Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Whale of A Wash 415 E Main.29A-85 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET - City of Aspen n G ( DATE RECEIVED L9ts CASE NO. 9f_ _ DATE RECEIVED COM 'LETE : ' ' 1 /j LSTAFF: 5th PROJECT NAM''E :: (IJ(.�r01S �J.Jal :l —C9-Irt (()IrICAit}'IK,lif,£ (p/J(, / APPLICANT: KbVGC 1 n/:• ; Applicant Addres 9Phone : ! - _ REPRES EN TATIVE: ._ . .V u_ r L �lrt /.L 1 ///E ------- Representative Address/P • e: — Prta 7 rota tPIRM l° Type of Application: 7; -675 Sr 1 I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ( $2,730.00) Preliminary Plat ( $1,640 .00) Final Plat ( $ - 820 .00) II . SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission ($1,900 .00) Preliminary Plat ($1,220 .00) / Final Plat ( $ 820 .00) / / III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING ( 2 step) ( $1,490 .00 ) ` L/ IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (4_ beep) ($ 680 .00 ) I Special Review Use Determination Conditional Use Other : '4' U44 47 —Al P&Z CC MEETING DATE: * 9 PUBLIC HEA RI(NG : CYES" NO DATE REFERRED: 8i11lS.) INITIALS: ' REFERRALS : DU \/f City Atty Aspen Consol . S. D. _ School District V City Engineer _ Mtn. Bell _ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas V Housing Dir. Parks Dept. _ StateHwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric _ StateHwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn Envir. Hlth . Fire Chief Other : 151/71. C_ I FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: IN IT IA City Atty City Engineer Building Dept. Other : Other : FILE STATUS AND LOCATION :0 A J (AkiIbt1 -ej L-- „hak 0f Wash 4 13-435- E DIS POS IT ION: Reviewed by: P&Z City Council 5 C7 Ptiom:mn C1-11`).0144tY-tcl, pild>zaa ITYL*L noslitus.4 tk, Wit*-t Otiritlb.0-f('N•bit K, 4 L iu-taiKenw'ted AszfrtaTx-, ftvwknii 0110-,, 0.4.4 4A-rtkav4st:em 1 +Iv ?to sof to I - &MP 2‘.;it'S'colt 1-0425111"I ‘Y cit . 6 - ( ik ) 41/.4a1 /5 float() et itml:t4-11 to , t.ove-).-E LA, ‘tpdlf.1,42, pith f tha ± i / J r / f 400,9 e d:Jtlft•• f ' 4-11 Cr?-1-11 C tiftt rr••d•rrild ff 1%4111 tt Ulf eitaetrtratt 1 1E4.1 S to a kr I-2-trivit4 'Tv)3; 171:0...1-) tn-fd Wig-0 , atetiv, -11,:a 4,21.1 pi! Reviewed By: Aspen P&Z 10 — City Council ) Council ;Ict CA/ti 1-1,7tx An 111- lAttlx7 tr. • 7.4,) 6/frt , el: 1g 170 cA-4.u.Aas v4441, I • I (bra.C 7.-;■1 :7---)1'7'1,11” tie ,fria(77 ,/ 7 ¶70 '- k (").11-dp ;lb .1; .7-12 riva-Q-1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17.1985 Vann said the comment under special review was that the local trash collector had indicated given the proposed uses the amount of dumpsters provided might not be enough. Vann said they had met with the trash service and were given standards breaking down the amount of cubic yardage for storage of trash needed for various types of uses. Vann explained the buildings size and uses, stating their reason for coming back before the Commission was to reflect the changed needs of the owner and make the property more compatible with the adjacent Epicure Plaza building. The trash area, however, was sized to meet the specifics of the Whale of a Wash building. Utilizing the standards given by BFI we would require about 1 cubic yard of dumpster space. The typical dumpster here is 2 cubic yards. The space they have provided would accommodate one 2 cubic yard dumpster which would give them an extra cubic yard if the space is used for restaurant purposes. In addition they have space for 3 1/2 two cubic yard dumpsters behind the Epicure Plaza building. Vann said he believed they have provided adequate space for the uses they propose and in the event there is additional trash generated there is ample space behind their adjacent building. Vann added that he thought a score of 1 on this was inappropriate and thought their request to build less than the maximum required was legitimate. Blomquist asked why this was not being treated as an addition since it is an integral part of the main building. Vann said if they took that position then they would not require any space off of the rear of the building. Hunt commented that it was only integrated at the moment, with the only integration being ownership of the two buildings. There is nothing to prevent the future sale of either of the buildings separately from the other. Hunt said he thought if the applicant wants a limited trash area, less than specifications, then the front end of the business should be cut down to equal the trash area. Anderson asked Mr. Vann what his objection to the Planning Office ' s recommendation was. Mr. Vann replied they do not want to build more space than the building actually requires. In •their opinion the amount of space provided is adequate. If there is a reason to believe they need to provide more space they are willing to do so. Bruce Sutherland, architect for the project, responded to Hunt' s issue, regarding the sale of a portion of the building, stating the second floor office space enters from the second floor space of the office above Pour La France, therefore, the two buildings are hooked together automatically by the stairway and exiting system. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17.1985 Therefore, if the building was ever sold separately there would have to be access and easement agreements. Mr. Sutherland thought the same thing could be worked out with the trash issue. Hunt said it should be indicated that if another story goes on the building the trash area has to be reviewed closely. Elyse Elliott, project engineer, commented that BFI had said there was a need for 2 two cubic yard dumpsters in that space and that was how the Engineering Department calculated the dimensions. According to code the applicant can be held only to a 5 by 10 foot space. We are asking them to provide almost twice than amount. Ms. Elliott said she thought the problem was with the code because it does not address the different usages. Ms. Elliott thought the step that should be taken was to amend the code. Anderson said there were two actions needed; #1 to confirm that the Commission agrees in general with the Planning Office rescoring of the project, and *2 to approve as submitted or approve as recommended by the Planning Office the trash and utility access requirements. Anderson asked the Commissioners for comments. Tygre said she was not convinced because she did not think a more intensive use such as a restaurant would adequately be handled by the applicants current arrangements. Tygre said she would be more likely to grant approval if there was something in writing confirming the arrangement with the contiguous building, giving the -Commission some control over the situation should the use change. Hunt agreed. White agreed adding that he would rather have more space than less. Markalunas asked about the possibilities of a trash compactor, otherwise she would agree to a condition based on Mr. Vann ' s representations. B1omquist agreed with Mr. Vann's analysis. Motion: Hunt moved to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Office concerning the rescoring of the Whale of a Wash; Tygre seconded. Discussion • White commented that continually we lose parking spaces in the downtown area and again we are losing spaces. White opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Motion: 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDING) \ J REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17 1985 Blomquist moved to approve the design of the trash area as presented. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion: Tygre moved to recommend approval of the special review regarding the trash and utility access requirements subject to the applicants providing a trash easement with the Epicure Building or some other such instrument guaranteeing continued access to the adjacent buildings trash facilities; Markalunas seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING VOLR PROPERTY COMMERCIAL GMP SCORING SESSION Anderson opened the public hearing reserving comments for the appropriate time. Hunt asked if scoring and the growth management plan had to be done first and then the trash and utility area. Steve Burstein, planner, replied yes but added that some trash 0 and utility area discussion could be done along with the GMP discussion. Hunt said he had a problem with that because if he had to score the project as is, without adopting a solution to the trash problem, he would have to give them 0 in those categories. Sunny Vann, applicant, said they would like to discuss trash as part of the GMP discussion. Steve Burstein, planner, explained the request for 5,309 additional square feet of commercial space. The Planning Office ' s recommended scoring is above the threshold for commercial allocation and they recommend approval of the project. Burstein reviewed the positive and negative aspects of the project, access and trash and utility access being the negative. Hunt asked what the applicant was planning on doing as far as limiting the operation of the commercial space to make the trash less undesirable. David White stepped down for conflict of interest. Don Fleisher , applicant, gave a presentation on the project explaining that it is totally different than presented at the preliminary review session due to comments made by this Commission and the Historic Preservation Committee. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manag: f� FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Of ice �`�'\ RE: Whale of a Wash - Extension of GMP Allocation and GMP Rescoring DATE: October 8 , 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that Council grant an extension of the Whale of a Wash GMP commercial allocation by 180 days. The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recom- mend that Council confirm the commercial allocation given to the project . REQUEST: This application is for an extension of the 1983 commercial application which expires on September 1 , 1985 and for approval of an amendment to the Growth Management Allocation. The amendment consists of a new design wherein the following noteable changes are made: 1 . Total square footage of commercial space is reduced from 5 ,100 sq. ft. to 4, 970 sq. ft . (rebuilt space = 2400 s. f. , new addition = 2570 s.f. ) . 2 . No residential unit would be built, as the residential allocation has expired, and the applicant has abandoned this aspect of the project . 3 . The new design includes a 2nd floor atrium replacing the 2nd floor open court, no third story, and a modified Main Street facade . The applicant has moved forward with the recon- struction of the first floor of the new building at his own risk , recognizing that the design changes for the new addition will only be approved through this amendment process. 4. The three parking spaces in the rear of the building would be eliminated. 5. The trash and utilities area would be reduced from the original design, as per special review approval by the Planning Commission (see Advisory Committee Vote below) . BACKGROUND: The Whale of a Wash received an allotment in the 1983 commercial GMP process, having scored above the only other competitor of that year , Ruby Park Visitor ' s Center . Both projects met the required threshold and received allotments. The Whale of a Wash 1983 residential GMP proposal also received an allotment. However, this component has effectively been abandoned. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: At the September 17 , 1985 regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Whale of a Wash allo- cation amendment was rescored. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 in favor of the recommended rescoring and 1 opposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission also considered a special review request for reduction in trash and utilities access area require- ments. The Commission unanimously approved the applicant ' s plan for the trash and utilities access area, subject to the condition that the applicant provides a trash area easement for use of space for one 2- yard dumpster in the Chitwood Buildings trash area, or provides another instrument conveying this useage . The Historic Preservation Committee has approved preliminary review of the new design on September 24 and will hold a public hearing for final review on October 15 , 1985. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: EXTENSION OF GMP ALLOCATION DEADLINE: Section 24-11 .7 (a) ( 4) of the Municipal Code states the provision by which City Council may extend the expiration date of an applicant ' s growth management allocation. The Section calls for "a showing of diligence and good cause" and the "finding that said extension is in the best interests of the com- munity" in order for Council to approve the extension. The Planning Office recommends Council to approve a 180 day extension of Whale of a Wash GMP allocation. We believe the applicant has shown diligence and good cause by the act of redesigning the building. The new design has been evaluated by the Planning Office and Planning Commission to be an improvement in the aspect of the Main Street facades aesthetics. We recommend that you find it in the community' s best interest to allow the structure to be built through this exten- sion. RESCORING OF GMP ALLOCATION AMENDMENT: Pursuant to Section 24-11 .7 (b) of the Municipal Code, the Whale of a Wash amended application was rescored to determine whether the allocation awarded should be rescinded or confirmed. A summary of the prior and revised scores follow below. The revised score is not significantly lower than the old score and is still higher than the score of the other 1983 competitor . It is also above the threshold of 22 .7 points. 2 P&Z Original P&Z Revised Score Score A. Quality of Design 11 .9 12 .0 B. Public Facilities and 5 .9 6 .0 Services C. Employee Housing 10 .0 11 .2 D. Bonus Points 2 .0 _Q_ Total 29.8 29.2 1 . The proposed trash and utilities area off the alley is deficient from standards in the Municipal Code . The rescoring of this feature was downgraded. 2. The project scores better in the area of employee housing due to the change in the scoring formula adopted by the City in 1984. 3 . The project was not scored in the category of "conversion of existing units" since this category did not exist in 1983 when the two projects competed, and therefore the addition of points in this area would skew the competition. PROPOSED MOTIONS: "Move to approve the extension of a 180 day extension of the Whale of a Wash commercial allocation, expiring March 1 , 1985. " "Move to confirm the allocation of 2 ,570 square feet of com- mercial space awarded to the Whale of a Wash. " SB.16 3 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants 210 S. Galena St. , Suite 24 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6958 August 14, 1985 Mr. Steve Burstein, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena St . Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re : 415 East Main Street (a/k/a The Whale of a Wash ) GMP Allocations Dear Steve : The purpose of this letter is twofold: 1) to request an extension of the Whale of a Wash' s growth management allocation expiration date; and (2) to request approval of an amendment to the project ' s commer- cial GMP submission. These two requests are made on behalf of the project ' s current owner, the Hodge Company, and are discussed in detail below. 1. Growth Management Allocation Extension Pursuant to Section 24-11 . 7 (a) ( 4) of the Municipal Code, City Council may extend the expiration date of an applicant ' s growth management allocation for a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty ( 180 ) days . In order to qualify for such an extension, an application must demonstrate "diligence and good cause, " and that the extension is in the "best interests of the community. " The Whale of a Wash project successfully competed in both the commercial and residential 1983 growth management competi- tions. The project was designed by Bill Poss and submitted on behalf of the then owner, George Parry . The Whale of a Wash received a commercial growth management allocation of twenty-seven hundred (2,700) square feet and a residential allocation of one (1) dwelling unit. In addition, the project received special review approval for a FAR bonus, subdivision exception approval for condominiumi- zation, and final design approval from the Historic Preservation Commission . Subsequent to completing all required development approvals, but prior to obtaining a building permit , the project was sold to the Hodge Company, the owner and developer of the adjacent Epicure Plaza building. The new owner wishes to amend the project ' s commercial GMP approval so as to allow the renovation and expansion of the Whale of a Wash building consistent with the Company ' s adjacent holdings. Although we believe the proposed revisions to be a signifi- cant improvement , the approval of the requested amendment will nonetheless require approximately forty-five ( 45) to sixty ( 60 ) days to process, as the Planning and Zoning Commission must rescore the revised project and forward its recommendations to City Council. Inasmuch as the project ' s growth management allocations will automa- tically expire on September 1, 1985, we respectfully request that an appropriate extension be granted so as to allow sufficient time to obtain approval of the proposed amendment . In support of this request , we would suggest that the proposed revisions to the project are in the best interests of the community, as they would allow for the harmonious completion of this important segment of East Main Street . The proposed revisions to the project ' s facade will better complement the adjacent buildings in both massing and detail (see Section 2 of this letter for a detailed discussion of the proposed changes to the project . In addition, it can be argued that if the project ' s allocations are allowed to expire, the proposed second floor expansion will not occur, resulting in a building which, we believe, will be significantly out of scale with adjacent land uses. It should be noted that renovation of the existing Whale of a Wash facade is currently underway. The resulting renovation is consistent with the requested GMP amendment, and has received final HPC approval and a building permit . The owner acknowledges, however, that renovation is preceding at his risk, and that approval of the proposed GMP amendment is not automatically insured as a result of HPC approval and the issuance of a building permit for the existing structure. Upon receipt of approval to amend the project, the owner will proceed immediately, weather permitting, with the construction of the Whale of a Wash expansion and the completion of all related site work and landscaping. In summary, we believe the owner has proceeded diligently with the renovation of the Company' s holdings in this area, that the quality of the renovation to date is self evident, and that sufficient cause exists to grant the requested extension so as to allow the completion of this integral element of both the Hodge holdings and East Main Street. 2. Growth Management Allocation Amendment Pursuant to Section 24-11 . 7 (b ) of the Code, the City Council , upon the P&Z ' s recommendation, may approve an amendment to an applicant ' s growth management submission . Based on this 2 provision, we respectfully request approval of various revisions to the Whale of a Wash' s commercial GMP application. Inasmuch as the owner proposes to delete the residen- tial component of the project, we need only amend the original commercial GMP application . The residential GMP submission merely provided for a change-in-use in a portion of the building; all other aspects of the project remained essentially unchanged. As a result, we believe that, for purposes of our request , the residential GMP application may be excluded from consideration. Upon approval of the requested amendment, the owner will formally forfeit his residential allocation or the allocation can simply be allowed to expire. The proposed revisions to the original commercial application are describ- ed below (see attached drawing for additional detail) . a. Architectural Design. There are three ( 3 ) basic revisions in the project ' s architectural design : ( 1 ) the building has been reduced in height from three to two stories ; ( 2) the second floor has been setback approximately twenty-five (25) feet from the front property line and the open courtyard deleted; and (3) the Main Street facade has been modified so as to better complement the adjacent Epicure Plaza building. As noted in Section 1, the proposed revisions to the existing ground floor street facade have received final HPC approval and are currently under construc- tion. Conceptual HPC approval of the revised second floor will be obtained prior to P&Z 's consideration of the requested amendment, and final HPC approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed expansion. As shown on the attached drawing, the reduction in height from three to two stories and the second floor setback will help soften the overall massing of both the Whale of a Wash and Epicure Plaza buildings. Similarly, the revisions in exterior detail will unify and enhance the overall architectural theme of the Hodge holdings on East Main Street . Although the second floor open court- yard will be deleted, the inclusion in the revised building of skylighted atrium areas on both the ground and second floors will provide a substantial amenity to the building' s tenants and more than offset the loss of the outdoor area. As a practical matter, we believe the concept of the second floor open courtyard would have been difficult to achieve given its limited size and the shadow effect caused by the original building' s third floor . Please note that the Whale of a Wash building is now connected to the adjacent Epicure Plaza building via the new second floor atrium. b. Site Design/Parking. As shown on the attached drawing, the project ' s site design has been modified to accommodate changes in the building' s architecture. The ground floor entry area has been redesigned so as to enhance the entry experience and to soften and add interest to the building' s front facade. We believe this revision better reflects, and is more consistent with, the site design of the adjacent Epicure Plaza. 3 In addition, the ground floor rear wall has been extended to the alley and the project ' s property line. This revision was necessary in order to compensate for the loss in commercial square footage resulting from the deletion of the building' s third floor . Although approximately three (3) parking spaces will be lost, we believe this loss is more than offset by the significant reduction in the overall height and mass of the building. It should be noted that no off-street parking is required in the CC zone district and that no additional points were recommended by the Planning Office for the provision of the three spaces in their scoring of the original commer- cial application. It should also be pointed out that no open space was required or provided in the original application. The existing Whale of a Wash building is a non-conforming structure with respect to the open space requirement of the CC zone district by virtue of its building footprint . Pursuant to the non-conforming structure regula- tions of the Code, no open space is required for the proposed expan- sion, provided, however, the existing non-conformity is not increas- ed. Since the existing open area at the rear of the building does not meet the definition of open space, extension of the rear wall into this area does not increase the building ' s non-conformity. While the new open area at the front of the building also may not meet the open space definition, as a practical matter, the provision of this area represents, we believe, a significant improvement over the original application. An additional improvement of the revised application is the extension of the sidewalk treatment and landscaping onto the adjacent Oasis property. c. Development Data/Proposed Uses. As a result of the revisions to the project ' s architecture and site design, develop- ment data for the project has also been revised. Development data for both the original commercial GMP application and the amended applica- tion is provided below. Original Amended Application Application Ground Floor 2, 400 sq. ft. l 2, 870 sq. ft. Second Floor 1, 800 sq . ft. 2, 100 sq. ft. Third Floor 900 sq . ft . --- Total 5,100 sq. ft. 4, 970 sq. ft. Site Area 3,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. External FAR 1.7 : 1 1 .65: 1 1 Existing Whale of a Wash building. 4 K �-t" N1 `� -ham r, "#:.7!44".44,41' � 1 �tiBiit 4: J: a 1, ) I I ' 1 Is.ZI ali I - E._ - H I - - —. Y _ 3 t I rt- I u0-ICI J f- Oi L 1- l �_� � IX r s J _L .' l I j.S Ii YffU � ■• 1(.-— — ar-— 1.-1.'. .- o r ' a g J �� t ■ i - r 1 Ira u it iimiisiasommi 3 • y ,A ,,/ ICI , �. �T Fry7i'T T N I e:1 kn s \1 I' 0‘11 1 ■ 1 J H J 1 ,A V ' GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL DECEMBER 1 , 1982 PROJECT: 415 East Main Street (Existing Whale of a Wash Laundry) APPLICANT: 415 East Main Partnership George Parry (Owner) y! Bill Poss ARCHITECT: William John Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Tel . 925-4755 1`! It li ?'I 0! • -PROJECT INTRODUCTION PROJECT: 415 East Main Street (Existing Whale of a Wash Laundry ) LOCATION: Main Street Between Mill and Galena LOT SIZE: 3000 Square Feet ZONING: Commercial Core District PROJECT SIZE : 2700 S.F. of Expansion Space ( 1800 S .F. Residential , 900 S .F. Professional Office) PROJECT USE: Residential Unit Accessory to Profes- sional Office INDEX PAGE NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (aa) WATER SYSTEM 1 (bb) SEWAGE SYSTEM 1 (cc) STORM DRAINAGE 2 (dd) FIRE PROTECTION 2 (ee) DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 (If ) TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/PEDESTRIAN 2 (gg) PUBLIC SERVICES 3 (hh) RETAIL AND SERVICE OUTLETS 3 (ii ) ADJACENT USES 3 (jj ) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 3 QUALITY OF DESIGN 3 (aa) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 3 (Neighborhood Compatability) (bb) SITE DESIGN 4 (cc) ENERGY 4 (dd) TRAILS AND ACCESS 4 (ee) GREEN SPACE 5 PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES 5 (aa) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 5 (bb) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 5 EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROVISIONS 5 • DRAWING SCHEDULE PROJECT LOCATION W/ADJACENT ZONING 6 BUS ROUTES/PARKING LOTS/PEDESTRIAN MALLS 7 SITE PLAN WITH UTILITIES 8 GROUND LEVEL PLAN 9 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 10 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 11 BUILDING SECTION 12 ELEVATION STUDY 13 ELEVATION STUDY 14 \ • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed expansion of 415 East Main Street is submitted under section 24-11 .4 , of The Aspen Zoning Code. The expansion project has been granted approval for 2700 S .F. of commercial space under the 1982 Commercial GMP process . This application is to build 1800 S .F. of the proposed 2700 S .F. expansion project as a resi- dential unit accessory to the remaining 900 S .F. professional office space. This proposed expansion is to be built on Main Street above the existion Whale of a Wash Laundry . The project will be built on one city lot of 3000 S .F. within the commercial core district . Pre:,ent zoning permits 4500 S .F . of development with an additional 600 S.F. bonus by special review with dedicated employee housing . Two, 2 bedroom employee apartments located in The Hunter Creek Properties project are submitted with this project for the 600 S .F . F.A.R. bonus allocated under G.M.P . guidelines . The following is a summary of the projects floor area and its proposed uses . Ground Floor 2400 S .F. Existing Commercial. Second Floor 900 S .F. Proposed Professional Office 900 S .F. Proposed Residential Third Floor 900 S .F. Proposed Residential TOTAL 5100 S .F. The following is a more detailed description which parallels the outline of the Aspen Zoning Code section 24-11 .4 for residential GMP allocation . (aa) WATER SYSTEM The existing building is served by a 3" line connected to the existing 6" water main located under Main Street . There is one restroom in the existing laundry with 2 fixtures and 3 proposed toilets with 2 fixtures each for a total of 6 new fixtures. The city water department has indicated that the impact of the proposed expansion on existing facilities will be minimal and the supply can be handled by the existing 6" main . (bb) SEWAGE SYSTEM The proposed expansion will be served by an 8" sanitary sewer in the alley . The impact of the expansion is minimal on the capacity of the treatment plant and it has been indicated by the Aspen Sanitation District , both the line and the treat- ment plant can accommodate the anticipated flow. Page 1 Lee) STORM DRAINAGE The city Engineering Department has recommended on site retention of run off water . This water will be retained in a new drywell to be located under the parking area at the rear of the project . The total roof area will remain the same , and this solution will upgrade the present sys- tem which now drains into the sanitary sewer . (dd) FIRE PROTECTION This proposed expansion will rely on the City of Aspen for fire protection . The project is located immediately behind the existing Aspen Fire Department and will have a 3 minute response time . REFERENCE : SITE PLAN (ee) DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 Proposed free market residential unit 1800 S .F . 2 Existing deed restricted employee rental units (1800)S •F . TOTAL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1800 S .F . Both the existing unit and the proposed free market unit are within walking distance to the elementary school (6 to 8 blocks) and have excellent access to the public and school transit systems. REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES (ff ) TRAFFIC/PEDESTRIAN/TRANSIT The current Aspen Code does not require off-street parking in the commercial core . The project has an excellent loca- tion with regard to the Rio Grande free parking lot , which is a half block away . There are currently three off street spaces with access from the alley . These 3 spaces will re- main . City and county buses serve this location well from bus stops located on the corners of Mill and Main Streets . The project 's location within the commercial core provides auto disincentive with regard to office support function and inter-action . It is within a half block walk to the courthouse and the city hall , and two blocks off the mall and three of the cities banking institutions. REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES Page 2 igg) PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project will have little impact on existing services, is within easy walking distance of downtown parks , recreation facilities and shops. REFERENCE : PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES (hh) RETAIL AND SERVICE OUTLETS Please reference paragraphs ( ff) and (gg) above . REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION AND BUS ROUTES (ii) ADJACENT USES The vicinity of the project is all zoned CC and is fully developed. The proposed initial use is compatible with existing zoning and adjacent uses , and will be supportive of professional services and interaction with the adjacent banking , city and county 's office complexes . (jj ) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE It is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring of 1983 and will take approximately 4-6 months . This expansion is relatively small (2700 S .F . ) and con- struction can be oriented towards the alley with very limited access from Main Street . It is also anticipated that the existing laundry use will continue with hopefully minor interuptions in service. QUALITY OF DESIGN (aa) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (Neighborhood Compatability) The basic intention of the architectural design of this expansion is to relate to the adjacent buildings in this particular portion of Main Street . Without imitating historic features or going to the oppo- site extreme of modern interpretation , the project attempts to relate to the Epicure Building and Epicure Plaza through height and massing. While the Epicure Plaza Building is set back as to not compete with the Epicure Building , the proposed expansion is taken to the existing building lines . This is intended to define the architectural boundary along this portion of Main Street . The third floor is restricted to the rear of the lot to keep in line with the Epicure Plaza 's third floor and allow the two story line to continue from Epicure building to Epicure Plaza and include this project . Page 3 • An open air court is designed into the center of the pro- ject to eliminate long interior spaces and offer the office spaces in the rear an alternative to the alley exposure . Brick has also been used to relate this building to adja- cent buildings and not introduce a new material which might compete with the warm colors and brick used almost exclusively in this portion of Main Street . REFERENCE : BUILDING ELEVATION STUDY (bb) SITE DESIGN The site design of this expansion is limited to upgrading the sidewalk and curb space along Main Street . It is limited because of the existing building ' s location on the lot . Paving patterns along the curb and the additional trees will help to improve the existing building ' s appear- ance and enhance the adjacent open space within the Epicure Plaza 's courtyard . (cc) ENERGY As in most buildings these days , energy conservation is a primary consideration in building design . Requirements of state and local energy conservation codes will be met . Since this building is located in the middle of the block and has a building built up against it totally on one side and half its height on the other , most energy is lost through its south and north walls . Southern exposures will be glazed to take advantage of passive solar gains and all glazing will be fitted with either an insulating curtain or insulated shutters . All windoe's and doors will have wood frames to reduce temperature transfer. All glazing will be double glazed as per code . An active solar collecting system is under study . This system will supply several heat transfer storage tanks to feed the domestic hot water requirements and radiant heating of the courtyard and sidewalks for snow melting. (dd) TRAILS AND ACCESS Because of its location in the downtown core on Main Street , the project has excellent access to the Rio Grande Property and Trail , excellent access to the city bus system which connects with recreational facilities outside the city, and is within walking distance of the downtown parks and recre- ational facilities . Page 4 (ee) GREEN SPACE Because of this project ' s location within the downtown core and zoning code requirements and allowance , green space has not been allocated to screen the project from its neighbors . A interior courtyard is designed into the project for enjoy- ment and use by its occupants . The curb space along Main Street will be landscaped and improved for compatibility with its neighbors . PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES (aa) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION REFERENCE: BUS ROUTES (bb) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES REFERENCE: PROJECT LOCATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING Two-2 bedroom units located in the Hunter Creek Properties pro- ject are offered within this application for GMP allocation . These units are deed restricted to moderate income guidelines . Each unit has an area of 900 S .F. Three bedrooms of the em- ployee housing units are to be allocated towards the residential application leaving one bedroom for the commercial application . A summary of housing units for the residential allocation are as follows : 1 - Free Market Unit 2 bedrooms - 40% of Total 2 - Employee Housing Units 3 bedrooms - 60% of Total Page 5 N. \J M._M • I RIO GRANDE PARKING 1 T FORK ///JJJ///'' � C H I I RIVER / ///J // BLEE'cR HISTORIC DISTRICT ® P a r5 r 9Mni St_7. -,:..ter ....w ®= . . ., ;*6 ms ate, vr!----... . I i ST.F STORK DI`T. 1 N ( 1 C1 \il 9 PROJECT Q F,— MAIN LOCATION Rair———— I H c ( I N 6l • :_ I dl Q I 9 ! _� R r I ' I I to a C, ( `.R © ( a l 1 1 I Cn . HYMPN —— n � I I I " . „ � Imo ( II i L 1 H I , [ 1� I H I COOPER L2 F -- n Hit mow= 1 l % �1 L II cL NC NI . :: . � l =i ill 1 C 9.. MS Y�'°Lslca®Q10ca tJANT ft 1 II I I I j if mi II IET rCA--- ltnDRL E ---, , - - L . I I I I __I I j- I i.111 -.--4..1.-.-.-..-.-.-----.- .71\...-...._..r 0 I - i ----, I • . . I . I _ I00,----..z?.6:--icr.-- ,,, r--. in?AVIt7-7 "'AK; LAN ):..).". Olu>1 1 i • . , . , ,,, ., „,,, , ,. • * - , • . . . ., ..„., . . . ii .J.,_.._ i. ., • A % 1,..1 . • _ . ; ' .., A. I 4 VIC-1-, 5- - 1-- "...-7 . - - -f-s) _r•-•=w2if..7 anollemerw ) - ) F 11 <I -, . , • ct--- , — '1 - i .-00•041100f..2030110000000004,000000-0•000006000000006600000644000011,060000G600t0490000015.20-400600 A.--;.--7.;:-N. Fl-i-k,i- •._,A1:-% -1-"/ E.4.?...---,---<. ?,- ..z *art .., ) r r . . - 1 1 ( 1 I ±: 1 g#2 t e'r 7 1 ) 1 , L (. ___, ......„ ....... ._ H0t-1‹.1.kr2 Afj- tgLi.-era - --------- -TAC,C..---2 :, -__ riv-"� -it t - - NT I'3 �N7F�. I /(/__ = r E ;.r-fir-r; VI 1,1,----/-1; 4,r,! it---14,I J'' b' !9 I; ft fi ti f 1 ti t N f.{ 'XJ'!711&f� U< c ' (,!� i T' ,; . L i3 H 4 ,, ,, ; , i 1'; i 1� f. ( h /0 - t �,��- �� nu rn; rr�icr I ( -- \ ,trt.r0 Yitr'(L i 6 J`tO Lg t_ ._ 7 -- _1 MA-11•N -'17-.r.4--;-r• _ t---- -t--'- ,---; , r i ! 0 . (0 :11 , I I i I--tri_:fl2cL.:Lit!.ittca 1: PtA 1 I I i ti 1=6r-if! / t 1:t I tr N I— s I i t7-1 . 1 — ." 4- F cirm, H ?:1 II__ i 17 / -- I c ': c"----\ i II li G 1 P. H .• 1 ci :il- i 4;--- It------1-----=-4—H ,.....,._. 7. ., -• , • 4, ,:.• ;! ,, - - 4 _ y -7 .1 , -, r5--t --, -1 --k7) Op \tr 1:- Irao-C1 - '.1 4 i Fr _ A 0 ; ---r '—L1 - i 1 rb "fr."XinCl I FVT, GPF-1.5.-E_.. , t I-i . ______ _______ 2_ --.. AU-01 61\11) 1,t)g5L__ _ PAC,F-- IC) - VA(IA l.: FGi"- i 1 '�I ! i C------, ` I Vii. . / �K_.__.,--• Gf urtr1{r,=P _1 ri __ i / /, - i --, -! 5 _ ii' .5 *".°. ; r -7. T __ i I I, ! :1 F1 i i , 1 , ,, ,... I , ,, i , " - , , Li, g h i_I l x0 4 Nrfi' . LIVO,..� \. N r - Auurq i -11-1-1K0 UT:Urit_- -- S ,Z ti , lc t , lk 4 2 � e 2 0 c). e, k ..7 o a (1, , al 'lb .- 1 �[L� 7 eta r 4TJ LJ I I. $ $ i ppJ I C- ..>„. i . la AI 77\ •{ I • i II III 1 ill a 1 " ___, h o • ir------r i. ,, _ _.... 1 a ' i. , ri— � , , a, _ i � i , —� -----i 1 C - . ■ ,— P ■ j .'— I • r � � r MIN 1 - Th ' III. , l I i LAO lNlM lfll_�. IllVIIll M it I o 2 i!'I 2'' , I , 11 ffi I jir i c � : � 3 ts1 ;a, II I-4. 1--rt 0 MO • I i �; :L iliallk'�INNAINIUII II 3 ' a it as o c...., 4.. 1 ---c: ,2 2 tit _. ,.,1, ,,,,,,:,„ , , i:, ii, 2_,„,,,,,,„ ; ,., ....„_, ,,,,, , ..... .......__,..., : 7 , „.„.......„ :iv 1 : -2,.r.z...-_•,. , - Hi!: -....,-,==-a ,-,--- 1 '.:;: ,---=-r-- : , , , :-..-: „ s lil ,th• , ,,, ...;-- -L.- , - i, -,:::::,-?..,. I,. +1.1 -i 11., il, :i' .1:' =--1:- ' •:::::,---E,---7 ID _ ' 1. ,::-;--•-: -: • • . _ "-- , . , : - --_-.J. 1 i . 1 -------r-a H , ; .E.F-r-z: pi . , ' :;- l' 1 -----—1 • [ 1 _ --, I .7;2 ' H:Tr5-7:: -.77777 1 - , i ... 1 i m g m e a t i l i k i l l : 1- :0:1 1 i i i inia.L. a m n u Th e r,p s t i a _•.... , • I . i , 1 I r i I ! IT . 1 I 1 ■ i. I ! 0 i-.1 I 64 4 . W-- Ai — % , L IL 1 „--,..=, , _ . ,_ [ET_ t.. LIT i _ , , ____If _ .. , 1 11 L , _ .. . , .. • PROJECT PROFILE 1983 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION • 1 . Applicant: George Parry (owner) and Bill Poss 2. Project Name: Whale of a Wash 3. Location: 415 East Main Street 3,000 square feet 4. Parcel Size: 5. Current Zoning: CC 6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 5,100 square feet; 4,500 square feet allowed with an additional 600 square feet of commercial space allowed by Special Review. 7. Existing Structures: The existing 1-story laundry building consists of 2,400 square feet of commercial space. 8. Development Program: The proposed expansion is to be located on top of the existing Whale of a Wash Laundry between the Epicure Plaza Building and the Oasis Service Station. The ground floor is existing commercial space of 2,400 square feet, the 2nd floor is 1 ,800 square feet of proposed office space and the 3rd floor is 900 square • feet of proposed office space. 9. Additional Review Requirements: Special Review for F.A.R. bonus, HPC Approval . 10. Miscellaneous: Two 2-bedroom employee housing units are included in this sub- . mission and are located off-site in the Hunter Creek Properties project. The total square footage of the housing units is 1 ,680 square feet, and they are deed restricted to middle income guidelines. The inclusion of these units in the proposal will allow the applicant to apply for the Special Review for an FAR bonus of .2: 1 additional commercial space under Section 24-3.4. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION 1983 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS PROJECT: Whale of a Wash DATE: October 1 , 1982 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points). The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assign- ing points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. ' 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the• compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating: 3 COMMENT: This infill building will enhance this section of the Main Street streetscape. The recent expansion of the Epicure will be met in height and massing on the front and alley facades, and brick will be used to relate to its neighbor". b. SHE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. 2 Rating: COMMENT: The constraints of the lot are being answered by the design of a courtyard at the second story level and upgrading the sidewalk on Main Street with a paving pattern at the curb and planting of additional trees. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating: 2 COMMENT: No commitments beyond standard code requirements are made. • • d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes- trian and bicycle ways. 2 Rating! COMMENT: Again, the constraints of, the lot limit the ability to provide these amenities. The courtyard can not reasonably be considered as "usable open space. " • • _2- e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. 2' Rating: COMMENT: The scale and location of the building will be a complimentary addition to the block, however there is no possibility of maximizing views of scenic areas. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi- ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas. 2 Rating: COMMENT: The area in back is usable for this function. Subtotal : 13 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in general . 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services (i .e. , water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. ) aa. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION. Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also considering the ability of the appropriate fire • protection district to provide service according to established re- sponse times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The existing facility is a high-use commercial use and is serviced by a 3" line from Main Street. The expansion is not expected to increase the impact on the water system. Fire protection requires the connection of the domestic line to the fire line. The proiect could not be much closer to the fire station. bb. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. • Rating: 1 COMMENT: The Aspen Sanitation District can service the project. cc. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS. Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City or County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns • • -3- or overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Rating; 1 COMMENT: No changes are proposed or needed. The Mountain Valley bus passes by on Main Street and the Silverking bus crosses at the Main and Mill intersection. dd. STORM DRAINAGE. Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. Rating: 2 • • COMMENT: The project proposes an on-site drywell under the parking area which will improve the present drainage into the sanitary sewer. ee. PARKING. Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. Rating: 1 COMMENT: The project is located approximately one block from the Rio Grande parking lot, and has a limited number (approximately 3) of spaces in the rear. 3. EMPLOYEE HOUSING NEED (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide deed restricted housing for employees for a period of fifty years to rental and sales price terms within housing price guidelines established by the City Council and to eligibility guidelines established by the City Council . Points shall be assessed according to the following schedule: 1 point for each five percent (5%) of the employees of the project who are provided with employee housing either on or off-site, either within or outside of the City, through a net addition of the employee housing pool (that is,' by creation of a new deed restricted unit or by conversion of a free market unit to deed restricted status) . Rating: 10 COMMENT: The Planning Office has calculated average employee generation in the CC zone at 3. 5/1000 square feet. This expansion would generate 9.45 employees. The two 2-bedroom apartments could house 5.4, so over 50% are being housed, which allows maximum points to be awarded. 4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING INCENTIVE (maximum 10 points) . In those cases where an applicant proposes to provide housing for more than 50%. of the employees generated by the project, the Commission shall assign additional points based on the following formula: 1 point for each ten percent (10%) of the employees of the project beyond the first fifty percent (50%) who are provided with deed restricted employee housing either on- or off-site, to a maximum of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the employees generated by the project. 0 Rating; _ COMMENT: There is not another 10% of increment being met by this proposal , therefore no additional points are awarded. • -4- 5. APPLICANT' S PREVIOUS PERFORMANCE (maximum minus 5 points) . Any applicant who has been awarded a development allotment during a previous commercial ' competition and who, within two years from the date of submission of that application, has not submitted plans to the building department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5) points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual hardship, such submission has not been possible. n/a • Rating: COMMENT: n/a 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) . (Not to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections (1 ) , (2) , and (3) ). Commission members may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions ,of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. Bonus Points: COMMENT: 7. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1 : 13 (Minimum of 5.4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 6 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: 10 (Minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Subtotal : Points in Categories 1 , 2 and 3: 29 (Minimum of 22.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Categories 4, 5 and 6: TOTAL POINTS: 29 Planning Office Name of Planning and Zoning Member: • •