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Pl Aspen, CO 81611 925-8080 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $3925.00 # APPS RECEIVED 13 ENGINEER $ 93.00 # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ 140.00 ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $4158.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X P&Z Meeting Date - PUBLIC 1,t-r-0 VESTED CC Meeting Date PUBLIC VESTED DRC Meeting Date ��� ------------------- ------------------- REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric HEARING: YES NO RIGHTS: Y NO a( L HEARING: NO RIGHTS: YES NO lal ►� I� 3 School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board Open Space Board Other Other c�� / 6 DATE REFERRED: /' -11 INITIALS: DUE: I FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: �L), City Attyi�ity Engineer ning Env. Health Housing Open Space `Other: Parks Dept. Bldg Inspector _ Fire Marshal Holy Cross Mtn. Bell Envir.Hlth. \ ACSD Zoning /� Energy Center FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: • V11C0000 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: February 28, 1994 RE: Stapleton Commercial Growth Management - GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Vested Rights, Second Reading Ordinance 3, Series of 1994. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant, Stape Limited Liability Company, seek vested rights status for a proposed office building on Main Street and a GMQS Exemption for the development of two fully deed restricted dwelling units to be included in the office development. The construction of on -site affordable housing requires a GMQS review and approval by Council. The Commission has reviewed the affordable housing package and recommends to Council approval of the two fully deed restricted dwelling units. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 3, Series of 1994, at first reading. Please see attached Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The applicant has received a 2,423 square foot Growth Management allocation for the development of a 5,350 gross square foot office building on Main Street. As part of that development plan two fully deed restricted affordable housing units have been proposed within the new building. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this project at a December 21, 1993 public hearing. The Commission recommends to Council approval of the affordable housing package. Additionally, the Commission accepted staff's score of the project finding that the score, 27.91 points, exceeded the minimum thresholds required in Section 24-8-104.F. of the Municipal Code. Please see attached Commission Resolution, Exhibit A. Council approved Ordinance 3, Series of 1994 at first reading, January 24, 1994. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Stape Limited Liability Company proposes to demolish the existing residential structure and redevelop the 4,000 square foot parcel for office related purposes. The 0 applicant proposes to build a 5,350 gross square foot building with 2,423 square feet of net leasable space. The applicant also proposes to provide two affordable dwelling units on -site in the basement, one 1-bedroom and one 3-bedroom. The parcel is considered a non -conforming lot of record in the Office zone district. The Land Use Code only allows the construction of a single-family dwelling unit on a lot of this size. The applicant requested a variance, with Planning Department support, from the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to vary the minimum lot size in the Office zone district to construct an office building. The BOA granted the variance finding that the non -conforming section encourages single-family residences that may not be appropriate in a particular zone district. Building design requires HPC review and approval due to its location in the Main Street Historic Overlay District. The HPC has conceptually approved the proposal. CURRENT ISSUES: A. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing - The two on -site affordable dwelling units, one 1-bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit, represent a GMQS mitigation of 65% of the employees generated by this development ( minimum threshold is 60%). Please see attached floor plans, Exhibit B. The Commission shall make a recommendation to Council with regard to a GMQS Exemption for affordable housing. Council shall approve the method by which an applicant mitigates employee generation for a GMQS application. In evaluating the applicant's proposal, the advice of the city's housing designee shall be sought. The Housing Office found that the 3-bedroom unit does not meet the minimum size requirement for a category 3 unit according to the Guidelines. The applicant, at the Commission meeting, committed to increase the size of the unit to meet the Housing Office guidelines for a category 3 dwelling unit. However, the Housing Office still recommends deed restricting the unit to category 2 if the unit remains a rental unit. According to their referral memo (Exhibit C), based on the 1990-1991 survey of employees, 50% of the working households in Pitkin County meet the category 1 and 2 income requirements. Most available three - bedroom units in the inventory are priced for households in the category 3 and 4 income ranges. There is a critical shortage of lower income three -bedroom units for those households in the lower half of the population. In order to accommodate the applicant's desire to rent to their own employees and still meet the critical need for affordable 2 family rental units in the lower income categories, the Housing Office has agreed to language in the deed restriction that states that the three -bedroom unit shall be classified as a category 2 unit, with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified category 3 household, if a member of that household is employed by the applicant. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the applicant, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. The applicant has the ability to select a qualified occupant to rent the unit. This concern was discussed at first reading of the Ordinance. Since first reading the applicant and the Housing Authority have agreed to the above language to be included in the deed restrictions for the affordable dwelling units. The new language is reflected in the Ordinance and in staffs recommended conditions of approval. Pursuant to Section 24-8-109.J., the following factors shall be considered when reviewing the method proposed: 1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. RESPONSE: Although the City/County have allocated tax monies for the development of affordable housing, it is the policy of Council, Housing Office and staff to obtain dwelling units before accepting payment in -lieu. 2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. RESPONSE: This site was not identified in the AACP as a potential site for affordable housing. However, the AACP does recommend that affordable housing be provided near places of employment. The Stapletons wish to provide housing, not only to meet the scoring criteria for the GMQS allocation, but also to create necessary housing for their employees. 3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints to development or historic preservation concerns. RESPONSE: The proposed dwelling units are located below grade. But in order to request the floor area bonus, 60% of the increased floor area must be dedicated to affordable dwelling units. Therefore, the building is designed in a manner that pulls the basement out of the ground enabling a portion of the dwelling units to be above grade. 3 Although, the HPC has conceptually approved this development, concern has been expressed about the size of the proposed building which is adjacent to an Historically Landmarked structure. There was concern that the floor area bonus exacerbated the overbearing nature of the proposed building next to the smaller building. However, the P&Z believed that in order to preserve liveability and enhance the quality of the units that the bonus was necessary. Also, the request was to increase the floor area from .75:1 only to .86:1 and this was approved through Special Review by the Commission. 4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. RESPONSE: The two dwelling units will be occupied at the time the office building is occupied. 5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. RESPONSE: The applicants have maintained that it is crucial to be able to provide housing for their employees. B. Vested Property Rights: The applicant requests vested rights status, for the site specific development plan as represented in the GMQS application, to protect the development approvals for three years from changes in the Municipal Code, Chapter 24. Necessary vesting language is included in the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: I. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the method for the provision of affordable housing with the following conditions: 1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 3 and be increased to a total of 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing minimum size guidelines. 2. The one -bedroom 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing Office, restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office guidelines. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and 4 • • considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. II. The Planning Office recommends the following amendments to the conditions of approval: 1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified category 3 household, if a member of that household is employed by the applicant. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the applicant, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. The applicant has the ability to select a qualified occupant to rent the unit. 2. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be increased to a total of 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing minimum size guidelines. 3. The one -bedroom 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing Office, restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office guidelines. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance 3, Series of 1994, on second reading, approving the GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for the Stapleton GMQS office development as amended by the Planning Office and granting Vested Rights status." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Ordinance 3, Series of 1994. EXHIBITS: A. Commission Resolution No. 93-32 B. Floor Plans C. Housing Office Referral Memo 5 367932 B-744 P-624 03/16/94 11:06A PG 1 OF 5 REC DOC S I LV I A DAVIS F' I TI::: I N COUNTY CLERI." °, RECORDER 25.00 ORDINANCE 3 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO GRANTING A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND VESTED RIGHTS STATUS FOR THE STAPLETON OFFICE 9,UILDING, 702 WEST MAIN STREET, EAST 10 FEET OF LOTS R AND ALL,OF LOT S, BLOCK 18 ASPEN TOWNSITE, ASPEN COLORADO. WHEREAS, the applicant, Stape Limited Liability Company, has proposed to develop an office building located at 702 West Main Street; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Growth Management allocation for the 1993 commerical/office quota; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop two on -site affordable dwelling units to mitigate employee generation impacts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-8-104.C.1.c. and 24-8-109.J. of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall approve the method by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission (herein "Commission"); and WHEREAS, on December 21, 1993, the Commission reviewed the affordable housing proposal and recommended that the applicant increase the size of the three -bedroom unit; and WHEREAS, the applicant committed to increase the size of the three -bedroom unit to 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing Office guidelines for a three -bedroom, category 3 dwelling unit; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to Council approval of the \ on -site affordable housing with conditions; and /) WHEREAS, the applicant also requests vested rights status for 00 • • 367932 B-744 P-625 (�3/16/94 11:C�6A PG 2 OF 5 a site specific development plan as represented in the GMQS I application; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning Office's recommendation for the GMQS Exemption does wish to grant the exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1• Pursuant to Sections 24-8-104.C.1.c. and 24-8-109.J. of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant a GMQS Exemption for the development of two on -site affordable dwelling units located in the proposed Stapleton office building at 702 West Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified category 3 household, if a member of that household is employed by the owner of the building. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the owner of the building, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. The owner of the building has the ability to select a qualified occupant to rent both of the deed restricted units. 2. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be increased to a total of 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing minimum size guidelines. 3. The one -bedroom 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing Office, restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office guidelines. 5. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other l conditions. 367932 B-744 P-626 03/16/94 11:06A PG 3 OF Section 2• Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for 702 West Main, East 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent 1 reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the J general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3• The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: l Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval /1 of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, 367932 B-744 • • • 0 P-62 7 03/ 16/94 1 1:�>6A PG 4 DF 5 Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following - described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 4g day of 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the oVj day of 1994. John Bennett, Mayor A l li KA,thryn S:: �h, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and appro ed this c:�U/ day of 1994. Johrl Bennett, Mayor ES K�thy�rr�s.., Koch, City C1 767932 B-744 P-628 03/ 16/94 1 1: 06A PG 5 OF 5 5 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A REDUCTION OF PARKING AND A FLOOR AREA BONUS, A COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE OF 27.91 POINTS, AND RECOMMENDING A GMQS EXEMPTION TO COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING MITIGATION FOR THE STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY APPLICATION, 702 WEST MAIN STREET (EAST 10 FEET OF LOT R AND ALL OF LOT S, BLOCK 18) ASPEN, COLORADO. Resolution No. 93- 3-� WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on December 21, 1993 to consider the GMQS Application submitted by Stape Limited Liability Company (herein the applicant); and WHEREAS, there were two GMQS Applications submitted, Cap's Auto Supply and Stape Limited Liability Company, requesting allocations from the 1993 commercial quota in the Office zone district; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested an allocation of 2,423 square feet of net leasable space to development a new office building; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requested special review for a reduction of on -site parking and an increase in floor area; and WHEREAS, the applicant also proposed to provide two on -site affordable dwelling units to mitigate employee generation impacts of the new development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-404 B., the Commission approved four on -site parking spaces with a payment -in -lieu ($15,000 per space) for five parking spaces that will not be provided on -site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-404 A., the Commission approved the floor area bonus for an increase from .75:1 to .86:1; and WHEREAS, the Commission accepted the Planning Office recommended score of 27.91 points and found that the project exceeded the minimum score thresholds of Section 24-8-106 F.; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to City Council a GMQS Exemption approval for the development of two fully deed restricted dwelling units, one one -bedroom category 2 unit and one three -bedroom category 3 unit. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it approves special review for parking and a floor area bonus as ' represented by the applicant with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall make a one-time payment to the Building Department for 0 • transfer to the City Finance Department for 5 parking spaces ($75,000). 2. Two of the on -site parking spaces shall be signed and reserved for the on -site dwelling units. 3. All material representation made by the applicant in the application and at the public hearing with the Planning and Zoning commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. Prior to issuance of any building permits: 4. The applicant shall receive final approval from the HPC. 5. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed before any trees over 6" in caliper are removed or relocated. 6. Trees that are to be preserved on -site shall be protected by fencing at the drip lines and debris and excavation material shall not be stockpiled against the trees. 7. A storm run-off mitigation plan, consistent with the submitted application, shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. 8. A curb, gutter and sidewalk plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and shall include an accessible ramp on the corner, a five foot wide "sidewalk" area on Sixth Street, and a street light on the corner of the alley. 9. Ice and snow shed protection shall be indicated on the final plans. 10. The applicant shall review detailed plans with the Sanitation District and shall contribute $5000, payable to the ACSD, for collection system improvements. _ 11. A housing mitigation plan for( 4.75;',t6tmployees must be approved by the City Council and appropriate deed restrictions filed. 12. The applicant shall submit an application for electric service providing load information for review by the Electric Department. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it recommends to Council a GMQS Exemption for the development of two on -site affordable dwelling units with the following conditions: 1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 3 and be increased to 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing Office minimum size guidelines. 2 r� C7 2. The one -bedroom, 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit, shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing Office, restricting the two dwelling units to the Housing Office guidelines. APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on December 21, 1993. ATTEST: C1104)_ 00'�MZ24= Jan Parney, Deputy ity Clerk DATE SIGNED• (� ASPEN PLANNING AND ZON�I�NG C ISSION Z�' Bruce Kerr, Chairperson DATE SIGNED• l lO 9 r 0 • EXHIBIT B s' 5 J z uJ � rIW J :i Ln J A 7 J L I d W � F- W J) L m r Z z z lU _ l] � Q W V Z 7 �n z Z O F-- u.1 J C cn cn l S " L N� /\ 13 S 'k =l I --1 k 4 �U z w i \` 1 w 0 n N $ S n 4 I 'i 0 7 n J ZU ► tlJ CKI d ul � II I11 7 4 ti W 3 1 Q_ r I-t 0 --9f1- of b q�N J - a� > o n J E *EXHIBIT C I IA To: Leslie Lamont, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office Subject: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment Date: 18 January, 1994 In the original referral comment from the Housing Office on this application, we noted that the Housing Board had set priorities for family oriented sales units and Category 1 and 2 rental units. These priorities were established in the 1993 Housing Guidelines, which were adopted by the City Council. The applicant's proposed three bedroom, Category 3 rental unit does not meet either of these priorities, and we recommended that it be either a sales unit or a Category 2 rental unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the applicant be permitted to provide a Category 3 rental unit, based on the applicant's desire to rent the unit to an employee of the applicant and the difficulty of finding an employee household that meets the Category 2 income requirements. Based on the 1990-1991 survey of employees, 50% of the working households in Pitkin County meet the Category 1 and 2 income requirements. Most available three bedroom units in the inventory are priced for households in the Category 3 and 4 income ranges. There is a critical shortage of lower income three bedroom units for those households in the lower half of the population. In order to accommodate the applicant's desire to rent to their own employee and still meet the critical need for affordable family rental units in the lower income categories, the Housing Office recommends that the proposed three bedroom unit be classified as a Category 2 unit, with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified Category 3 household, a member of which is employed by the applicant. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the applicant, it would be rented under the Category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. • • ORDINANCE 3 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ASPEN, COLORADO GRANTING A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND VESTED RIGHTS STATUS FOR THE STAPLETON OFFICE BUILDING, 702 WEST MAINSTRE, EAST l FEET OF LOTS R AND ALL OF LOT S. BLOCK 1 ASPEN TOWNSITE. ASPEN COLORADO. WHEREAS, the appllcant. Stape Limited Lia- bility Company, has proposed to develop a office building located at 702 West Main Street-, and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested Growth Management allocation for,tfje,. commercial/office quota; arxF — WHEREAS, the appllcanirptfoposes to develiap two ott-site affordable dwelling units to roil gate employee generation impacts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24 104.C.I.c. and 2441-109J. of the Aspen Munid Code. City Council shall approve the meth by which an applicant proposes to provid affordable housing upon recommendation b the Planning and Zoning Commission (iterei 'Commission'); and WHEREAS, on December 21, 1993, the Co mission reviewed the affordable housingg pr posal and recommended that the appilca Increase the size of the three -bedroom uni and WHEREAS, the applicant committed t Increase the size of the three -bedroom unit kM square feet of net livable space to m the Housing Office guidelines for a th room, category 3 dwelling unit; and. WHEREAS, the Commission recommends Council approval of the on -site affordable ho Ing with conditions; and WHEREAS, the applicant also requests vest rights status for a site specific developme plan as represented in the GMQS' applicatl and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council have considered the Planning O(8ce's recommend Uon for the GMQS Exemption does wish o NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY l he CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .ASPEN, COL- ORADO: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 24-8 I04.C.I.c. and 24.8- 109J. of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant a GMQS Exemption for the devel- opment of two on -site affordable dwelling units located in the proposed Stapleton office build- Ing at 702 West Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 3 and be increased to 1.200 square feet of net livable space to meet the Housing minimum size guidelines. 2. The one -bedroom 61Ssquare-foot net liv- able dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building per- mits the applicant shall record the deed restrictions. with a copy to the Housing Office. restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office guidelines. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 24.6.207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the appll- cant vested rights for 702 West Main, Fast 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved b this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (S) years from the date of final adoption specified below. Howev- er, any failure to abide by the terms and condl- tions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Fail- ure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfei- ture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be sub- ject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific devel- opment plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not Inconsistent with the approvals grant- ed and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested prop- erty right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property sub- ject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen Including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. in this regard, as a condition of this site develop- ment approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, elec- trical and mechanical codes, unless an exemp- tion therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordi- nance to be published in a newspaper of gener- al circulations within the City of Aspen no later thanfourteen (14) days following final adop- tion hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public 0 of the approval of a site specific development 8 plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following n described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordi- nance granting such approval. L493 Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any I. reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision & and such holding shall not affect the validity of pal the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: e This Ordinance shall not effect any existing y litigation and shall not operate as an abate- n ment of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed m- or amended as herein provided, and the same o- shall be conducted and concluded under such nt prior ordinances. t; Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be o held on the 28 day of February, 1994 at 5,00 to P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Aspen City eet Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to reabed_ which heanng a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general to circulation within the City of Aspen. us INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB- LISHED as provided by law. by the City Council ed of the City of Aspen on the 24 day of January, nt 1994. n; John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: ng Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk a- Published in The Aspen Times February 4. to 1994. 0 OvIlt MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: January 24, 1994 RE: Stapleton Commercial Growth Management - GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Vested Rights, First Reading Ordinance 3 , Series of 1994. SUMMARY: The applicant, Stape Limited Liability Company, has requested a Growth Management allocation for the development of a 5,350 gross square foot office building on Main Street. As part of that development plan, two fully deed restricted affordable housing units have been proposed within the new building. The construction of on -site affordable housing requires a GMQS review and approval by Council. The Commission has reviewed the affordable housing package and recommends to Council approval of the two fully deed restricted dwelling units. The application also requests vested rights status for the development plan. Both requests require Council to follow the Ordinance procedure process. The applicant is also requesting an allocation of 2,423 square feet commercial space from the 1993 Commerical GMQS quota. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and scored the development proposal. The Commission found the project met the minimum scoring thresholds as required by Section 24-8-106.F. The Commission recommends that Council allocate 2,423 square feet of the 1993 Commercial GMQS quota to this project. Because Council allocates by Resolution, a separate Resolution with cover memo has been prepared for allotting the 1993 quota. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 3 , Series of 1994, at first reading. Please see attached Ordinance. BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this project at their December 21, 1993 public hearing. The Commission approved Special Review for a reduction in parking from 9 to 4 on - site spaces with a cash -in -lieu payment for spaces not provided on - site. The Commission also approved Special Review for an increase in allowable floor area from .75:1 to .86:1. Next, the Commission reviewed the applicant's proposal to provide two on -site affordable units to mitigate employee generation. The Commission recommends to Council approval of the affordable housing package. Finally, the Commission accepted staffs score of the project finding that the scoring exceeded the minimum thresholds required in Section 24-8-104.F. of the Municipal Code. Please see attached Commission Resolution, Exhibit A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Stape Limited Liability Company proposes to demolish the existing residential structure and redevelop the 4,000 square foot parcel for office related purposes. The applicant proposes to build a 5,350 gross square foot building with 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable space. The applicant also proposes to provide two affordable dwelling units on -site in the basement, one 1-bedroom and one 3-bedroom. The parcel is considered a non -conforming lot of record in the Office zone district. The Land Use Code only allows the construction of a single-family dwelling unit on a lot of this size. The applicant requested a variance, with Planning Department support, from the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to vary the minimum lot size in the Office zone district to construct an office building. The BOA granted the variance finding that the non -conforming section encourages single-family residences that may not be appropriate in a particular zone district. Building design requires HPC review and approval due to its location in the Main Street Historic Overlay District. The HPC has conceptually approved the proposal. CURRENT ISSUES: A. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing - The Stapletons propose to provide two on -site affordable dwelling units, one 1-bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit. The proposal represents a mitigation of 65% of the employees generated by this development. Please see attached floor plans, Exhibit B. The Commission shall make a recommendation to Council with regard to a GMQS Exemption for affordable housing. Council shall approve the method by which an applicant mitigates employee generation for a GMQS application. In evaluating the applicant's proposal, the advice of the city's housing designee shall be sought. The Housing Office found that the 3-bedroom unit does not meet the minimum size requirement for a category 3 unit according to the Guidelines. The applicant, at the Commission meeting, committed to increase the size of the unit to meet the Housing Office guidelines for a category 3 dwelling unit. 2 However, the Housing Office would still recommend deed restricting the unit to category 2 or make the unit a sales unit. According to their referral memo (Exhibit C), based on the 1990-1991 survey of employees, 50% of the working households in Pitkin County meet the category 1 and 2 income requirements. Most available three - bedroom units in the inventory are priced for households in the category 3 and 4 income ranges. There is a critical shortage of lower income three -bedroom units for those households in the lower half of the population. In order to accommodate the applicant's desire to rent to their own employee and still meet the critical need for affordable family rental units in the lower income categories, the Housing Office recommends that the proposed three -bedroom unit be classified as a category 2 unit, with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified category 3 household, a member of which is employed by the applicant. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the applicant, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. Pursuant to Section 24-8-109.J., the following factors shall be considered when reviewing the method proposed: 1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. RESPONSE: Although the City/County have allocated tax monies for the development of affordable housing, it is the policy of Council, Housing Office and staff to obtain dwelling units before accepting payment in -lieu. 2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. RESPONSE: This site was not identified in the AACP as a potential site for affordable housing. However, the AACP does recommend that affordable housing be provided near places of employment. The Stapletons wish to provide housing, not only to meet the scoring criteria for the GMQS allocation, but also to create necessary housing for their employees. 3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints to development or historic preservation concerns. RESPONSE: The proposed dwelling units are located below grade. But in order to request the floor area bonus, 60% of the increased floor area must be dedicated to affordable dwelling units. Therefore, the building is designed in a manner that pulls the 3 basement out of the ground enabling a portion of the dwelling units to be above grade. Although, the HPC has conceptually approved this development, concern has been expressed about the size of the proposed building which is adjacent to an Historically Landmarked structure. There was concern that the floor area bonus exacerbated the overbearing nature of the proposed building next to the smaller building. However, the P&Z believed that in order to preserve liveability and enhance the quality of the units that the bonus was necessary. Also, the request was to increase the floor area from .75:1 only to .86:1. 4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. RESPONSE: The two dwelling units will be occupied at the time the office building is occupied. 5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. RESPONSE: The applicants have maintained that it is crucial to be able to provide housing for their employees. B. Vested Property Rights: The applicant requests vested rights status, for the site specific development plan as represented in the GMQS application, to protect the development approvals for three years from changes in the Municipal Code, Chapter 24. Necessary vesting language is included in the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the method for the provision of affordable housing with the following conditions: 1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 3 and be increased to 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing minimum size guidelines. 2. The one -bedroom 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing Office, restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office guidelines. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. ►H • ALTERNATIVES: 1. Based upon the Housing Office's concerns that there is a "critical shortage" of lower income three -bedroom units, Council may consider the GMQS Exemption for the two on -site affordable units with the condition that: The proposed three -bedroom unit be classified as a category 2 unit, with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified category 3 household, a member of which is employed by the applicant. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the applicant, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. The Housing Office is currently in the process of discussing the various options with the applicant for an update at the January 24, 1994 meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance �, Series of 1994." "I move to approve Ordinance 5, Series of 1994, on first reading, approving the GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for the Stapleton GMQS office development and granting Vested Rights status." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Ordinance:'-), Series of 1994. EXHIBITS: A. Commission Resolution No. 93-32 B. Floor Plans C. Housing Office Referral Memo k 1* 0 EXHIBIT B m LJ C) Z t► I� z 2 S E �%/ E N —T H S —f . ,crew In r I I� m TV 4C.— 6—e- Tr. X T H S T R n w�- � A 0 I' I II I aw z _Q � � O Z Q 1 � I � $ UJ X Z U J_ 7 U Z lu 4 u.l V 7_ O z OL s / / I o b n N w u l D $ ks n dy 11 • mw II 10 z J m r V Z w �7 W U z 173 kp z 0 F- uw J Q N • *EXHIBIT C To: Leslie Lamont, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office Subject: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment Date: 18 January, 1994 ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- In the original referral comment from the Housing Office on this application, we noted that the Housing Board had set priorities for family oriented sales units and Category 1 and 2 rental units. These priorities were established in the 1993 Housing Guidelines, which were adopted by the City Council. The applicant's proposed three bedroom, Category 3 rental unit does not meet either of these priorities, and we recommended that it be either a sales unit or a Category 2 rental unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the applicant be permitted to provide a Category 3 rental unit, based on the applicant's desire to rent the unit to an employee of the applicant and the difficulty of finding an employee household that meets the Category 2 income requirements. Based on the 1990-1991 survey of employees, 50% of the working households in Pitkin County meet the Category 1 and 2 income requirements. Most available three bedroom units in the inventory are priced for households in the Category 3 and 4 income ranges. There is a critical shortage of lower income three bedroom units for those households in the lower half of the population. In order to accommodate the applicant's desire to rent to their own employee and still meet the critical need for affordable family rental units in the lower income categories, the Housing Office recommends that the proposed three bedroom unit be classified as a Category 2 unit, with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified Category 3 household, a member of which is employed by the applicant. If the unit is made available to the general public rather than an employee of the applicant, it would be rented under the Category 2 guidelines for household income and rent. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner RE: Stapleton 1993 Commercial Growth Management Scoring in the Office Zone District, Special Reviews for Reduction of Parking and Floor Area Bonus, and GMQS Exemption Review for Affordable Housing DATE: December 21, 1993 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This application seeks a Commercial GMP allocation for 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable space for the redevelopment of a 4,000 square foot parcel in the Office zone district. This application is competing against Cap's GMP application for the 4,000 square feet available in the Office zone. In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project meets minimum scoring thresholds. The applicant also requests Special Review for parking and floor area bonus. Staff recommends approval of Special Review for parking (cash -in -lieu payment) and does not recommend approval of the floor area bonus. The Commission shall also review and forward Council a recommendation regarding the method by which the applicant is providing affordable housing. Staff suggests that the Commission first consider the project's requests for Special Reviews, then begin the scoring process. APPLICANT: Stape Limited Liability Company, represented by Joe Wells LOCATION: 702 West Main Street, (E. 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18 Townsite of Aspen). ZONING: O - Office with an Historic Overlay APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks a Growth Management allotment for 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable sq. ft. The existing structure, a single family home with a garage, is proposed to be demolished for the redevelopment of the parcel as an office building. The Stapleton's intend to relocate their insurance company to this parcel. Special Review approvals are sought for payment -in -lieu for 3 parking spaces and FAR bonus above .75:1 to .86:1. The applicant will seek from City Council vested development rights for a period of three years, GMQS Exemption for on -site affordable housing and 1 a waiver of park development impact fees for the affordable housing. Please refer to the complete application package. PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning Commission first review the project's requested Special Reviews as these are critical to the continuance of the development. If Special Reviews are approved, the Commission shall score the project using the criteria/point system established in the land use regulations for commercial projects. Staff has scored the proposal and submits this score to the Commission (Exhibit "A"). The Commission may elect to accept staff's score as their own. If the Commission finds that the project meets minimum point thresholds, it will be forwarded to the City Council for GMP allocation of net leasable area and approval of a housing mitigation package and vested property rights. REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are included as Attachment "B". Electric: Bill Early states that only single phase power is available at this location. A larger transformer may be necessary to service the increased load however, no load information was presented in the application, so service needs of the new load are only an estimate. If a larger transformer and/or three-phase power is desired the applicant shall pay for any upgrades to the system. Engineering: Chuck Roth comments that the storm run-off mitigation proposed exceeds Code requirements. Trash storage has been adequately addressed and proposed sidewalk installation exceeds the requirements of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan. An accessible ramp in the sidewalk will need to be installed on the corner and a "sidewalk area" on Sixth Street shall be indicated on final plans. The Engineering Department also supports the provision of parking for residential units on -site and questions whether increased development rights should be approved when required parking cannot be provided on -site. A roof and snow shed plan should be developed for this project. It appears from the plans that snow will shed onto the handicapped ramp on the west side of the building. Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark had no comments at this time. HPC: This proposal has received conceptual approval with the following conditions: 1. The blind dormers on the northern portion of the building shall be either restudied or removed to simplify the architectural scheme. K 2. As an additional recommendation we recommend the non- contributing structure on the side be allowed to fasciliate redevelopment of the site. Also that the Board of Adjustment grant a reversing of the side yard setbacks so that the easterly side yard is reduced five feet and the west side yard increased 6.66 feet. Housing Authority: Dave Tolan forwarded comments. The applicants intend to mitigate for 65% of the employees generated. The applicants propose to construct two on -site affordable units: one 1-bedroom, 615 sq. ft., category 2 unit and one 3-bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft., category 3 unit. The 1-bedroom unit meets the Housing Guidelines while the proposed 3-bedroom unit does not meet the minimum size requirement for a category 3 unit (1,200 sq. ft.). If the unit were restricted to category 2, it would be consistent with the Guidelines. Parks: The Parks Department recommends denial of the waiver of Park Impact fees because affordable housing occupants do impact park and recreational amenities. Parks supports the landscape plan to plant cottonless cottonwood tress but requires that protection of the existing trees during construction shall include no excavation in the drip line of the trees and no stockpiling of dirt or debris around the trees. A tree permit shall be applied for prior to the issuance of any building permits for trees that will be removed or relocated. The ditch that runs along sixth street shall be restored to original condition if damaged by construction and cannot be turned off for more than 48 hours during construction. The Parks and Water Departments must be contacted if there are any impacts or questions regarding the ditch. Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states that adequate line and treatment capacity is available to service this expansion. Credit will be given for the existing fixtures as determined from their records. A six inch service line may be required for this project. If the applicant commits to $5000 toward downstream improvements it will benefit the collection system in this drainage. Water: No comments at this time other than all provisions of the City Code must be followed for water service. PROPOSAL: This application seeks to demolish the existing residential structure and redevelop the 4,000 sq. ft. parcel for office related purposes. The applicant proposes to build a 5,350 gross square foot building with 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable, 3,457 sq. ft. of floor area and 1,893 sq. ft. of non floor area. 3 The applicant also proposes to provide two affordable dwelling units on -site in the basement, one 1-bedroom and one 3-bedroom. The parcel is considered a non -conforming lot of record in the Office zone district. The Land Use Code only allows the construction of a single-family dwelling units on such parcel. The applicant requested a variance, with Planning Department support, from the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to vary the minimum lot size in the Office zone district to construct an office building. The BOA granted the variance finding that the non -conforming section encourages single-family residences that may not be appropriate in a particular zone district. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff recommends that prior to scoring this project, the Commission review the entire proposal including the Special Reviews for parking reduction and floor area bonus. A staff score summary follows the Special Review discussion. Special Reviews: Parking Reduction / Cash -in -lieu Section 7-404 B. allows the Commission to grant a reduction of required off-street parking. If parking is provided via a payment -in -lieu, the applicant shall make a one time payment to the city in the amount of $15,000 per space. The applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. In determining whether to accept mitigation or whether to require that the parking be provided on -site, the Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability to place parking on -site, whether parking needs of the development have been adequately met on -site, and whether the City has [plans for] a parking facility which meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the parking on -site. Response: The Office zone district requires 3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable space. The Stapleton office building proposes 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable space. Therefore the applicant is required to provide 7.2 parking spaces, rounded down to 7. The development proposal also includes two affordable dwelling units of which parking is also subject to Special Review. It has been the policy of staff to recommend a minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit. Therefore the applicant is recommended to provide 2 residential parking spaces for a total of 9 required parking spaces. 4 As stated in the application, the alley frontage is limited to 40 feet. A portion must be set aside for the trash enclosure. It is impossible to create more than 4 legal parking spaces in the rear of the parcel. The alternative would be to provide parking on the side of the building off of Sixth Street but would compromise the semi -residential nature of this corner and the site plan/open space. The subject parcel is located on Main Street, the primary transit route in the City. A bus stop is one-half block to the east. The affordable housing being provided on -site is intended for employees of the insurance company. The company also provides an employee van for car-pooling. The neighborhood permit parking program, in its first phase, will not extend this far west. Therefore, staff recommends a reduction in the required 9 parking spaces to 4 on -site spaces with a cash -in -lieu payment for 5 spaces, $75,000. Special Review for FAR Bonus: The allowable floor area ratio in the Office zone is .75:1, which may be increased up to 1:1 upon approval of Special Review by the Commission, with the stipulation that 60% of the additional FAR be applied to affordable housing. The 4,000 s.f. parcel allows 3,000 s.f. of floor area. The floor area of the proposed development is 3,457 sq. ft. of floor area, or .86:1. This represents an additional 457 s.f. of floor area. Two review criteria apply to bonus FAR: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. Response: The HPC has conceptually reviewed this project. For HPC review FAR and the requested development allocation were not made available to the Committee. This a protective measure for the applicant because conceptual approval is required prior to a GMP submittal. Although the HPC approved this project at the conceptual level, they were concerned that the structure was incompatible with the adjacent Historical Landmark to the west. The HPC has included as a condition of approval that the applicant seek a side yard setback variance from the Board of Adjustment in order to increase the setback from the adjacent Landmark (which the applicant has not yet pursued). As mentioned in the staff scoring comments, the two story west elevation is too imposing to the adjacent parcel. The additional FAR requested only compounds this negative situation. 5 • • 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. Response: Given the proposed development, the property can only support 4 on -site parking spaces. Although staff recommends approval of the special review to reduce on -site parking, the increased floor area of 457 sq. ft. equals 1 additional parking space if the floor area is also used as net leasable. The Commission is being asked to reduce required parking primarily because the site is small which would suggest that the site cannot accommodate the development as proposed and other service needs such as trash enclosure, bike racks and parking. In addition, per staff's scoring comments, siting and bulk/massing issues were scored low because of the cramped conditions created by the proposed design. Because of the site's proximity to transit routes, provision of an employee van -pool, and employee housing on -site, staff can comfortably recommend a reduction in parking with the cash -in - lieu. But, staff cannot support the request for additional floor area beyond what is allowed by right in the zone district. Growth Management Staff Score: Four City Planners jointly reviewed the project pursuant to the scoring criteria contained in Section 8-106 F. of the land use regulations. The Planning Office forwards the following recommended score for the Stapleton Office GMP project: Scoring Categories 1) Quality of Design 2) Public Facilities and Services 3) Affordable Housing Minimum Threshold Points 7.2 (40%) 10.75 4 (40%) 6.5 10 (60%) 10.66 /y 27.91 1) Combined 1 & 2--16.8 (60) 17.25 Pursuant to Section 8-106 F.(5) to be eligible for an allocation, a development application shall be required to meet the thresholds of each category and a combined threshold for categories 1 & 2. Individual and combined categories have been met as shown in the 6 U table above. The Commission may accept staff s score or do its own scoring procedure. Blank score sheets will be available at the meeting. GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing - The Commission shall make a recommendation to the Council with regard to an exemption for affordable housing and the method by which an applicant mitigates employee generation for a GMQS application. The Stapleton's propose to provide two on -site affordable dwelling units, one 1-bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit. The proposal represents a mitigation of 65% of the employees generated by this development. However, the Housing Office has found that the 3- bedroom unit does not meet the minimum size requirement for a category 3 unit according to the Guidelines. The Housing Office suggests that the application deed restrict the 3-bedroom unit to category 2 Guidelines or increase the size of the dwelling unit. Staff also recommends that the bedroom of the 1-bedroom unit be switched with the public restroom and mechanical room or enlarge the bedroom's window well. The front elevation indicates that there is a large window -well to the west of the front stairs that could be used to the advantage of the bedroom to provide natural light. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of Special Review for the Floor Area Ratio bonus. The Planning Office recommends approval with conditions of the Special Reviews for reduction of parking with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits the applicant shall make a one-time payment to the Building Department for transfer to the City Finance Department for 5 parking spaces ($75,000). 2. Two of the on -site parking spaces shall be signed and reserved for each dwelling unit. Prior to issuance of any building permits: 3. The applicant shall receive final approval from the HPC. 4. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed before any trees over 6" in caliper are removed or relocated. 5. Trees that are to be preserved on -site shall be protected by 7 fencing at the drip lines and debris and excavation material shall not be stockpiled against the trees. 6. A storm run-off mitigation plan, consistent with the submitted application, shall be submitted for review to the Engineering Department. 7. A curb, gutter and sidewalk plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and shall include an accessible ramp on the corner, a five foot wide "sidewalk" area on Sixth Street, and a street light on the corner of the alley. 8. Ice and snow shed protection shall be indicated on the final plans. 9. The applicant shall review detailed plans with the Sanitation District and shall contribute $5000, payable to the ACSD, for collection system improvements. 10. A housing mitigation plan for 4.75 employees must be approved by the City Council and appropriate deed restrictions filed. 11. The applicant shall submit an application for electric service providing load information for review by the Electric Department. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the Special Review for the floor area ratio bonus." "I move to approve the Stapleton Office Building Special Review for reduction of 5 parking spaces with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993." "I move to score the Stapleton Office Building Growth Management project at points, finding that required thresholds have been met for growth management allocation." additionally: "I move that City Council only accept a housing mitigation package which addresses the Housing Office's concerns, specifically that the 3-bedroom unit be deed restricted to category 2 Guidelines or be increased to 1,200 sq. ft. net liveable to meet the Housing minimum size guidelines and the bedroom of the 1-bedroom unit be redesigned to gain more natural light." Application Booklet Exhibits: "A" - Planning Staff Scoring Sheet / Recommended Score "B" - Complete Referral Memos "C" - Public Hearing Proof of Publication EXHIBIT A CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: Stapleton Office Building DATE:December 21, 1993 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points). Each development application shall be rated based on the quality of the exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points according to the following standards and considerations: 0 -- A totally deficient design; 1 -- A major design flaw; 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design; or 3 -- An excellent design. The following features shall be rated accordingly: (a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 1.5 COMMENTS: Staff has found that there is a design flaw with this building. The project is located directly to the east of an Historic Landmark structure. The west facade of the building (which faces the historic structure) is a long, fairly unbroken plane, which lacks articulation and over -scales the smaller, historic structure. In addition, the proposed building does not address the small scale of the neighboring structure. The floor area bonus accentuates the massing of the building which staff finds is incompatible with the designated structure to the west and the 2 structures across the street which are on the Historic Inventory. This block on Main Street possesses some of the few historic structures in town that have not been significantly altered. This new structure is incompatible with the historical context of this block. Finally, the proposed building is pushed too tightly against the west property line. (b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. RATING• 1.75 COMMENTS: Although the project takes advantage of its corner lot location and uses the unimproved public right-of-way to expand its open space, this site design is insensitive to the historic structure to the west, and is set too close to the west lot line. It appears from the submitted plans that snow will shed onto the handicapped/service ramp on the west side and the lack of significant sunshine may prevent snow and ice from melting. There is no area delineated for snow storage or a service/delivery area off of the alley. (c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). Considering the use of passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in the construction of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING• 1.5 COMMENTS: According to the Building Department, the information submitted in the application is not consistent with the latest energy conservation techniques. The Model Energy Code that was adopted with the 1988 uniform codes includes more efficient energy methods for construction. The suggested R-20 value for insulation in the walls is a low number and without additional roof structure information staff cannot determine whether the R-60 value can be achieved in the roof system. Glazing information does not discuss infiltration and the plumbing and mechanical systems do not appear to exceed standard measures. (d) AMENITIES (maximum 3 points). Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. RATING• 2 COMMENTS: The project provides a bench in front along the sidewalk. A bike rack is also located to the rear of the building. However, the location of the rack in between the concrete walkway and trash enclosure appears to be cramped and when the parking spaces are full nonfunctional. Another bike rack in the front of the building would be an added benefit for customers. 2 �D • • (e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 3 points). Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING:2 COMMENTS: There are no designated viewplanes in the vicinity of the building therefore the standard score is recommended. (f) TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS (maximum 3 points). Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. RATING• 2 COMMENTS: The Electric Department comments that a larger transformer may be necessary to serve this project and there is only single phase power available for the site. All upgrades to power, if necessary, will automatically charged to the applicant. The trash enclosure is adequate to service this project and is located so it can be easily accessed. Although the application states that a service area has been provided, it does not appear on the plans other than in the alley. Access to the building, using the concrete walkway, would be difficult when the parking spaces are full. 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points). Each development application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations: 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense; 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or service improvements made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general; or 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. 3 In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. (a) WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development RATING: 1.5 COMMENTS: There is capacity to serve this project without upgrading the system or making extensions. The applicant commits to replacing the Pacific State hydrant and installing a new model on the northeast corner of Main and Sixth Streets. (b) SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1.5 COMMENTS: The Sanitation District has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project. The applicant has committed to making a $5000 contribution toward downstream improvements which will benefit the collection system in this drainage area. (c) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements 4 1V to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING• 1 COMMENTS: This project is located along Main Street which is the primary transit route in the City. The project will contribute approximately 26 additional trips to the street system. Review of this project by City agencies has determined that the project will not substantially alter the traffic patterns in this area. The on - site parking will be located off of the alley to minimize visual and traffic impacts. (d) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the city's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long-term. RATING• 1.5 COMMENTS: According to the comments received by the Engineering Department, the storm drainage plan exceeds what is required in the Code. The storm runoff mitigation will improve the storm drainage problems in the West End. (e) PARKING (maximum 2 points). Considering the provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required by Article 5, Division 2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and safety. RATING• 1 COMMENTS: If the project receives Special Review approval for the reduction in parking then the 4 spaces provided on -site will be deemed acceptable. However, the location of the parking next to the walkway and bike rack restricts their use. The location of parking only off of the ally and not off of Sixth Street reduces the visual impact of the parking. At least one space per dwelling unit should be provided on -site to prevent long-term "storage" of private automobiles in the neighborhoods. Two parking spaces should be signed for residents of the building only. 5 1'� • • 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). Each development application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city, and with the provisions of Section 8-109. Points shall be assigned as follows: Zero (0) to sixty (60) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each six (6) percent housed; Sixty-one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each eight (8) percent housed. The following standard shall be used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development: Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1): Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service/Commer. Industrial (S/C/I): Office (0) : Commercial Lodge (CL) and other: 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable), based on review of the city council's housing designee; 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable); 3.00 employees/ 1, 000 square feet (net leasable); 3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable). If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the commission shall use the following criteria: Studio: One -bedroom: Two -bedroom: Three -bedroom or larger: Dormitory: 6 1.25 residents; 1.75 residents; 2.25 residents; 3.00 residents; 1.00 resident per 150 per square feet of unit space. RATING: 10.66 COMMENTS: The two dwelling units provided on -site, one 1-bedroom and one 2-bedroom, will mitigate 65% of the employees generated by this development. However, the size of the 3-bedroom unit does not meet the minimum size for category 3 dwelling units. The Housing Office recommends that the unit be deed restricted to category 2 Guidelines or increased to 1,200 sq. ft. net liveable. 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 4 points). Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Section 8-106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under section 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. RATING: COMMENTS: Staff does not assign bonus points. 5. TOTAL POINTS - SCORING CATEGORIES: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN SUBTOTAL: 27.91 POINTS: 10.75 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 6.5 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10.66 4. BONUS POINTS 0 TOTAL POINTS: Name of P&Z Commission Member: 7 0 0 EXHIBIT B TO: LESLIE LAMONT FROM: BILL EARLEY DATE: OCT 18,1993 RE; STAPLETON COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW I have reviewed the above request and it will probably only take a larger transformer to serve this increased load. No load information was presented so I can only estimate the new load. The applicant should be aware that only single phase power is available at this location. MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer Date: November 1, 1993 Re: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQS Exemption & Vested Rights Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Storm Runoff Storm run-off has been presented in the application in a manner that exceeds Code requirements. In use -by -right development, there is no requirement for mitigating storm runoff. Only in the subdivision section of the Code is storm runoff mitigation required. The applicant has offered to provide for storm runoff mitigation on site which will be beneficial to Aspen's West End storm runoff problems. 2. Trash Storm The trash storage area has been adequately address in the application. 3. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter The Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan calls for sidewalk to be constructed at the time of development for properties on Main Street. The application has met this standard and has exceeded requirements by offering to install a portion of the sidewalk on private property which will improve the site design and buffer space between the curb and the sidewalk. This space is typically narrow and restricted on Main Street. A handicap ramp will need to be installed at the corner. The final development plan should indicate a "sidewalk area" on Sixth Street that is a five foot wide space usable by pedestrians and unencumhered by landscaping. The new cottonwoods should he pruned up seven feet if they encroach in the "sidewalk area." I 4. Special Review for Parking This same comment section is being written for all three of the 1993 Commercial GMQS applications. I am doing this because there are three different planners for the applications and because the issue should be looked at as a whole for all three applications. Each of the three applicants is seeking a reduction in Code requirements for on - site parking. It would appear that the Parking and Transportation Director should be consulted for a policy statement on approving GMQS projects which do not offer to provide on -site parking for the needs of the proposed projects. Perhaps it may be inappropriate to grant increased development rights when parking is not provided on site. Each of the applicants states that it is not possible to provide on -site parking. The statement Must be evaluated more as a statement of apparent economic feasibility than ns an engineering or construction comment. That is, it might be possible to provide on - site parking, but the costs might be greater than paying cash -in -lieu. Please note that the City's cash -in -lieu amount is probably too low, which may contribute to the three applicants' choosing to offer cash -in -lieu instead of constructing parking spaces on site. This was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting for the Kraut Property project. They reported higher costs for providing on -site, sub -grade parking spaces than the City's cash -in -lieu amount. Permitting cash -in -lieu for daytime office or commercial parking may have less of an adverse impact, but it would appear that on -site spaces should be provided for residential units in all cases. Note that providing parking spaces and trash and utility areas often is a "conflict" for developers versus maximizing on -site net leasable space. The Galena Plaza project could potentially construct an in -set trash and utility area into the apartments which would save the existing two on -site parking spaces. The City has discussed in other instances constructing in -set trash and utility spaces in existing buildings in the commercial core so that the problem of removing dumpsters from the alleys can be alleviated. Again, this becomes an issue of loss of net leasable space. In the commercial core, it is sometimes also an issue of whether or not such a recessed enclosure into an historic building represents a compromise of the historic building. S. Roof Snow and Ice Shed Roof snow and ice shed does not appear to be a problem for this project, but it might be worthwhile to have a standard requirement in final development plans to provide a roof snow and ice shed plan. 51 • • 6. Street Lights It is recommended that installation of a standard City antique street light be required at the corner of the alley. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee is interested in recommending to City Council that an improvement district be formed for installing a complete system of sidewalks and street lights in the "West End" on the south side of Main Street. Given the closeness of this project to Main Street and the commercial nature of the project, it is recommended that a street light at the alley be required if the project is approved. 7. Work in the Public Right-of-way Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). MV3.25$ �q • f ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM 'rwo '7 --TO City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Parks Zoning Administration Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District Roaring Fork Energy Center _ Clean Air Board -FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, DATE: September 29, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by David & Don Stapleton requesting approvals for Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQs Exemptoin & Vested Rights. Please return your comments to me no later than November 1, 1993. Thank you. Development Review Committee is scheduled for October 14th at 3 pm in the City Council Chambers. X D - % 0 0 To: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office heS\;, From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office Subject: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment Date: 8 November, 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Summary: The Stape Limited Liability Company, owner of the 4,000 square foot parcel at 702 West Main street is requesting a GMQS allocation for the construction of a new office building on the site. The applicant proposes to meet the employee mitigation requirement by providing two deed restricted units onsite, in the basement. GMQS Scoring for Affordable Housing: Under the City of Aspen Land Use Code, Growth Management Quota System, the applicant receives points for the percentage of affordable housing that is included in the proposal. The applicant is requesting points as follows: Total Development: 2,423 sq. ft Employees Generated: 2,423/1,000 X 3 = 7.27 (3 employees per 1,000 sq. ft.) Housing Proposed 1 - 1 BR unit @ 1.75 residents/unit 1.75 employees 1 - 3 BR unit @ 3.00 residents/unit 3.00 employees Total 4.75 employees Percentage of employees housed: 4.75 / 7.27 = 65% Points Awarded: 1 point / 6% up to 60% 10 points 1 point / 8% above 60% 65.3% - 60% = 5.3% / 8% _ .66 points Total 10.66 points The applicant has proposed to construct two onsite affordable units. The proposed one bedroom, 615 square foot unit deed restricted to Category Two price and income guidelines would meet the minimum requirements of the Housing Guidelines. The proposed three bedroom unit, at 1,000 square feet, does not meet the minimum size requirement (1,200 square feet) for a Category 3 unit. Affordable Housing Priorities Identified by Housing Guidelines: The 1993 Affordable Housing Guidelines establish priorities for affordable housing mitigation associated with commercial development. The current priorities are for construction of onsite 0 • affordable housing, with an emphasis on units, entry level sales units and low inc proposed one bedroom, Category 2 unit would of these priorities. The three bedroom, smaller than required by the guidelines restricted to Category Two, it would m requirement and would also be consistent w priority for low income rental units. family oriented sales ome rental units. The be consistent with one Category Three unit is If the unit were eet the minimum size ith the Housing Office Recommendation: Forward the application to the planning office with the following comments: The applicant scores 10.66 points for the provision of a one bedroom Category Two unit and a three bedroom Category Three unit onsite. The provision of a Category Two income rental unit is consistent with one of the priorities established in the 1993 Housing Guidelines. The three bedroom Category Three unit would not meet the minimum size requirements of the Housing Guidelines, and would not be consistent with the Housing office priorities unless it was restricted to Category Two or lower. 71/ MEMORANDUM i TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department DATE: October 22, 1993 RE: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, & Vested Rights The Parks Department has reviewed the application submitted by the Stape Limited Liability Company and has the following comments and requests. First, we recommend denial of the exemption from Park Development Impact fees. Traditionally, Council has denied exemption requests as well because affordable housing occupants do impact park and recreational amenities. The Parks Department is in agreement with their landscape plan to plant cottonless cottonwood trees in the right-of-way(ROW). However every effort must be made during the construction project to protect the existing trees, including no excavation in the drip line of the trees and no stockpiling of dirt or debris around the trees. The landscape plan does not detail if any other significant trees (six inches or greater in diameter at four and one half feet above grade)will be impacted by the development of the parcel. If any trees will be removed by the development, a tree permit must be applied for prior to issuance of the building permit. The ditch that runs along sixth street must be restored to its original condition if damaged by construction and cannot be turned off for more than 48 hours during construction. The Parks Department and the water Department must be contacted if there are any impacts to the ditches � /Z' 2.'5 a0.ye�& 6�� 14-1� Z� Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Sy Kelly - Chairman John J. Snyder - Treas. Louis Popish - Secy. November 1, 1993 Leslie Lamont Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Dear Leslie: FAX N(303) 925-2537 Albert Bishop Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity to provide service for this project. Credit for the demolished portion of the existing structure will be given in the exact amount previously paid and credit is given for the existing fixtures as determined from our records. Once detailed plans are available, a tap permit can be completed at our office which will estimate the connection fees associated with the expanded use of this site. A six inch service line may be required for this project since there will be multiple dwelling units sharing a. common connection to our 8 inch line in the alley. The applicant is encouraged to review the detailed plans of the development with our line superintendent to determine the required service line for the project. If the applicant commits to contribute $5000 toward downstream improvements, as is suggested, a general benefit to our collection system in this drainage would result. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL Z� 0 • EXHIBIT C - i- L( PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1993 COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 21, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO to score the 1993 Commercial Growth Management Quota System applications for the Office (0) Zone District. Two applications were received for this competition. They are described below. 1. CAP'S AUTO SUPPLY: Aspen Valley Bancshares, Inc. and Draco, Inc. are requesting an allocation for 810 square feet of net leasable office area for a future bank for the Cap's Auto Supply building, located at 210 N. Mill St.; a metes and bounds parcel located in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.. The applicants are also requesting Special Review approval to reduce the amount of the required on -site parking and vested property rights. 2. STAPLETON AGENCY, INC.: Stape Limited Liability Company is requesting an allocation sufficient to accomodate 2,423 square feet of - office space and 1,600 square feet of required affordable housing at 702 W. Main St.; east la feet of Lot R and all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite. Associated approvals are requested for Special Review for an increase in the external FAR of the project and for parking, GMQS Exemption for affordable housing, Exemption from Park Development Impact Fees for affordable housing and vested property rights. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO (303) 920 0. Ker, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on December 3, 1993. City of Aspen Account 'yt�v1 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager 0 Ix THRU: Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health Director FROM: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health DATE: January 10, 1994 RE: Ensuring that Developments are Consistent with Aspen's PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Aspen/Pitkin County PM10 SIP includes many measures designed to lower PM10 levels to meet federal health standards. However, the SIP does not prevent new projects from negating Council's efforts through the SIP. This memo outlines staff's recommendations for dealing with this issue and ensuring that future development does not offset all of the PM10 improvements achieved by Council. BACKGROUND: Aspen and Pitkin County have adopted a set of PM10 reduction regulations that make up the SIP. The Air Quality Control Commission has also adopted these regulations, and they are now state law. The measures contained in the SIP are costly and controversial and will not be easy to carry out. Even when the measures are implemented, the SIP will not protect Aspen's air quality. It will not guarantee that we will continue to comply with the Clean Air Act and federal health standards. This is because the SIP merely requires the City and County to implement certain measures. These include paid parking, better sweeping, clean sand, intercept lot, increased bus service, Galena St. shuttle, and voluntary no -drive and no -burn days. It does not prevent us from taking other steps that could worsen our air quality. To use a theoretical example, the City could approve a prcject with a million woodstoves in the center of Aspen. The SIP itself would not prevent this, because the SIP does not place a cap on the number of stoves. Nor does it place a cap on the amount of traffic. Instead, it requires measures that would reduce traffic. It does not prevent other measures that would increase traffic. If the city were to approve this mill ion-woodstove project, we would no longer meet the federal PM10 standards (although we would not have done anything in violation of our SIP). So we would have to implement additional control measures and amend the SIP. I DISCUSSION• The question for Council is, should future development mitigate its PM�Q impacts, or should future development be allowed ci � If the latter, it would negate the city's to add to PM10 emissions? efforts to reduce PMio. It also raises a question about who is responsible for preventing PMIO increases from future development: i the future developers or the citizens at large. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has discussed this issue and believes that the best approach is to deal with it in the land use code. Fully pNI impacts could be a performance standard for mitigating 10 developments. In other words, projects could not receive GMQ allotments if they did not fully mitigate their PM, impacts. These standards could apply to projects that are afford Cle housing or essential community facilities j Wel]{-i��'cc The disadvan ge of thi approach isis"[t�hat It tier alternative. tak six months to However, staff does not se e a Health Department-ts Meanwhile, it will be the Environmentdmitigate a ate their PM 0 impacts. position that all developments shoul g City air quality regulations require use of all available proje P sadolnot methods and techniques to maximize air purity. fully mitigate their PMIO emissions, they have not used all available methods to minimize their PM10 emissions. To do anything d else would be not conform with city air quality regulations, be poor public health policy and would negate the city, s efforts to clean up our air through the SIP. Staff will proceed in this manner unless Council wishes to provide different direction. ALTERNATIVES: A separate air quality ordinance could be drafted, not tied to the land use code. However, the Planning Office feels that these two items must be he nregulationswidevelopers inust thwhich they must know by reading the code, with comply. CITY MANAGER RECOMI+'r11,1DATIONS: /sipcompl.inf Page2 F' MESSAGE DISPLAY CC Bob Gish TO Leslie Lamont CC Kristin Sund From: Larry Ballena^ Postmark: Oct 18,93 6 PM • Subject: Stapleton Commercial GMQS, Special Review ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: The Water Dept has reviewed the Stapleton GMQS/Special Review Application. We have no comments on the Application. All provisions of the City Code must be followed for water service. II Historic Preservation Committee Minutes of September 8, 1993 Roger: I would be in favor of changing the setback and if the dormers on the back are not going to be used for light to enhance the interior space then they should be taken off. Also when you come in again we would like to see a strong landscaping plan. The windows on the south and east need restudied. Bill: I feel the project has responded to comments from the worksession. The committee likes to hear from the architects and if you do not like the dormers we would like to hear that. I feel those dormers add business to them. I also feel the guidelines should be changed if we want to change Main Street and I do not feel we can expect an applicant to bear the grunt of our committee's indecision on the guidelines. Amy: It is not identified as a contribution structure in the district and you need to determine according to the code certain findings that have to be made including that demolition is necessary to the redevelopment and it meets the condition that it is not identified on the inventory. MOTION: Don made the motion that the HPC grant conceptual development to the proposed office building at 702 W. Main St. with the following conditions: 1) That the blind dormers on the northern portion of the building be either restudied or removed to siirplify the architectural scheme. 2) As an additional recommendation we -recommend - A`iryizstment tha-t--demobt3e� the non contribution structure on the side be allowed to fasciliate redevelopment of the site. Also that the Board of Adjustment grant a reversing of the side yard setbacks that the easterly side yard be reduced five feet and the west side yard increased 6.66 feet. The variance be granted for the use in the office zone is appropriate. Variance for the reversal of the side yard setback is appropriate. Second by Roger. Don amended the motion to restudy of the entrance facing south rather than east; second amended by Roger. Don amended the motion to add findings: Findings: 5 0 � 0 a*�� ) � - PROJECT: CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET DATE• 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of the exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- An excellent design The ftAlowing features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering g the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms ��- of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 1. S COMMENTS: YM b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the quality and charact r of the proposed landscaping and open spatg areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, -the exten of underground utilities, and the arrangemit of improvements for efficiency of circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - (maximum 3 points) Considering the use of passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in the construction of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. COMMENTS: r- d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways,- benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. 1. 1DIZy RiT J �2w e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Considering th scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: COMMENTS: 9 � f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points) Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility placement; can be easily accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. 2 • Am W. COMMENT: 2. AVAILABIL"ITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or .service improvements made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services•(i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made be averaging the scores for each feature. a. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING:I COMMENT: • L� 10 SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the of the sanitary sewer system to serve the development and the applicant's commitment to any sanitary system extensions or treatment other facility upgrading required to serve the development. RATING:/, COMMENT: SANITARY ability proposed install plant or proposed C. PUBLIC TRANSPOATATION/ROADS - (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing' -street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: I COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long- term. RATING: 4 • 50NI VII e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and safety. RATING: I COMMENTS: 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be awarded as follows: Zero (0%) to Sixty (60%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each six (6%) percent housed; Sixty-one (61%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each eight (8%) percent housed. The following standard shall be used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development: Commercial Core 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,000 sq.ft. (CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the Commercial (C-1): City Council's housing designee: Neighborhood 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. Commercial (NC) (net leasable); and Service Commer. Industrial (S/C/I): 5 • • Office (0): Commercial Lodge (CL) and other: 3.00 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable); 3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable). If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio: One -bedroom: Two -bedroom: Three -bedroom or larger: Dormitory: 1.25 residents; 1:75 residents; 2.25 residents; 3.00 residents; 1.00 resident per 150 per square feet of unit space. RATI COMMENT: • 4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of the total points awarded under Sec. 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: C: 5. TOTAL POINTS SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE) 4. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: Nance of P&Z Commission Member: IF/ a 0 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 !-AX# (303) 920-5197 September 29, 1993 Joe Wells 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQS Exemption and Vested Property Rights Case A52-93 Dear Joe, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete with the exception of the following items 1) signed Agreement to Pay Form (enclosed), 2) 2 sets of full size plan, 3) 2 copies of an improvements survey. We have scheduled this by the Aspen Planning 7, 1993 at a meeting inconvenient for you p: date of this letter. A final and changes to will only be allowed f application for review at a public hearing and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, December :o begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be ease contact me within 3 working days of the Eter that the agenda date will be considered :he schedule or tabling of the application Dr unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee (DRC). The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case is scheduled for Octobpc 14, 1993 at 3:00 p.m., City Hall, City Council Chambers. Please note that it is your responsibility to mailing notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the hearing. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont the pl+nner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie DuBord Office Manager ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Parks Zoning Administration Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District Roaring Fork Energy Center Clean Air Board FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, DATE: September 29, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by David & Don Stapleton requesting approvals for Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQs Exemptoin & Vested Rights. Please return your comments to me no later than November 1, 1993. Thank you. Development Review Committee is scheduled for October 14th at 3 pm in the City Council Chambers.