Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Wesson dental Bldg.34A-86 CAS ELOAD SUMMARY SHEET *7 .'Z{ �? C1)--pen / ' City of DATE RECE IV ED:C. I -C t CASE NO. Sin? 0 p`�/'n DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: STAFF: `O PROJECT NAME: 0J00d5X. Lp &Y� l�/c _r rip/x.0 efi.C'?.( SJ-' APPL ICANT: Oji(0444:: i PS7---- . j Applicant Address/Phone: (7 -? C- , if-pc i( ei��) REPRES EN TAT N E: /l�t_`'X,( Al k kja-c, -7,L_ Representative Address/Phone : ( /- 7,r ;oOC / f5L .�f. '702-6. _ c!/( Type of Application: / L GMP/Subdivision/PUD 1 . Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.80 2 . Preliminary Plat 12 1 ,640 .00 3 . Final Plat 6 820 .00 II . Subdivision/PUD 1 . Conceptual Submission 14 $1 ,900 .00 2 . Preliminary Plat 9 1 ,220 .00 3 . Final Plat 6 820 .00 III . All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1, 490 .00 IV. All "One Step" Applications 5 $ 680 .00 V. Referral Fees - Environ9Yental Health, Housing Office 1 . Minor Applications 2 $ 50 .00 2 . Major Applications 5 C s Referral Fees- - Engineering Minor Applications pi-µ '.Em•Is £ hairiL) CMP 80__00 Major Applicationsr OY) 200 .0 i eluehmL1 00 lam pp// / "'i' bnl(/ < P& CC MEETING DATE: Cerk• oI �gOIP(('' PUBLIC HE•'• G : OYES NO ` DATE REFERRED:� Ua -/c�(/4 9INITIALS,: A/_ II— REFERRALS : Vi�/ City Atty VAspen Consol . S. D. School District Y/Y City Engineer Mtn. Bell _ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas V/ Housing Dir. Parks Dept . Statefiwy Dept (Glenwd) V Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric Statefiwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) ✓ City Electric Fire Marshall / Bldg: Zok g/Inspectn Envir. Hlth . Fire Chief ✓ Other : K Roaring Fork Transit ✓ Roaring Fork Energy Center FINAL ROUTING : DATE ROUTED: ii 2)4 -$ INITIAL 1/C ' City Atty / City Engineer Building Dept. Other : Other : CASE DISPOSITION: H / ,,idi1cj Reviewed by : Aspen Pi.f) City Council (I) Pb 2 ycii,141 ptcy:11 &pi ?; ok,t, t;Ai( tropLt ), 'at, 1 6 1 /V lit) pA 3i.—7 ,rciy (littju.1) c:,/.7;j CC,1,0 Vic p--"Pt( ) 1, ) t. j 2. Pir. rtg.,j 1: 7f:f!.1 t Al. (nut; ,; ;( e ■.:171<: Al )1/di „ ."1, 3) fth2 ,it/idzkci I cirr,,Tthrpti &^/.12-c-s- CLU ½ vt- tc;-; (; 1 r-rre--r rviA11 u • • P.eviewed By : Aspen PLZ Counc ; 0r WrcL , I .3 GILDA? ,,,t 7 f t ,LL j/fArr, 0 mt. tj b4 ( dt Lori aut.t..; '45 det-tid J I . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTION NO. q/ (Series of 1986) A RESOLUTION GRANTING COMMERCIAL ALLOTMENT TO THE WESSON BUILDING THROUGH THE 1986 OFFICE ZONE COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION, CARRYING OVER OF UNUSED OFFICE QUOTA FOR THE 1987 GMP OFFICE COMPETITION AND ELIMINATING THE CARRYOVER OF USED QUOTA IN THE NC AND SCI ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 .5 (a) of the Municipal Code as amended, August 1 of each year is established as a deadline for submission of application for commercial development allotments within the City of Aspen ; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, two applications were submitted for evaluation in the office zone competition category, listed as follows: Zone District Project GMP Allocation Requested Quota Comp. 1 . Wesson 2 ,487 sq. ft. Office 2 . 700 E. Hyman 9 ,000 sq . ft. Office ;and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission ( hereinafter "Commission" ) on September 16 , 1986 to consider the Office competition at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the projects ; and WHEREAS, one project met the minimum threshold of 25 .8 and one project did not meet the threshold by having received the following points (not including bonus points) : Project Total Points Given by P&Z (avg.) • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Wesson 31 .7 • 700 E. Hyman 24 .6 • ; and WHEREAS, the quota available for each zone district category in the 1986 Office Zone district Commercial GMP competition is 4 ,000 sq. ft. ; and WHEREAS, The Commission considered the representations made by the Wesson Dental Building applicant in scoring this project, including but not limited to the following: A. The building will not exceed 23 1/2 feet in height and will follow the design characteristics of broken-up massing, siting 15 feet from the front property line behind a row of cottonwoods and use of stained wood siding. Final approval of the design by the Historic Preservation Committee shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. B. The landscape plan includes retaining all existing trees on-site and in adjacent rights-of-way, planting ten new trees , planting native ground cover , land- scaping of the western edge of the property in conjunc- tion with the adjacent landowners, installation of undulating sidewalks 5 feet in width, and redesigning the irrigation ditches and ditch interconnection. C. A six (6) inch water line will be extended north from Hopkins Street along 5th Street and a fire hydrant will be installed on the northeast corner of Main and 5th at the applicant' s expense. D. All surface run-off of the site will be collected in an on-site dry well and not discharged into the surround- ing street drainage system. Curb and gutter on 5th Street will be installed by the applicant. E. A 7 1/2 foot by 6 1/2 foot enclosed trash area will be constructed in the rear of 611 W. Main for common use 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves by the Wesson and Levinson properties. F. Energy conservation measures include use of insulation 25% over Code requirements and installation of a solar hot water device. G. Seven (7) head-on parking spaces will be provided off the alley, two of which will be demarked for residen- tial tenant use . H. The applicant will deed-restrict to the moderate income housing guidelines one-bedroom unit in the building and make a cash-in-lieu payment prior to the issuance of a building permit of $16 ,625 to provide housing for 1 .25 employees at the moderate income level . ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed the recommended Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scoring for the Wesson Project and concurs that the requested allotment should be granted ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council determined that the unused 1985 quota in the NC and SCI zone districts should not be carried over because the annual quota is adequate for the relative growth needs in those zone districts, but that the unused quota in the Office zone district should be carried over to the 1987 quota because growth in this area may be reasonably expected in response to development in other sectors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that it does hereby allocate 2 ,487 sq. ft. from the available quota of 4 ,000 sq. ft. in the Office zone category to the Wesson Dental Building ; and 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that the above allocation shall expire pursuant to Section 24-11 .7 (a ) of the Municipal Code in the event plans, specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the proposed commercial buildings are not submitted on or before May 1 , 1989 . BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that the 7 ,000 sq. ft. which remains unallocated in the NC/SCI zones category and that the 1 ,513 sq. ft. which remains unallocated in the Office zone shall not be carried forward for possible distribution in 1987 , as provided for in Section 24- 11 .5 ( f) . Dated: Allrtt :i • , 1986 . / % William L. Stirling, iMayor 0 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Compliance with Representations and Conditions of Approval : Wesson Dental Building DATE: July 23 , 1987 Following are my comments on the Wesson project: 1. See Resolution 41 (1986) attached. 2 . Final HPC approval was given. Minor changes in window design are technical amendments that I approve as staff sign-off. Building permit plan elevations appear the same as approved. 3 . Cash-in-lieu payment of $16, 625 for employee housing must be received by the Housing Authority prior to issuance of building permit. Please check with Ann Bowman. 4 . Bonus FAR totaling 0 . 9 : 1 was approved as follows: 2 , 487 s. f. - commercial space 1, 938 s. f. - 1 bedroom free-market apt. on 2nd floor 858 s. f. - employee apt. on garden level 110 s. f. - employee stairwell 5, 393 s . f. - Total Please verify FAR. 5. Site plan including 10 new trees, bike rack, handicap access ramp, seating area, drywells, relocation of irrigation ditch, new sidewalk and fire hydrant shown as approved. I recommend that all of these improvements should be made prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Wesson should be arranging with the Water Department with regard to the 6 inch water line extended north along 5th Street and fire hydrant (both at his expense) so they are accomplished this summer, and before Certificate of Occupancy. 7 . Maximum height of 23 . 5 feet should be checked. 8. Energy representations (see page 7 of Application attached) should be verified by the Building Department. 9. The on-site employee unit should be deed restricted to moderate income level prior to C.O. 10. Parking for 7 spaces is shown as approved (P&Z special review) . 11. A trash enclosure 7 . 5 x 6 . 5 feet was committed by the applicant to be constructed on the adjacent property for their common use of both properties. The enclosure should be built prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 12 . No existing trees on the property or adjacent ROW should be cut down. My main concerns are (1) that the immediate items mentioned above - such as employee housing payment, energy, and area and bulk representations - are taken care of prior to building permit issuance and (2) that the long list of site improvements and off- site improvements are accomplished in conjunction with construct- ion. This is probably a good time to remind the applicant of all his commitments. sb.wesson MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council 777/// THRU : Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager //�— FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: 1986 Commercial GMP Allocations and Ancillary Reviews- Office and NC/SCI Zone Districts DATE: November 5 , 1986 Summary: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend that Council grant a commercial growth management allotment to the Wesson Building. The Planning Office also recommends that you carry over the unallocated square footage in the office zone but not that in the NC/SCI zones. Requests: The following applications have been made in this year ' s Office zone district commercial growth management competition: GMP Reconstruction Allocations Space/On-site Project Zone District Project Requested Housing Total Quota Competition 1 . Wesson Bldg. 2 ,487 sf 2 ,906 sf 5 ,393 sf Office 2 . 700 E. Hyman 9 ,000 sf - 9 ,000 sf Office No requests for allotments were received this year in the NC/SCI zone district , and the allocations in the CC-C-1 and CL and other zone districts have already been granted. Quota Available: Quota for the Office and NC/SCI zone district GMP competition is calculated as follows: Zone District Annual Exemptions/ Total Quota Category Quota Additions Available Quota Requested Office 4 ,000 sf 0 4 ,000 sf 11 ,487sf NC/SCI 7 ,000 sf 0 7 ,000 sf 0 1 Advisory Committee Votes: The Historic Preservation Committee gave conceptual approval to the Wesson Dental Building, as was needed to be eligible to submit a GMP applications according to Section 24-11 .3 (d) . The Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the Office GMP applications at their regular meeting of September 16 , 1986 . Scoring was done individually by each Commission member, and the scoring summary sheets for both projects are attached hereto. Also considered and approved by P&Z were the following special reviews : 1 . Wesson Bldg. : a. Parking Reduction: P&Z unanimously granted a reduction in on-site parking spaces from 10 spaces to 7 spaces on the condition that the two residential spaces shall be demarked for the use of those tenants. b. Bonus FAR: P&Z unanimously granted an FAR of .9 : 1 subject to a commitment to landscape the western edge of the property in conjunction with the adjacent landowner. Allocation Issues: The 700 E. Hyman project did not meet the minimum thresholds and is not eligible for allocations. The Wesson project did meet the thresholds and can be given allotment from the 1986 quota without future year allocation. The Planning Office recommends that this project be given the requested allocation, as would be accomplished by Council adoption of Resolution 4/ _(attached) . Carry-Over of Unused Quota: Over the past several years, the Council has generally eliminated allotments remaining from the prior year. The quotas which Council can either carry-over or eliminate this year are as follows : Office 1 ,513 sf NC/SCI 7 ,000 sf The NC/SCI zone district has seen no development activity since the imposition of the quota. While some activity may be necessary to keep up with growth in the residential sector , a carry-over would create a 1987 quota in these zones of 14 ,000 sf, which we believe could encourage one or two projects of a scale inconsistent with our development and growth policies. 2 The Office Zone is seeing the first new development this year since the quota was established in this zone district. We believe that carry-over of the unused 1 ,513 sf is reasonable because it appears that there may no longer be much excess office space in the community. Office space may be needed in response to recent residential, lodging, and ski area expansion. Of equal importance are the circumstances surrounding the failure of the 700 E. Hyman Building to meet the competitive threshold. A major issue which arose with respect to this building was the applicant' s use of covered parking above grade and his request for a Planning Office interpretation of whether such space should count in the project's FAR. Due to an unusual workload this summer, we were unable to adequately analyze this issue prior to the August deadline. When this issue was analyzed in the review process, an agreement could not be reached between staff and the applicant and the P&Z was required to make the interpretation. Although P&Z agreed with the applicant that such space is exempt from FAR under the Code, they felt that the applicant's design was flawed because of this approach and scored the project accordingly. The applicant has appealed the scoring (see attached letters from Dave Myler) but has agreed at the Planning staff ' s urging to drop the appeal if Council carries over the unused square footage to next year . We strongly recommend that you carry the 1 ,513 sf over to address the unfortunate problem which occurred with respect to this project. At the October 27 Council meeting, the Office GMP allocation was tabled at the request of the 700 E. Hyman applicant. The Hodge Company wanted to reevaluate its position in regard to the GMP appeal . The appeal has been dropped contingent upon the above stated arrangement. Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends adoption of Resolution V/ , Series of 1986 , to grant allocation to Wesson, eliminate the unused quota in the NC/SCI zone districts and carry-over the unused office quota. Ancillary Review of the Wesson Project: The applicant proposes to deed restrict one 1 bedroom unit on-site and make a cash-in-lieu payment to the Housing Authority of $16 ,625 to house 1 .25 moderate income employees. The Housing Authority recommended approval of this program and P&Z accepted it on September 16 , 1986. Recommended Motion: "Move to approve the proposed GMP exemption for the construction of one on-site employee unit to be deed restricted to the moderate income employee housing guidelines and accept cash-in-lieu payment of $16 ,625 to provide housing for 1 . 25 moderate income employees, as adjusted to the current 3 payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. Payment shall be made to the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. Deed restriction of the on-site employee unit shall be filed prior to issuance of a certificate of occu- pancy. " City Manager' s Recommendation: C G;✓L u P T 4:fl6 -, 5 To !^!'?/‘C 5 LNs' e G,1-ge> Lts S u r ut 4-PPL%frC C ut5i/o/, 4/ 4 (9--)--;,:e67v7 44J 15)1 iiiozm_ _, 4. • rilori &III i t1,-eJ ,rf)L, r,-„t,-.o , 9 - t12 , %\t-(_:.,. (_-:-6-- ii,il) G ec,i... ,i 1 3 I , tivi fir Ovi 4' I 1 I ( ! 1 ----;11-7:> . ,,e-tii IL... 4_,-e.441.-i 41.tic" r-9t1 C:;; ((may LAW OFFICES S'+ ' O GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE.SUITE 305 ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I.KAUFMAN September 10, 1986 TELEPHONE DAVID G.EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 92 5-816 6 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wesson Growth Management Plan Application Dear Steve : One other point of information that I want to review with you concerning the Wesson Growth Management Plan Application is contained in Elyse Elliot' s memo dated September 5 , 1986 . In that memo, Elyse requests increasing the size of the trash area to 5 ' x 10 ' . After discussions, we agreed that the trash area should be 71/2 ' x 61/2' . This new size will accomodate both her concerns and our needs. I believe all items that you asked us to address have been adequately addressed so that you can go forward with the scoring of our application. If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours , LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By i/k? gideon, Kaufman GK/bw f/ 1 LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE,SUITE 305 ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I.KAUFMAN TELEPHONE DAVID G.EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8166 August 4 , 1986 Mr . Alan Richman , Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Re : Wesson Dental Building Parking Exemption Dear Alan, Please consider this letter as Application for Special Review approval for reduction in required parking. Pursuant to § 24-4.5 Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant is hereby requesting a reduction by Special Review. The Code parking guideline for the Office District is three ( 3.0) spaces per one thousand (1 ,000) feet or seven and one-half (7.5) car spaces for this office. The Code allows for a variance from this guideline for a reduced parking standard of one and one-half ( 1.5) cars per one thousand (1 ,000) square feet, or three and seven-tenths (3.7) car spaces for this office. Dr. Wesson is providing five ( 5) spaces which is above the three and seven-tenths (3.7) minimum requirement allowed by Special Review. We feel that the reduction in parking is acceptable for the following reasons: 1. The property is a corner lot and parking is available along Main Street and Fifth Street. The sixty (60) foot lot frontage along Main Street can accommodate three (3) to four (4) cars. The one hundred ( 100) foot frontage along Fifth Street can accommodate five (5) to six (6) cars. Therefore, the total on and off street parking available to the property is fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) spaces. This figure is well above the seven (7) spaces required using the maximum guideline of the Code . 2. The property is located outside the downtown core area and the parking along Main Street and Fifth Street at this location is generally easily available. The property is conveniently located for walking , bicycle and bus access which will reduce the parking demand. • Mr . Alan Richman August 4 , 1986 Page Two We feel that ample precedent exists for reducing the parking requirement as requested, and that the reduction is appropriate in this instance. We would appreciate it if this review could be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the same time as the GMP hearing . If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Yours very truly, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN By: /J ' ! , Gideo ;Kaufman GK: kl cc : William Wesson LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE.SUITE 305 ASPEN.COLORADO 01611 GIDEON I.KAUFMAN TELEPHONE DAVID G.EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8166 August 4 , 1986 Mr. Alan Richman , Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Re : Wesson Dental Building Special Review Exemption for Restricted Units From The GMP Dear Alan , Please consider this letter an application for special approval for exempting the employee housing unit in The Wesson Dental Building GMP application. Pursuant to 2411.2( f) , an employee housing unit deed restricted in accordance with the city-adopted employee housing guidelines constructed pursuant to the residential, commercial and lodge development allotment can be exempt from the GMP. It is our belief that the proposed employee housing meets a community need and that the proposed housing is in compliance with the adopted housing plan. We are asking that the one-bedroom moderate income unit be exempt. We feel that ample precedent exists for exempting this unit. We hope that this review procedure can be done concurrent with the GMP review process. • If you have any comments or questions, please contact me. Yours very truly , LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN BY: :2{ 7/ Gideon Kaufman GK:kl / cc : William Wesson LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE.SUITE 303 ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I.KAUFMAN TELEPHONE DAVID G.EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8166 August 4 , 1986 Mr. Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 RE: Wesson Dental Building Bonus FAR Dear Alan, Please consider this letter an Application for Special Review approval for bonus FAR in the GMP scoring for the above referenced matter . Pursuant to Section 24-3 . 4 Aspen Municipal Code , "Area and Bulk requirements" , the allowable Floor Area Ratio is . 75 : 1 (4 , 500 square feet F.A. R. ) in the Office District with a bonus of . 25 : 1 (1 , 500 square feet F. A. R. ) for on-site employee housing . The applicant is requesting less than the full bonus square feet (employee apartment is 858 square feet and employee unit stairwell is 110 square feet) . We feel that the bonus points should be awarded for the following reasons : ( 1) The employee unit will be rented in accordance with adopted housing price guidelines for moderate income occupants ; and (2) The project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning . The design has received conceptual HPC approval and is best characterized as a "modest and simple! design" which shall be extensively screened by the existing large cottonwood trees . The height of the building has been reduced from the maximum height allowed by Code to 231 feet . Although there is no requirement for Open Space in the Office District , the project provides 1 , 840 square feet of open space. (3) The GMP application fulily sets forth the analyses which has been completed with respect to the adequacy of the water supply , sewage treatment , storm drainage , roads and parking facilities serving the project . The results indicate that the project can be fully served by the existing water and sewage systems . The project will result in minimum impact on the existing roads . The project also provides for storm drainage and parking facilities on site . (Please see GMP application for details) . We feel that ample precedent exists for the award of Bonus F. A. R. for this project . We would appreciate it if this review could be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the same time as the GMP hearing . If you have any questions or comments , please contact me . Very Truly Yours , LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN By : ;A2 � ( i Gid4 Kaufman cc : William Wesson AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss. STATE OF COLORADO ) I , GIDEON KAUFMAN, hereby verify that William H. Wesson is the title holder of the fee simple interest in the following described property located in Pitkin County: Lots H and I , Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen DATED this 1st day of August, 1986 . LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By / ' Gide Kaufman y F ciT4 OF ASPEN WPSERCIAL GYP APPLICATIQIS TALLY SHEEP PROJECP NAPE: Wesson Dental Building Date: 9/16/86 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL P&Z Wl'a1G MEMBERS David Jaemine Welton Emma Jim_ A. Quality of Design 1. Architectural Design 2.5 _2— j_ 2. Site Design 2 2— 1- 3. Energy 2 2—_ _3 2— 3 4. Amenities 2.5 2_ 2— 2— 2- 5. Visual Impact 2— 2-_ 2_ 2__ 2- 6. Trash and Utility Access 2 _l_— 2_ 2 2_ SJBTOTAL: 15.5 15 15 14 14_ 14.7 B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 1. Water Supply/Fire Protection 2— 2— 2_ 2— 2- 2. Sewage Disposal 1- 3. Public Transporta- tion/Roads � 1 �— 1— 1- 4. Storm Drainage 2— 2— 2— 1— 2- 5. Parking 2— 1_ SIB'I TAL: 8 _7____ _7 6 1- C. Provision of Bnployee Housing 14 10— 10 10— 10— 10 D. TOTAL: 33.5 32_ 32— 30 31— 31.7 D. Bonus Points _5__ 2 4.2 TOTAL POINTS CATEGORIFS A, B, C and D 49.5 36 17 34— 33— 45 CITY OF ASPEN CO�RCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET C PROJECT: M S� DATE: 1 r tl 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING : v//Z COMMENT: 1,evkf.eyL 1W GI ali.64104L `DE, !WV EZ ( 1 ay FLEt,�S b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities , and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and priva RATING : — COMMENT: 664 t Ir f c sf'Kad 11c i t 614'. c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. 71/2- RATING : lL COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING : 71/1 COMMENT: ilf J SP, E I 6 )dt, f41- IC I e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. _I /,I RATING: COMMENT: Its �� �4���,� (411\ '46 L` ( J, c, ) ncs f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. WING : 2 ((z -- COMMENT: lett ntEac;ltk�c- I�EL(' pi—Lele,.t SUBTOTAL : J - 2 2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. ( In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3 . WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. i RATING : COMMENT: 71t1L, C Y ( L*J Cod I b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING : COMMENT: 3 c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING : COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING : 7- COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4 .5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact , amount of paved surface , convenience and safety. RAjT ING : Z COMMENT: Ne P "6(,ElVA PSI* AZ6lc(�f c t kl6 SUBTOTAL: 3 . PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 • sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11 . 10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING : I' COMMENT: 4 . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (max' • urn 5 points) - The Commission shall assign points to those ap• icants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, mo• - = e and middle i • e' units by purchas-•••• f 1 • constructe., units hich are 2 • restricted to Aspen ' s ho. -ng • . idelij.4 d place • • a :-d-re riction upon them in comp .i •- tion w 'i h Se tion 24- •. . 0 . Points shall be assigned acco din• too: a foll • • ng s��u .e: \\ �/' Points 1 to 33% • "7 all low, m• .e •te and\e' •dle 1 income u- s propose• • icant - re to be pa chas- d an• .eed re'\c -d N\ 34 • .6% of at ow, moderat- a`T• iddl\ 3 . .. a units }*.\posed by app icant - - t. •e purc• red and deed restricted 6 to All of all low, moderate and mid. - 5 ncom: /u ' ts by applicant are to •-%pur ' ased an deed restricted RATING : NT: 5 • 5 . BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1 , 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. ' BONU S POINTS COMMENT: 'L/Vih/L`( I/ Sf4A; eX?)C/ ( 6/ 3j /1f- � Iu tS5 /hsci-- 6. TOTAL POINTS / Points in Category 1: �� /i (minimum of 5 .4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3 : 10 (minimum of 8 .75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 minimum of 28 .8 points needed r� to be eligible) Points in Category 5 TOTAL POINTS: 3 9 Name of Planning and Zoning Member : in �" " � 6 CITY OF ASPEN ���� yy COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET �}/p� �j PROJECT: �l-C:-8Snn V�� (30/ /c2 DATE: /41/1/V : 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING : .3 CO MME NTxSry't�ell- . eV' kedtint-e- b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities , and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. el RATING: COMMENT: 1,00-{ ah �U ©d ' 7 &) Qp _a/Y? f '3 I'-44,..0 / Lc j C C ,00l f) -') ei.IQQ fQS 1GCC� 11)2-1JS - Plevinrn " c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING : _ COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. , '�, �� RATING : .c3 MEMCOMNT: G A , ' /owhh s ate_ UGr )nopo — 4✓ -ty7A to Fe `rn&7iC t On-c2Q In mtz)kitct_- Peoe4�h r.}/ ttue, Cci_c. 4,t 0 u1Y) lo c 0 a c.cor( _ e. VISUAL IMPACT - onsidering the sca e and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING : _ `S COMMENT: e GC tocn u t —' C-1„eGGR e12-01 (c- Cot-u mVA,' 5 vj-) 120)./A /too /2/co.4tc f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING : / COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: �S 2 2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3 . WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING : COMMENT: b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING : COMMENT: 3 • c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING : Z COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4 .5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING : COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 47 3 . PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE ROUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type , income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11 .10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING : Jo COMMENT: 4 . 6, TN' ION OF EXISTING ' ITS -ximum 5 points) - Th ommission sh. 1 a- -ign points to ' nose app ' cants who guarIntee to rovide a p.rtio of their low, moderate and middle come un s by purch= sing .ully construct-d units w ' ch are not estricte to Aspen hous '. g guidelines and placin• a deed-res riction u n them in compli . tion with S= ction 24-1 10 . Poin s shall b assigned accordi • to the follo ing schedul - • Point: 1 to 33% of all to moderate :nd middle 1 income units propose: by appli .nt are • be purchased and de=d restricted 34 t• 66% of '11 low, moderate and iddle 3 income nits p.oposed by alp* icant - re o be pu hased and deed rest 'cted 6 to 100% o all low, moderate an. iddle 5 income units p • •o .ed by applicant are to b- purchased a • deed restricted RATING : COMMENT: 5 • 5 . BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1 , 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. ,La POINTS : COMMENT:7k-C 5 pro/ C2 hew t CPJ --ems c d'� e'QQ'C_ 471 (-or rrin'vvh-c SO1Oj 9-c a- J-s 74" fi tti-) war-c-c 1 e - c ,au 2_ --»c-o 'r ete4 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: /5 (minimum of 5 .4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 7 (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: b (minimum of 8 .75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 "52- (minimum of 28.8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 5 4- TOTAL POINTS: 3 Name of Planning and Zoning Member : v) 4 • rat E- 6 • CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET / f PROJECT: (,q -t5-X--1--11 -1) 1AL-i bit-16 DATE: 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING : 4 COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities , and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING : 3 COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING : COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING : Z fir COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING : COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. n `/ RAATING : COMMENT: APYu(.A�1-11,1 P(4 a2 _1Z) V -- Vk,LbtT SUBTOTAL: 4 2 • 2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. ( In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3 . WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. �,' i RATING : COMMENT: APPL1t- 4-t1( A( 1171:t=. lcc& i F `IL 11-\ b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING : COMMENT: 3 c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING: COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING : 7• COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4 .5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING : COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 7 3 . PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 • sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type , income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11 .10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING : COMMENT: 4 . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - Tom.-Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guara. ee to provide a portion of their low , moderate and middl > income units by purchasing fully constructed units which ar= not restricted to Aspen ' s housing guidelines and placing - deed-restriction upon them in complication with Section 2 , 1 .10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following : hedule: Points 1 to 33% of all low, rederate and middle 1 income units propose : by applicant are to be purchased a• : deed restricted 34 to 66% of 1 low, moderate and middle 3 income unit- proposed by applicant are to be pure ased and deed restricted 67 to 00% of all low, moderate and middle 5 inc• e units proposed by applicant are t. be purchased and deed restricted RATING : COMMENT: 5 5 . BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1 , 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS : COMMENT:r f 2AS`Y.D l)Jul 1 -(PL; ( �V` L1•A(i P A$U C 15J�. ( >i-- IJft I 1^+1ic t= �� 51/4)P PoC 6. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: 14 (minimum of 5 .4 points needed 1 to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: t' (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: tC (minimum of 8 .75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 5_ (minimum of 28 .8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 5 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member : )h 6 CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL%% C- ,��nnGROWTH ?MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: 0,456ov- ! JS DATE: 57/2"-{516 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING : vL COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities , and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING : COMMENT: /ll' ,04tY ,21:/de°e c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. 2, RATING : COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING : 2- COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING : COMMENT: -/� 41 �J��4C)/ f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING : COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: l5-- 2 2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3 . WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. COMMENT: 0 p� RATING : A fi � b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING : 1 COMMENT: 3 c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a .need to extend the existing road network. RATING : COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING : COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4 .5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING: COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: -77 3 . PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 • sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type , income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11 .10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING : JD COMMENT: 4 . es •ERSIGN OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - e Commission sha assign points to those applicants who gu. .ntee to provide a por . ' on of their low, moderate and mi . • e income units by purchasi . g fully constructed units which - re not restricted to Aspen ' s ' •using guidelines and placi • a deed-restriction upon them in com •lication with Section —11 .10 . Points shall be assigned acco ding to the followin! schedule: Points 1 to 33% of all ow, roderate and middle 1 income units prop. , by applicant are to be purchased a, : .eed restricted 34 to 66% of . 1 low, moderate and middle 3 income unit proposed by : .plicant are to be pur . ased and deed r- -tricted 67 to . 00% of all low, moderat= and middle 5 income units proposed by applica t are to •e purchased and deed restricte• RATING : ►IMMENT: 5 5 . BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1 , 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS : COMMENT: 6 . TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: /15— (minimum of 5 .4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: 1 (minimum of 3 points needed to / remain eligible) � Points in Category 3 : /v (minimum of 8 .75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 Z (minimum of 28 .8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 5 S _ TOTAL POINTS: -Y? Name of Planning and Zoning Member : (A)/ I A i1 1 6 A CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH ?MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: DATE: 1 . QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. 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 : 7 COMMENT: b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities , and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING : COMMENT: c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. RATING : COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING : COMMENT: e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. RATING : COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING : COMMENT: SUBTOTAL: 2 4 2 . AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following formula: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i. e. , water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3 . WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING : COMMENT: b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. RATING : COMMENT: 3 c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. RATING : / COMMENT: d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING : COMMENT: e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4 .5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. RATING : 3 COMMENT: 1 SUBTOTAL: 3 . PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The Commis- 4 sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the housing size, type , income and occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11 .10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: 0 to 40% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 4% housed 41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the project are provided with housing: 1 point for each 12% housed RATING : COMMENT: 4 . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - The Commission shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle income units by purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to Aspen' s housing guidelines and placing a deed-restriction upon them in complication with Section 24-11 .10 . Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule: Points 1 to 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed restricted 34 to 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed restricted 67 to 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5 income units proposed by applicant are to be purchased and deed restricted RATING : COMMENT: 5 5 . BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points awarded in Sections 1 , 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS : �. COMMENT: 6 . TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: (minimum of 5 .4 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 2: (minimum of 3 points needed to remain eligible) Points in Category 3: (minimum of 8 .75 points needed to remain eligible) SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 (minimum of 28 .8 points needed to be eligible) Points in Category 5 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Planning and Zoning Member : 6 ti )\1 sEP 10 1086 Iv September 10, 1986 Mr. Steve Burstein Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wesson Growth Management Plan Application Dear Steve : I write this letter to you as the owner of 611 West Main Street, which is the yellow Victorian next door to Dr. Wesson' s property. Dr. Wesson and I have entered into an agreement whereby Dr. Wesson will construct a common trash enclosure for both properties as set forth in his GMP application. This enclosure will be constructed on my property. This is being done in order to clean up the unsightly feature which presently exists in the alley. If you have any additional questions , please feel free to contact me. Ver t my s, Dan Levinson Box 3646 Aspen, Co . 81612 September 13 , 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission r . g n nn(2 City of Aspen City Hall S ' 6S Aspen, Co. 81611 ! i Gentlemen: This letter is written to support the application of a project seeking Commission approval which has been submitted to you by W. H. Wesson, DDS . I have read the project summary, and I have also read the criteria on which approval for the project will apparently be based, the commercial GMP evaluation sheets . Prior to my moving to Aspen about seven years ago, for over thirty years I was active in burgeoning post-WWII northern Ohio, where I practiced my profession, participated actively on regional and city planning and zoning boards, helped to write building and zoning codes and chaired for a number of years a zoning appeals board . When I moved to Aspen I found that I was in for a shock. I found a lovely parcel for my home which I contracted to purchase -- a ten acre residential lot , so zoned, from an old ranch. It took over one and one half years to receive required county P and Z approval in order to secure a building permit . This was to be a single lot split from a larger parcel , for which it seemed the entire procedure required for a full-blown subdivision was required from me, excepting for the competition for points against construction industry professionals and their teams , as is now faced by Dr . Wesson' s application. I still wince as I think of the multi-page professional engineer ' s report on the impact on Castle Creek road traffic from the construction and occupancy of my single family residence, located at the confluence of Conundrum and Castle creeks . There is a strong parallel between my experience I have just described and the situation Dr . Wesson seems to be experiencing . In the community' s approval process a consideration of qualitative values seem to be totally absent , even eschewed, in contrast t., the exclusive consideratiu“ of quantitative values based primarily on what a promoter or developer might be willing to do extra for the city simply as a payment of sorts for his entry permit . To pit predatory, exploitative promoters , developers and investors and their staffs -- the professionals of the construction industry, against the individual citizen concerned with building his own home or professional workplace is certainly contrary to the idealism displayed by what I see as a majority of residents in this community. As I see it , a commission such as yours can be just as objective and impersonal with respect to the task of judging qualities as quantitites . For the long range best interests of the community, perhaps certain qualitative concerns can be of more importance than the quantitative concerns , and a place for this might well be added to the evaluation procedure. In these two cases , those of Dr . Wesson and myself , each applicant is an individual , concerned with a relatively small and highly personal construction project , that of a home for both an individual professional practice and for the practioner- applicant himself . Where the current evaluation procedure puts to disadvantage and hardship the individual citizen, especially in the case at hand where Dr . Wesson demonstrates a fifteen year community interest track record, I believe the planning and zoning board should use it ' s judgement and its authority to square the unfairness built into the present evaluation system with the idealism everywhere prevalent in this community. Sincerely, in 1/4 L2 .I 5 T. L. Goudvis, P . E. CC : Bill Wesson CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM ELYSE ELLIOTT © I L/ E per, ✓� � sE:La. •i : 4/'o,/8c /�cwe Ae'c1441Pihel � 0 arzt 0 411-16 ., x 6 V/. tflfl2G ' ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY ASPEN, COLORADO MEMORANDUM DATE : September 9, 1986 TO: Steve Burstein City/County Planning Office n , i y( FROM: Bruce A. Abel , General Manager Paul S . Hilts , Director of Operation RE: Wesson Dental Building -Conceptual Submission After reviewing the Wesson Dental Building Conceptual Submission, the Roaring Fork Transit Agency does not see any major problems with this project . This portion of Main Street is served four times per hour in each direction by the Highlands/Mountain Valley and Snowbnnny buses , in addition to regular service from points downvalley by fare buses . We see no problems with this project being easily served by public transportation . Neither should it significantly impact the existing services along this corridor. Our only suggestion/comment would be in regard to the waiting bench suggested on page six of the submission . We would like to suggest that , if possible, this bench be placed on the Main Street side of the building in order to facilitate waiting for public transportation. pak Vj1 ( © [U\ IE jU" SEPIIN1I� M E M O R A N D U M � __- TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE : SEPTEMBER 9 , 1986 RE : 700 E. HYMAN BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP/CONCEPT. SUB ISSUE : Does the application meet the Aspen City Municipal Code and the Housing Authority generation requirements? BACKGROUND: The project is proposed on a vacant 12 ,000 square foot parcel of land located at the intersection of Spring Street and Hyman Avenue referred to as the Lucas property. The property consists of Lots K,L, M, and N, Block 104, City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to construct and approximately 9 ,000 square foot office building on the Lucas property, with the ground floor containing 1 .660 square feet, the second and third floors containing 3,830 square feet, and 3 ,510 square feet respectively. A basement is neither required nor provided. The applicant represents that the 700 East Hyman building' s tenants will be limited to those professional and business offices permitted within the 0-office zone district . The project' s employee housing requirement will be fulfilled via the conversion of existing free market units; therefore, no residen- tial use of the property is required or proposed. The total net leasable floor area of the building is approxi- mately 7 ,460 square feet. Based on an employee generation factor of three (3) employees per thousand (1 ,000) square feet of net leasable floor area (the Municipal Code ' s specified employee generation factor for the 0-office zone district) , the project will generate approximately twenty two (22) new employees. The applicant proposes to satisfy the employee housing requirements, of Section 24-11 . 5 (c) via nine ( 9) employees, or forty ( 40) percent of the total employees generated by the project, in four (4) two bedroom units to be purchased at the Airport Business Center aka Park Place Condominiums. The units in question comply with all applicable employee housing standards and will be deed restricted to employee occupancy and price guidelines in accor- dance with the Housing AUthority' s recommendations prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. It is anticipated that the units will be restricted to the Auth- ority' s low income rental and sales price guidelines. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION : The staff recommends approval of the project' s calculations and proposed housing for the (9) employees with the following deed restriction: 1 . The applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the employee housing units shall be deed restricted in terms of use and occupancy to the rental guidelines established and indexed by the City Council' s designee for low income employee housing units at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit. Verification of employment and income of those person living in the low income employee units shall be completed and filed with the City Council or its designee by the owner commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunc- tion, abatement or eviction of noncomplying tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving member of the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, plus twenty-one (21) years, or for a period of fifty ( 50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County Real Property records, whichever period shall be greater . 2 . The owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen/Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve- month period, who shall meet low income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and then applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 3 . No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive months. 4 . When a lease is executed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be main- tained on each unit. 5 . Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority Office after recordation. ACTION NEEDED: Approval by the Board of staff recommendation. 2 AUG 2 1 1986 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT zi'i MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: WESSON DENTAL BUILDING GMP DATE: AUGUST 20, 1986 We have reviewed the proposed Wesson Dental Building application pertaining to water availability. In this locale, the nearest water main is located on the north side of Main Street . Water service has been provided to adjacent properties in this block via several small service lines running up the alley from 6th Street . It is our recommendation that the development obtain water by extending the 6" main from Hopkins Street northerly along 5th Street in order to avoid a highway crossing on Main Street , as well as providing closer fire protection for the new office building. We recommend that the applicant install a fire hydrant at or near the northeast corner of block 25 (Main and 5th) . The instal- lation of the recommended fire hydrant at this location would greatly improve fire protection for this area. At some future point in time, when funds are available, the Water Department would attempt to complete the extension of the main, thereby providing an interconnect to Main Street . Although our recommendation to extend the 6" main from Hopkins Street will be greater in length than the applicant ' s proposal to cross Main Street with a service line, we believe our recommendation is the better alternative for the following reasons: the fire hydrant will be located on the south side, thereby eliminating the necessity for the Fire Department to string fire hose across Main Street, as well as saving the expense of cutting the highway. Since we are in short supply of hydrants on the south side of Main Street, it is the objective of the Water Department to palce any new fire hydrants in Main Street on the south side. The applicant ' s proposal to place a fire hydrant on the southeast corner of block 24 (across the street) , does not achieve this objective. In closing, should the Planning Office and the P & Z concur with our recommendation, we believe the applicant should be given credit for their proposal to upgrade fire protection on the south side of Main Street . JM: ab LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL.CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE.SUITE 305 ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I.KAUFMAN June 27 , 1986 TELEPHONE DAVID G.EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8 1] HAND-DELIVERY , DCC� COMi� 166 Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office _ I 130 South Galena Street 3 0 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Area and Bulk Requirements of Off4rn Znna Dear Alan: After reviewing your letter of June 23 , 1986 , regarding the above-referenced matter, and after discussing the issues with you, I feel that there is one item that needs further clarification. The last sentence of your letter states that both the office and free-market residential units require a Growth Management Allotment. While I agree that the office portion of the building requires both a Growth Management allotment and the need to compete in the Office GMP, I question the need to compete in the GMP for the free-market unit. In the Office Zone, there is an inherent right to build a single-family residence, therefore the lot in question has a right to one residential unit. Clearly, my client could construct a residential unit on the property without the need to compete in the Growth Management Plan. He could then compete in the 0-Office Zone GMP competition, and convert part of the space to office use, or add on to the existing space without the need to compete in the residential GMP. Therefore, the construction of a single residential unit in the Office Zone should be exempt from GMP competition in order to avoid the preceding convoluted activity. The residential unit would be deducted from the future residential quota, just as any development on previously subdivided lots is . To interpret the Code to require my client to compete in the residential GMP competition would only cause a tremendous amount of hardship because the small project would have to compete in two Growth Management competitions . It would also create the type of development that is disjointed and would not foster good planning and aesthetically pleasing architecture, since you would be forcing an applicant to build a residential unit and then make it work as an office building. In summary, I believe the Code interpretation I am proposing is fair, and one that does not undermine or in any way harm the intent of the Code . The free-market residential unit to be constructed on the property would be accounted in Mr. Alan Richman June 27 , 1986 Page 2 the GMP process . The office building would be competed for in the office competition, and the end result would accomplish the goals of the GMP, not circumvent them nor pervert them. I look forward to discussing this matter with you in the near future as we have an August 1 deadline for submission of our GMP, as well as a July 18 deadline for HPC. Very truly yours , LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By 214.1 Gideo I aufman GK/bw cc: William Wesson June 23, ' 986 Mr. Gideon Kaufman 315 F. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Gideon : I have reviewed your letter dated May 27 , 1986 submitted to the City Attorney. I have discussed this matter with the Assistant City Attorney and Karen and I have come to the following determin- ation . We have reviewed Section 24-3 .4 of the r- unicinal Code , Area and Bulk Requirements , as it pertains to density in the office zone district . In looking at Line 2 of the chart, minimum lot area per dwelling unit , it is clear that the number of dwelling units allowed on property in this district is a function of lot size. However , it is also clear that as with the Rr1F zone district , given the limited areal extent of the district : the intent is to maximize the effectiveness of the use of land zoned office . Therefore . the Code sets a less stringent density limit for multi-family uses than it does for single family and duplex. uses . In this light , your development proposal for a dwelling unit and medical office most closely resembles a "duplex " for density purposes only , for which 3000 square feet per unit are required. Given this finding, your 6000 square foot lot would appear to meet the underlying area and bulk requirement for density for the use proposed . Obviously , both the office and the free market residential unit will he subject to the need to obtain a Growth management allotment. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions recardino this matter. Sincerely , Alan Richman Plannino and Development Director AR :nec MEMO TO : Paul INTERNAL MEMO FROM: Karen DATE: June 9 , 1995 RE : G. KAUFMAN ' S LETTER RE: WESSON PROPERTY I have reviewed Gideon' s letter of '?ay 27th, and the code, and have the following comments : I agree with Gideon that the planning office' s interpretation of the code is unfounded, and completely without support from traditional statutory interpretation principles . The code provides for a 6000 square foot minimum lot area in the office zone, and applicant meets this requirement. See Section 24-3 . 4 . The code provides that on a site of 9 . 000 sauare feet or less . the following square footage requirements apply: 1 BR: 1, 200 2 BR: 2, 000 3 BR: 3 , 000 There is nothing in the code that in any way indicates that should an applicant make dual use (office and dwelling) of his property, he must meet additional square footage requirements . Other than the square footage requirements above, found at Section 24-3 . 4 , the code does not address square footage requirements for the building itself . (Unless I missed something. ) There seems to be some question what the minimum square footage requirements might be for the applicants building, since we don ' t know from Gideon' s letter exactly what is proposed and since the code does not address minimum square footage requirements for office space alone, much less office space in combination with a dwelling unit. At any rate, I think it is inappropriate to rely on Sandy Stuller' s memory for interpretation. Intention of the framers is certainly relevant, but only reliable if recorded at the time of drafting, as in a legislative record . Gideon' s office called late today, and they are hoping for an answer to this problem Tuesday. I said I was working on it and would discuss it with you as soon as possible. i-tc/LAW OFFICES v \ GIDEON I. KAUFMAN ------- t\\`� A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 [^ 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE.SUITE 305 'l�' " �/ 1 M5!� ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 _ �- GIDEON I.KAUFMAN May 27 , 1986 11`�J! ' ') ? I�" �„.��� DAVID G.EISENSTEIN Lit-A 14- Paul Taddune, City Attorney Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re : Wesson Property Dear Paul: I write this letter pursuant to our meeting today concerning the 6 , 000 square-foot lot that Bill Wesson owns in the "0" office zone. Residential as well as office uses are permitted in the office zone. 6 , 000 square feet is the minimum lot area listed in the office zone . As we discussed at our meeting, the planning office has adopted an interpre- tation of the area and bulk requirements for the office zone which requires a minimum of 6 , 000 square feet of area for each primary use. During my conversation with Alan, he agreed that the language in the code does not support the position taken by the Planning Office. He stated, however, that this interpre- tation originated from discussions with Sandy Stuller, who was the City Attorney when the provisions were drafted. Sandy Stuller' s position was that that was her intention when she drafted the ordinance years ago. However, the code does not say this . It is not possible to reach that interpreta- tion from the Code language. I feel that it is unfortunate to interpret the Code in such a manner, especially when the logic of this interpretation is not apparent and we are merely relying on a former staff member' s interpretation. Since the uses are permitted and the F.A.R. does not change, I really do not see a justification for requiring twice the square footage to construct permitted uses . I think a planner would be hard pressed to argue that the impacts of half residential and half office are greater than all office. In fact, the impacts would probably be less . Additionally, this interpretation would require someone to accumulate more land and construct larger buildings--something I 'm certain the community does not want to require. I would hope that after you have had a chance to review this item and discuss it with Alan that there would be a resolution available to my client. Bill Wesson would like to Paul Taddune , City Attorney May 27 , 1986 Page 2 compete in the upcoming growth management plan and he would like to find a permanent home for his dental practice which has been servicing this community for fifteen years. I look forward to discussing this matter with you in the near future. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation 1 - By l Gideon I. K ufman GIK mk v/ cc Bill Wesson C -- d MJ zoo t�Le 4 ¢ b0,k it ai Gu-t eww,,.44 ` 6(900 4 P! %or ri y tt Jc , 72 Ae__s Y / 7 611-7: �� !t,,,,, y /S G,(ti/c cam,([cv ytv c; /Ie- &�,7--P butz,„ we-dtaar c! /t cC<< c l p o d y 3. - kk, M fi-te-4 (2-1-9C9 oZK 3 - ()%. — rfi--tr z Se-f-, G 4,4 j '-Q' n7 h /te-az, 69, SA/_,, pv-r-g i2tss , 24//,-,;(7 0 tepa,; ,. ok 3o-ec7 e3 L "{- 2 4s P(:-70 tor, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office Files FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Code Interpretations DATE: August 11 , 1981 We recently had inquires in the 0 - Office zone concerning the following cases: 1 . An individual with a 10 unit office building wanted to convert four units to residences. 2. An individual with a 6000 square foot parcel zoned 0 wanted to construct both office and residential uses. The interpretation of the Code by Sandy Stuller in these two issues is as follows. Conversion of offices to residences involves construction and would therefore require an allocation under the residential GMP. There is no exception for a single family or duplex residence on a lot which already contains another building since we have always interpreted this GMP exception as one which gives back the property rights to subdivided lots which effectively would have lost them to the competition process. An applicant would have to tear down the office use and meet the underlying Area and Bulk Requirements of the - zone to be eligible for this exception. For an applicant to build both office and residential uses on a vacant parcel , the minimum lot size would be 12,000 square feet. In this respect, in reading the Area and Bulk Requirements chart, the row entitled "minimum lot area" should be interpreted as minimum lot area per use, which for office and residential in the 0 zone would be 6,000 square feet plus 6,000 square feet or a total of 12,000 square feet needed to build a combination of these uses, In the future, all public inquiry in these matters should be interpreted as above. If you have any need for clarification, please see me for further information. • LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE.SUITE 305 ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I.KAUFMAN August 1 , 1986 TELEPHONE DAVID G.EISENSTEIN AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Ms. Nancy Crelli Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wesson Dental Building Office Growth Management Plan Application Dear Nancy: Enclosed for submission in Office GMP competition are the following documents: 1 . Original and twenty copies of the above-referenced application; 2 . One set of drawings (twenty additional sets will be delivered on Monday, August 4 , 1986) ; 3 . Affidavit of ownership of subject property; and 4 . Check payable to Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office in the amount of $3 ,080 . 00 for the application fee. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I . KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By � Ka Gid o Kaufman I GK/bw Enclosures cc: William Wesson cc: Jim Curtis AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ss. STATE OF COLORADO ) I , GIDEON KAUFMAN, hereby verify that William H. Wesson is the title holder of the fee simple interest in the following described property located in Pitkin County: Lots H and I , Block 25 City and Townsite of Aspen DATED this 1st day of August, 1986 . LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation By Lli /�. Gide n Kaufman ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 /-i.� /.�, %�� ~i\T C'-¼-,l—'-- Arc,;Z_ RE: ...a.so., ;_,,,,,_. Dea r This is to inform preliminary review you that the Planning peel. We preliminary of Your Cc- c,-".,k C' -« Office has n completed determined that your a P eted its -�- '--- application for complete- ness. - is complete. is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows ; =-- Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) . Adjacent property owners list . (one copy only needed) . 7- Additional copies of entire application. Authorization / application. by owner for representative w/ to submit Response to the attached ing core tonth with list of items regulations of the demonstrat- ing Code, o other specified policies and A check in the or other specified materials. amount of $--�----- is due . A. Since your a for review by theplication is complete We will be calling complete, we have scheduled it prior to that g you if we need on prior days date . In any case ,any edwillonal information review memorandum to your we will be calling (is) (is not ) available to you . make ea a copy of you a sign, which youranesponsibility to Please note that ywith —_ B provide you post your property with Since your scheduled it for application is incomplete, scheduled the forepublicwreview e. we have we have requested,te timw. When We not to place you on the next available we will have Please feel free to agenda . 111 be happy assigned feel this to call ; case, if y°u have any questions. , who is the planner Sincerely, ASPEN/PTTgIN PLANNING PLA NNING O FFICE tomFay` n,OY /rd/ lan Richman; Planning AR jl Development Director V �� � pp Q-4-J. l l.-o \l e S ,,,r- C d. cAv, ,_\ S Lc ��QS aC A V J/ '- �o.,,,.. , ?" 4\\r� �C' \ -,k.' ��`•a.�l-� 3 a^^ F,� / �/ t" ti ln t..•a PRE—APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY ii-2-7i P•.i JE• 1ch Ccrnml:•,�J (C. „v) C to P St • •PL •NT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 4'dr- ti41) P• SENTATIVE'S PHONE: i ERS NAME: W(+ T,,, (Uan"m U O S SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: F 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments q } 4. Review is: - (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (PiZ then to CC)(BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6 . Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) : (NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: (` : �" "'' ' `' ' � 8. Anticipated date of submission: H . } 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: 0 If ..�c; Hat) 0k-Vv; „4% "_/ 4 ,, pi 1.r.7 'nat ls; i7 ' r 0 .. , _:.. i 420 W-S MAIN ' -. _ . , 1- L ^ ,.0,., 203-925-4411 '. '1# ''-'414,11/' 9 , .f • c . . . .. k•OLE 3 son/, . SPZ-1) . .. j '&S Pi), M%J/N • , . � 4,47 u • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS rnaorono ronuenu:e co..maven ___ . . . • 1 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning December 5, 1978 I � Chairman Chic Collins called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with members Joan Klar, Olaf Hedstrom, and Nancy McDonnell present. I iWesson Parking - Richard Grice, planning office, included a site plan where d Special. Review Wesson plans to build on Main street next to the Shaw house. There is a total square footage of 4,404 and 6 parking spaces � The Code requires 3 parking spaces per 1.000 square feet; 1 this can be varied by P & Z down to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. In a letter to the Commission from Wesson, the reduction in parking is justifed by Wesson' s concern about i building too large of a structure on Main street. Wesson 1 would rather. reduce the size of the building and keep the J parking at 1.5 per 1,000. 7 � I Grice and City Engineer Dave Ellis felt this was a reasonable i justification. Wesson would like to maintain the option for providing a 7th parking space. Grice recommended approval j with the condition the, minimum parking space requirements be I met allowing the option to create another parking space if Wesson can come up with it through design. Grice pointed out • ; the build out -is 4,404 square feet; if Wesson only provides six parking spaces, the building will have to be 4 ,325 square i feet. Wesson said he would like to build the building at an FAlt of .75:1, which would mean 7 parking spaces or knocking off• ahou 100 square feet. Collins asked if this would he a dental/. professional buildings. Wesson said he was not sure yet; he may live there. Ms. Klar said she like the idea of reduced • parking because if the community ever gets a transi: program, that is what they want . Wesson said the design guidelines h will be up to the HPC; he is trying to make it compatible with the rest of the block. Wesson said for this site, his preference is to cut the building down to 4,325 square feet with six parking space. Hedstrom moved to grant approval of the special review reques • to vary the parking requirement in the 0, office, zone from 1 • 3 spaces per 1 ,000-sgiiarrfeet to L5_per1,,0_p11 square feet i in accordance with Sec. 24-4.5 of the Code for the proposed Wesson office building on lots H and I, block 25, Main street seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. -, Maxwell Alcy Grice told the Commission that the planning office and engin- Stream Margin eering has problems with the plat because there is a 100 year. j Review. flood plain line. The distance from the house to the river. ; i is not marked clearly. Engineering has reviewed this and recommended approval provided the edge of the house come no closer then 7.5 to 10 feet from the power lines. This is located on Red Butte drive; they are not asking to remove any substantial vegetation at all. The planning office recommenc approval with the condition of the distance from the power lines. • Collins asked if the City was asking for trail easements in this area. Dan McArthur, assistant engineer, told the Commission the trails are on the other side of the Roaring Fork. . There is no problem with the stream marking. • Hedstrom moved to approve the stream margin review presented by Maxwell Al.ey for a proposed house on lot 7 , block 1 , Red Butte subdivision subject to the condition that the propose: a -s • . .- • / • • lar Meeting Aspen Planning and zoning Commission October 16 , 1979 Anderson moved to approve Dr. Wesson' s application for special review for two employee housing units and for parkin reduction of two spaces from that which would normally be required by the code, for his new office Building at 605 W. Main Street and conditioned that the property is deed restricted to Low, Moderate or Middle income housing, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion. approved. Hunt • abstained from voting for lack of information. • rs Grice introduced the application. . The applicant requests ivision subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of a duplex ption presently a single family occupied by the owners with the second unit proposed. The Engineering Department recommends approval subject to their conditions. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the Engineeering Department ' s concerns. 1 • Bunt moved to recommend exemption from strict application of the subdivision regulations applied to the Somers duplex condominiumization conditioned on, 1). .compliance with Item 1 of the Engineering Department memo September, 24 , 1979 , prior to consideration by City Council, 2) ' compliance with Item 2 of the above referenced memo, '3) compliance with Aspen . Municipal Code Section 20-2Z, the six month minimum lease • pro'iision and the property be so deed restricted. Otherwise there are no significant adverse land use impacts or detri- ments to the public good, Anderson seconded. All in -favor, motion approved. -Hall Grice introduced the application. The• applicant requests Lvision subdivision exemption for the ' condominiumization of an )tion existing duplex. The rental history indicates that one unit has been rented for . 57/sqft. in the last 18 months. Stock feels this shows the unit falls within the low, moderate • and middle income housing pool. He recommends denial. The Engineering Department recommends approval subject to their • conditions. u' '. • Joh:Seigle, representing the applicant, said the duplex was purchased in 1972 , both units are now under contract to sell The worth unit has been rented, the south unit is owner oc- - • -- : cupied. The tenants do not wish to exercise their right of ' • firs•t refusal and the prospective buyers do not intend to • rent it as employee housing. Seigle .did not feel these unit fell under the housing guidelines. • Pardee felt it important to know who has been renting' this unit; has it been four laborers paying. $675/month. Hedstrom • felt it important that the rent has been $675 since October • 1975. Runt did not feel they should penalize them for keep- . • ing .their •rents down. •Anderson felt they should get more information. McDonnell did "not feel it fell under employee ■ housing. Harvey agreed witlr;McDonnell and asked for •more information. • Hunt moved to .r�ammend exemption from strict application of the subdivisin rsetyn ons of the Sams-Hall condominiumiza- tion conditinn.d.,nn, Ji compliance with item 1 of the' En- gineGringrt • dated October 11, 1979 , prior to City; Coign 1 xtms deratinn'n, 2) • compliance with item 2 of the . above mentioned.remo,11Ycompliance with Aspen Municipal Cod Section 20-22,' the six month minimum lease provisions and . be so deed restricted. Otherwise, there are no significant adverse land use impacts or-detriments to the public good, Harvey seconded 'Rolf call vote: Harvey, aye; McDonnell , aye; Anderson,. nay;. Pardee, nay;. Hunt, aye; Hedstrom, aye. Motion approved. . ution 79-19, Harvey felt they should include the six month minimum lease es Employee restriction in the resolution. ng Approval ' • • • • • .,,,,, �•,.,,, , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS • Tular Meeting . Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 10 , 1979 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on October 16, 79, at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom Pardee, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell and Perry Harvey . Also :sent were Richard Grice of the Planning Office, Housing Director Jim Reents City Attorney Ronald Stock. • missionmember 'Chairman Hedstrom noted he attended the last Council meeting. ments He told the Council that the P&Z did not feel their recom- - • mendations were getting through to the Council. He sum- . marized the P&Z ' s deliberation on the Lodge condominiumiza- tion. The P&Z felt the intent behind the lodge zoning shiculc be upheld, that a reduction in the number of units available in this zone would be inadvisable, and that condominiumiza- tion of these units would create pressure for tourist units outside the lodge zone and tend to weaken the quality of the lodging facilities because of the change in ownership. He noted there was no certainty that these things would happen but the P&Z felt they should prevent them from occur- . ring. He explained to the . Council that P&Z is aware that condominiumization may be the only way for certain Lodges .to finance upgrading of the facilities but felt this problem should be attacked 'directly: Pardee asked if Council had 3.' , taken any action. Stock said they requested an ordinance prohibiting all subdivision of lodges and hotels which Stock , did not support. He 'recommended a moratorium on these condominiumizations and a .rewrite of the subdivision regu- lations. This rewrite would take up to eight months . Iie recommends a long subdivision process, a short subdivision process similar to subdivision exemptions and a condominiumi-, • zation/split 'fee type process. He noted that a moratorium envisions action whereas :a prohibition. does not.• • • Anderson moved to recommend-to City Council a moratorium on • all condominiumizations of lodges and hotels until legisla- tion can be drafted to clarify existing subdivision and condominiumization regulations concerning the condominiumi- zation of lodges and further recommend that this revision to existing legislation be done' in the most expeditous manner possible, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. • 1 House, • Lee Pardee stepped down from his position on the commission sam Margin due to a conflict of interest. ' iew Grice introduced the application. He 'noted the property was filled and graded some time ago through a Stream Margin • approval. The Code requires that no building be constructed in the Stream Margin without approval. The Engineering Department has recommended approval subject to the applicant resubmitting a stream margin review plat. The Planning Of- fice recommends approval subject to the five conditions of . the Engineering Department. • Hunt moved to approve the Stream Margin Review of the ad- dition of a tennis court to the Hill House property as proposed conditioned upon compliance with the Engineering Department items ,1--5 listed on the- Planning Office memo dated October 11. ..1979, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion. approved. . • ;on Employee . . Pardee resumed• his• position on the commission. ;ing Project • Reents introduced the application. . The applicant wishes to build an' office building next to the Shaw residence on Main Street, 605 W. Main. The HPC 'has .given their approval. In the 0-Office,, there is an FAR bonus for employee housing. This application needs special review and the employee housing parking reduction. The employee housing is garden level. • , • MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ' Aspen Water Department Fire Marshall • Roaring Fork Transit Authority Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE : 1986 City Commercial GMP Competition Application : 700 E. IlymanBuilding Commercial GMP/Conceptual Submission • Wesson Dental Building Commercial GMP/Conceptual Submission DATE: August 15, 1986 • Attached for your review are two ( 2) 1986 City GMP/Conceptual Submission Applications. Following is a brief description of the Applicant's requests : • 700 E._ Hyman Building Commercial GDP • The project is proposed on a vacant 12 , 000 square foot parcel of land located at the intersection of Spring Street and Hyman Avenue referred to as the Lucas property. The property consists of Lot I:, L,M, and N, Block 104, City of • Aspen.. The applicant proposes to construct: an appro :imately 9 , 000 square foot office building on the Lucas property , • with the ground floor containing 1 , 560 square feet , the second and third floors containing 3, 830 and 3,510 square • feet, respectively_ A basement is neither required nor • provided. Wesson Dental Building Commercial GMP The project is proposed at 605 Main Street, the southwest corner of Main Street and Fifth Street. The property is a six thousand (6 , 000 ) square foot corner lot. The applicant proposes a new dental office rcuesting office CEP quota of 2 ,487 square feet, an on-site employee apartment and a free market residence. (the latter is exempt as a residence on an existing vacant lot) .. Please review those applications and return your referral comments to Planning Office no later than September 1 no we have adequate time to prepare for our presentation before P E-,t on September 16 , 1985 . Thank you.. WESSON DENTAL BUILDING OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION August 1, 1986 Submitted to : City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2020 Applicant: William Wesson, D.D.S. 632 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attorneys : Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8166 Planner: Jim Curtis Curtis & Associates 117 S. Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 920-1395 Architect: Wayne Stryker Lipkin/Stryker Associates P.O. Box 3004 Aspen, Colorado 81612 920-1142 Engineer: Dean Gordon Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Inc. 1512 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 945-1004 Design Builder: James J. Benson P.O. Box 6030 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 923-3454 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # A. PROJECT SUMMARY 1 B. GMP REVIEW CRITERIA 4 1 . Quality of Design 4 aa. Architectural Design 4 bb. Site Design 5 cc. Energy 7 dd. Amenities 7 ee. Visual Impact 8 ff. Trash and Utility Access 10 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 10 aa. Water Supply and Fire Protection 10 bb. Sewage Disposal 11 cc. Public Transportation and Roads 11 dd. Storm Drainage 13 ee. Parking 14 3 . Employee Housing 15 4 . Bonus Points 16 C. PROJECT INFORMATION 18 aa. Water System 18 bb. Sewage 18 cc. Drainage 19 dd. Development Area 19 ee. Traffic 20 Page # ff. Proposed Uses 21 gg. Effects of the Proposed Development on 21 Adjacent Uses and Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project hh. Construction Schedule 22 ii. Employee Housing 22 A. PROJECT SUMMARY Dr. William Wesson has been practicing dentistry in Aspen for fifteen years. He acquired an office parcel seven years ago and has been planning to build his own office since that time. His present office space is inadequate and cannot provide the on-site services which his practice requires. Due to the cramped condition of his office, he has had to utilize two additional off-site locations for his laboratory and storage areas. The proposed office will enable him to provide the kind of service to his fifteen year Aspen clientele that is befitting his professional standards and reputation. The proposed building will be located in the Office Zoning District at 605 West Main Street, the southwest corner of Main Street and Fifth Street. The property is a six thousand (6 , 000) square foot corner lot surrounded by large cottonwood trees which will be saved. The building shall contain a new dental office, a one-bedroom apartment for Dr. Wesson, and a one-bedroom employee unit for a staff member. The building F.A.R. is given below: Dental office (street level) 2 , 487 sq. ft. F.A.R. Wesson apt. (second level) 1 , 938 sq. ft. F.A.R. (4,500 sq. ft. allowed) 4 ,425 sq. ft. F.A.R. - 1 - Employee apt. (garden level) 858 sq. ft. F.A.R. Employee stairwell (garden level) 110 sq. ft. F.A.R. (1 ,500 sq. ft. allowed) 968 sq. ft. F.A.R. Specifically, Dr. Wesson is requesting the following: 1 . Office GMP quota of 2, 487 sq. ft. 2 . Bonus F.A.R. of 968 sq. ft. for the on-site employee apartment and employee stairwell (which is included in F.A.R. calculations) . The proposed building has received conceptual HPC approval. The building and the placement of the building on the lot has been designed to be compatible with and have low impact on the neighborhood, and specifically, have low impact on Main Street. Main Street has a mix of building types with no single type dominating the character of the street. Therefore, the design of the building is modest and simple, taking advantage of the large cottonwoods fronting the lot and allowing the trees to continue to dominate and screen the lot. These cottonwoods will be preserved and additional trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide further screening of the building. Even though the Office District doesn' t have an open space requirement, Dr. Wesson being sensitive to the open space - 2 - desires of the community has preserved thirty percent (30%) of the property as open space and landscaping area. The property is conveniently located for walking, bicycle, and bus access, and will therefore have less traffic and parking impact. Moreover, the property is located outside the downtown core area, and will help relieve some of the congestion in the core area. Dr. Wesson proposes to provide housing for three (3) employees through an on-site one-bedroom apartment and a cash-in-lieu of payment. The City' s employee housing guidelines are based on the generation of new employees from new businesses. In reality, since this is an existing business that has been in Aspen for fifteen years, one could argue the project creates no new employees. Nonetheless, the applicant proposes to provide employee housing, exceeding the minimum requirement of the City Code, as a benefit to the community and his employees. In summary, this is a small project necessary to upgrade Dr. Wesson' s professional practice. This project is not commercially motivated, but is put forth by a fifteen year resident in order to provide a better community service. - 3 - B. GMP REVIEW CRITERIA 1 . Quality of Design. aa. Architectural Design. The building has been consciously designed to be compatible with and have low impact on the neighborhood, and specifically, have low impact on Main Street. Main Street has a mix of building types with no single type dominating the character of the street. Therefore, the design of the building is modest and simple taking advantage of the large cottonwoods fronting the lot and allowing the trees to continue to dominate and screen the lot. These cottonwoods will be preserved and additional trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide further screening of the building. Architecturally, the scale of the building has been lessened by breaking the roof line and pitching back the roofs such that only a nine foot (9 ' ) building facade is seen from Main Street. The front building facade is again broken and given interest by recessing the entry of the building under a covered porch. The height of the building has been reduced from the maximum height allowed by Code to twenty-three and one-half feet (231' ) . The building has also been designed with a mansard roof - 4 - which will make it look even smaller than using a full pitched roof which is allowed by Code to go up to a thirty foot (30 ' ) roof height. Building materials have also been kept simple to lessen the perceived mass of the building. The wood siding shall be a light gray tone stain that is used on many homes in the West End. The roof shall be either metal in a dark tone to compliment the wood siding, or shake wood shingles in a dark tone. Both roofing materials have been discussed with the HPC, and will be decided upon at detailed design. Window planes have been kept simple and residential in character. Most significantly, the building size will appear much smaller when viewed in contrast to the much higher and larger existing building on the adjoining property. The building next door is approximately twenty-eight (28) to thirty (30) feet high with a Victorian pitched roof, is painted a yellow color, and has much less tree screening along Main Street. Not wishing to compete with this building, and wanting to take full advantage of the large cottonwoods, the Wesson building has taken a simple, architecturally pleasing modest design. bb. Site Design. Consistent with the architecture of the building, the site design has also sought to minimize the scale of the building. - 5 - The large cottonwoods along Main Street and Fifth Street will be preserved and will visually screen the building. Additional trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide further screening of the building. The building has been setback further from Main Street and Fifth Street than required by Code. The building is back twenty-nine feet (29 ' ) from the curb of Main Street. The distance from the Main Street curb to the property line is fourteen feet (14 ' ) and the front yard setback of the building has been increased from the ten feet (10 ' ) permitted under the Code to fifteen feet (15 ' ) . The increased setback will further reduce the appearance of the building from Main Street, and will provide a larger landscaping area in front of the building. In addition to the landscaping of new trees along Main Street, Dr. Wesson will also landscape around the building with massings of mixed groundcovers, flowers and shrubery. This native landscaping versus a traditional lawn will add significant color to the building in the Spring and Summer. Sidewalks will be constructed along Main Street and Fifth Street that will meander through the existing trees. A small outside seating and waiting area with bicycle rack is planned. A handicapped access ramp is also provided for the project. - 6 - While there is no requirement for open space in the 0-Office District, the project is responsible to the need for open space by providing 1 , 840 square feet of open space. The total open space of the project not only exceeds the requirements for the 0-Office Zone, but in fact equals thirty percent (30%) of the total lot area. All utility service lines will be undergrounded. cc. Energy. The proposed building has been designed to be energy efficient. The building will exceed the Code requirements both in terms of roof and wall insulation by twenty-five percent (25%) . The building site has good sun exposure and its location is conducive to solar benefits. A solar hot water device will be installed in order to heat the water by solar energy. Additionally, a proposed clear story in the center of the roof will provide passive solar benefits. The utilization of this very efficient design will result in extensive energy reduction, and low energy costs to Dr. Wesson. dd. Amenities. A major amenity of the project is the preservation and clean-up of the large cottonwood trees along Main Street and Fifth Street. These trees (lower branches) will be trimmed and - 7 - shaped to improve their appearance. The cottonwoods will be supplemented by new trees planted along Main Street and Fifth Street. Dr. Wesson will also landscape around the building with massings of mixed groundcovers , flowers and shrubery. This native landscaping will add significant color to the building in the Spring and Summer. Sidewalks will be constructed along Main Street and Fifth Street that will meander through the existing trees. A small outside seating and waiting area with bicycle rack is planned. A handicapped access ramp is also provided for the project. ee. Visual Impact. The design of the building and its placement on the lot has consciously minimized the visual impact of the building. The large cottonwoods along Main Street and Fifth Street will be preserved, and will visually screen the building. Additional trees will be planted along Main Street and Fifth Street to compliment the large cottonwoods and to provide additional screening of the building. The building has been set back further from Main Street and Fifth Street than required by Code. The building is back twenty-nine feet (29 ' ) from the curb of Main Street. The distance from the Main Street curb to the property line is fourteen feet (14 ' ) and the front yard setback of the building has been increased from the ten feet (10 ' ) permitted under the - 8 - Code to fifteen feet (15 ' ) . The increased setback will further reduce the impact of the building from Main Street and will provide a larger landscaping area in front of the building. The height of the building has been reduced from the maximum allowed by Code to twenty-three and one-half feet (23h' ) . The building has been designed with a mansard roof which will make it look even lower than using a full pitched roof which is allowed by Code to go up to a thirty foot (30 ' ) roof height. The roof line along Main Street has been broken and pitched back such that only a nine foot (9 ' ) building facade is seen from Main Street. This building design creates an extremely small front building facade, especially when compared to the surrounding Main Street buildings. The front facade is again broken and given interest by recessing the entry of the building under a covered porch. Most significantly, the size of the building will appear much smaller when viewed in contrast to the much higher and larger existing building on the adjoining property. The building next door is approximately twenty-eight feet (28 ' ) to thirty feet (30 ' ) high with a Victorian pitched roof, is painted a yellow color, and has much less tree screening along Main Street. All of the above design decisions have been made to minimize the visual impact of the building, especially from Main Street. - 9 - ff. Trash and Utility Access. Dr. Wesson, recognizing a problem in the alley behind his property, has worked out an arrangement with his neighbor to provide a common trash enclosure for both properties. Dr. Wesson will construct the enclosure on the adjoining property with the property owner' s permission, in order to clean up the unsightly feature which presently exists in the alley. All new utilities will be underground. 2 . Availability of Public Facilities and Services. aa. Water Supply and Fire Protection. The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen Water Department as outlined in the Engineering Report by Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1" . The building will be connected to the existing water trunk line located along Main Street. Based on a preliminary conversation with Jim Markalunas , the Aspen Water Department can service the building in accordance with its standard service procedures without the need for any system line extensions or treatment plant upgrading. Dr. Wesson proposes to upgrade the fire protection capabilities of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the block across Main - 10 - Street within the Main Street R.O.W. This location is directly across from the building, and the hydrant will connect to the water trunk line along the north side of Main Street. The hydrant would upgrade the fire protection for the area, and is approximately one hundred feet (100 ' ) from the building. bb. Sewage Disposal. The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen Sanitation District as outlined in the Engineering Report by Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1"_ The building will be connected to the existing sewer trunk line located in the alley at the rear of the property. Based on a preliminary conversation with Heiko Kuhn, the Aspen Sanitation District can service the building in accordance with its standard service procedures without the need for any system line extensions or treatment plant upgrading. cc. Public Transportation and Roads. The project is located on Main Street where every bus passes in front of it. A bench will be provided so that people who want to wait for the bus will be able to sit. The property is also conveniently located for walking and bicycle access. The building will have minimal traffic impact on Main Street and Fifth Street as outlined in the Engineering Report in - 11 - Appendix "1" . The key findings of the Engineering Report are given below: 1 . Under the Worst Case scenario of 100% car usage, the estimated 76 ADT (Average Daily Trips) would only increase traffic on Main Street by 0 . 3% . Under the more realistic assumption of 75% car usage, the estimated 57 ADT would only increase traffic on Main Street by 0 . 25% . 2. There are currently adequate turning lanes provided on Main Street for access and exit from Fifth Street. 3. Because Main Street is the logical primary access route, and Fifth Street is the logical secondary access route, it is difficult to estimate the increased traffic on Fifth Street. However, the traffic impact on Fifth Street will primarily be limited to the short half-block section adjoining the property between Main and Hopkins. Moreover, the total ADT for Fifth Street is well below any calculated design carrying capacity of the street, and no street improvements will be necessary to Fifth Street to handle any increase in traffic resulting from the building. 4 . Except for vehicles associated with the apartment or employee unit, all vehicles would only be at the building during regular office hours from approximately 8: 00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. - 12 - Both Main Street and Fifth Street are capable of handling the limited additional traffic without street improvements. Dr. Wesson will improve the street system by adding sidewalks along both Main Street and Fifth Street adjoining the property. He will also upgrade Fifth Street by adding curb and gutter on the west side of the street adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth Street already has curb and gutter, and the installation of same on the west side will complete the street drainage system at the intersection of Fifth Street and Main Street. dd. Storm Drainage. Based on the Engineering Report in Appendix "1" , all on-site drainage from the building and parking will be collected in an on-site drywell, and not discharged directly into the surrounding street drainage. Dr. Wesson proposes to improve the surrounding street drainage by installing a curb and gutter along the west side of Fifth Street adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth Street already has curb and gutter, and the installation of same on the west side will complete the street drainage system at the intersection of Fifth Street and Main Street. - 13 - ee . Parking. Dr. Wesson is providing a total of seven (7) on-site parking spaces as follows: one (1) space for his one-bedroom apartment, one (1) space for the employee unit, and five (5) spaces for the dental office. The Code parking guideline for office is 3 .0 cars per 1 ,000 sq. ft. or 7 .5 cars for the dental office. However, the Code allows for a variance from this guideline by Special Review to a reduced parking standard of 1 .5 cars per 1 ,000 sq. ft. or 3 . 7 cars for the dental office. Dr. Wesson is providing five (5) spaces for the office which is above the 3 . 7 car minimum requirement allowed by Special Review. The Special Review variance is justified for the building because of the following: 1 . The property is a corner lot and parking is available along Main Street and Fifth Street. The sixty foot (60 ' ) lot frontage along Main Street can accommodate three (3) to four (4) cars and the one hundred foot (100 ' ) lot frontage along Fifth Street can accommodate five (5) to six (6) cars. Total on and off street parking available to the property is therefore fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) cars which is well above the nine (9) cars required using the maximum guideline of the Code. 2. The property is located outside the downtown core area and parking along Main Street and Fifth Street at this location is generally easily available. - 14 - 3 . The property is conveniently located for walking, bicycle, and bus access which will reduce the parking demand for the building. 4 . Except for parking associated with the apartment or employee unit, office parking would only be needed at the building during regular office hours approximately from 8 : 00 A.M. to 5: 30 P.M. The on-site parking is located at the rear of the building off the alley. The parking is not visible from Main Street and is easily accessed from the alley. 3 . Employee Housing. The applicant proposes to provide housing for forty percent (40%) or three (3) employees that would be generated under the City guidelines as follows : 2,487 sq. ft. net leasable office FAR 3. 0 employees per 1 ,000 sq. ft. 7.5 total employees generated 40% of employees housed 3. 0 employees housed The three (3) employees shall be housed as follows : One (1) one-bedroom apartment on-site (1 . 75 emp. ) . The - 15 - apartment is 858 square feet, rental, and price-restricted to the moderate income guidelines as annually adopted. The apartment is proposed to be rented to Dr. Wesson' s staff, and is therefore oversized to provide a better living environment. In accordance with the City housing guidelines, the rent shall be based on the smaller 700 square foot moderate income unit size guideline. Cash-in-lieu payment of $16 ,625. 00 (1 . 25 emp. ) . The cash payment is calculated at the moderate income level of $13, 300 . 00 per employee ($13,300. 00 x 1. 25 emp. ) , and shall be adjusted to the moderate income payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. The City' s employee housing guidelines are based on the generation of new employees from new businesses. In reality, since this is an existing business that has been in Aspen for fifteen years, one could argue the project creates no new employees. Nonetheless, Dr. Wesson proposes to provide employee housing, exceeding the minimum requirement of the City Code guidelines, as a benefit to the community and his employees. 4 . Bonus Points. The Code provides for bonus points when a project exceeds the substantive criteria of the GMP scoring, and achieves an outstanding overall design. This project is, therefore, deserving of substantial bonus points. - 16 - The term "outstanding overall design" looks not only to the architecture of the building, but to what the building design achieves for the community. In this case, it enables a fifteen year local dental practice to upgrade in a fashion that is conveniently located and attractively designed. It is a project that does not try to compete with the expensive chic Aspen trend, but rather exemplifies an Aspenite' s individual attempt to create a practical office building in harmony with an older mixed neighborhood. This project exceeds the substantive criteria of the GMP scoring. The bonus area is where you can reward this type of project for fulfilling a community need, and maintaining a necessary and valuable community commodity. In addition, this project merits bonus points for providing more than the minimum threshold of employee housing when, in fact, no new housing demand is being generated by the use. - 17 - C. PROJECT INFORMATION aa. Water System. The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen Water Department as outlined in the Engineering Report by Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers, in Appendix "1" . The building will be connected to the existing water trunk line located along Main Street. Based on a preliminary conversation with Jim Markalunas, the Aspen Water Department can service the building in accordance with its standard service procedures without the need for any system line extensions or treatment plant upgrading. Dr. Wesson proposes to upgrade the fire protection capabilities of the surrounding neighborhood by installing a fire hydrant on the southeast corner of the block across Main Street within the Main Street R. O.W. The hydrant would upgrade the fire protection for the area and is approximately one hundred (100 ' ) feet from the building. bb. Sewage System. The proposed office building will be serviced by the Aspen Sanitation District as outlined in the Engineering Report by Schmueser, Gordon, Myers, Engineers , in Appendix "1" . The building will be connected to the existing sewer trunk line - 18 - located in the alley at the rear of the property. Based on a preliminary conversation with Heiko Kuhn, the Aspen Sanitation District can service the building in accordance with its standard service procedures without the need for any system line extensions or treatment plant upgrading. cc. Drainage System. Based on the Engineering Report in Appendix "1" , all on-site drainage from the building and parking will be collected in an on-site drywell, and not discharged directly into the surrounding street drainage. Dr. Wesson proposes to improve the surrounding street drainage by installing a curb and gutter along the west side of Fifth Street adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth Street already has curb and gutter, and the installation of same on the west side will complete the street drainage system at the intersection of Fifth Street and Main Street. dd. Development Area. The property is a 6,000 square foot corner lot in the 0-Office District. The lot is fronted on the north side by Main Street and the east side by Fifth Street. The Aspen Municipal Code provides for an allowable Floor Area Ratio of . 75 : 1 (4 ,500 square feet F.A.R. ) in the 0-Office District with a bonus of - 19 - .25 : 1 (1 ,500 square feet F.A.R. ) available by Special Review for on-site employee housing. The development F.A.R. for the building is as follows: Dental office (street level) 2,487 sq. ft. F.A.R. Wesson apt. (upper level) 1 , 938 sq. ft. F.A.R. (4,500 sq. ft. allowed) 4 , 425 sq. ft. F.A.R. Employee apt. (garden level) 858 sq. ft. F.A.R. Employee stairwell (garden level) 110 sq. ft. F.A.R. (1 ,500 sq. ft. allowed) 968 sq. ft. F.A.R. TOTAL 5 ,393 sq. ft. F.A.R. As indicated above, the proposed development F.A.R. complies with the F.A.R. for the office zoning. While there is no requirement for open space in the 0-Office District, the project is responsive to the need for open space by providing 1 , 840 square footage of open space. Therefore, the total open space of the project not only exceeds the requirements for the 0-Office District, but in fact equals thirty percent (30%) of the total area. ee. Estimated Traffic Count. An estimated traffic count for the building is given in the Engineering Report in Appendix "1" . As outlined in the report, - 20 - the building will have minimal traffic impact on Main Street or Fifth Street. Both Main Street and Fifth Street are capable of handling the limited additional traffic without street improvements. ff. Proposed Uses For the Structure. The proposed uses are the following: Dental office (street level) - Dental office for Dr. William Wesson. Wesson apartment (upper level) - Residential apartment for Dr. Wesson' s personal use. Employee apartment (garden level) - Employee apartment for dental staff member. Under any future change-in-use of the building, the dental office could be modified for use as general professional office space without the need for substantial changes . The residential apartments are likely to remain as residential units under any future change-in-use of the building. gg. Effects of the Proposed Development on Adjacent Uses and Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project. The property is on Main Street with its many varied uses. - 21 - To the west of this parcel are two buildings that are presently utilized for office space. To the east of the project is a lodge. Behind the project is a multi-family structure. The proposed use conforms with the intent of the zoning (Office District) , and with the existing uses in the area. The proposed use will have negligible effect on adjacent uses in the vicinity of the project. hh. Construction Schedule. The proposed building will begin construction in the Spring of 1987, and be completed in the Winter of 1987. ii. Employee Housing. Three (3) employees will be housed by the project as follows: 1 . One (1) one-bedroom apartment on-site (1. 75 emp. ) . The apartment is 858 square feet, rental, and price-restricted to the moderate income guidelines as annually adopted. The apartment is proposed to be rented to Dr. Wesson' s staff, and is therefore oversized to provide a better living environment. In accordance with the City employee housing guidelines, the rent shall be based on the smaller 700 square foot moderate income unit size guideline. - 22 - 2 . Cash-in-lieu payment of $16 ,625 . 00 (1 . 25 emp. ) . The cash payment is calculated at the moderate income level of $13,300 . 00 per employee ($13,300. 00 x 1 .25 emp. ) , and shall be adjusted to the moderate income payment schedule at the time of issuance of a building permit. wesson gmp app/GMP - 23 - dN\� SCHMUESER , .IDON MEYER%��,�� 1512 LAND AVENUE, SUITE 212 /h;q0% GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Oar nfl ltaaw!ny (303) 945-1004 f\NU15 ll le`� �t�% CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/ July 28, 1986 APPENDIX "1" Mr. Jim Curtis Curtis & Associates 117 So. Monarch Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re : Wesson Dental Building - Engineering Report Dear Jim, At your request , I have reviewed the above-referenced project as to the GAP requirements for utilities , drainage, traffic and parking . It is my understanding the building will consist of a 2, 487 sq. ft . dental office, a 1-bedroom residential apartment, and a 1-bedroom employee unit . The building is located at 605 West Main Street, the southwest corner of Main Street arJ Fifth Street . Utilities The building will occupy a vacant corner lot which is totally surrounded by developed property. Consequently, the basic utility and street infrastructure is in place . The building can be served by standard service line extensions in accordance with the standard service procedures of the respective utilities . The following continents are relevant with respect to the utility systems: 1 . Water System. Potable water will be provided by a 6 " trans- mission line located along Main Street . Total water demand for the building is estimated to be 1, 410 gpd; based on a demand of 655 gpd for the dental office (7 staff at 25 gpd each and 24 patients at 20 gpd each) , 300 gpd for the 1-bedroom apartment, 200 gpd for the 1-bedroom employee unit, and 225 gpd for irrigation (2 , 175 sq . ft . of landscaping) . Total peak demand is estimated at 3. 3 gpm over a 24 hour period or 15 gpm instantaneous . Based on a preliminary conversation with Jim Markalunas, the Aspen Water Department can service the building in accordance with its standard service procedures without the need for any main line extensions or treatment plant upgrading . It is possible to improve the fire protection capabilities of the water system by instalition of a fire hydrant on the corner of Main and Fifth . Because the water transmission line is located along the north part of Main Street , I recommend the hydrant be placed at the northwest corner of Mr . Jim Curtis July 28, 1986 Page Two the intersection within the Main Street right-of-way. This location is directly across from the building and would service the building and upgrade the fire protection for the surrounding neighborhood. 2 . Sewer System. Sewer is provided by an 8 " collection main in the alley to the rear of the property, between Main and Hopkins . Total sewer demand for the building is estimated to be 1, 155 gpd; based on a demand of 655 gpd for the dental office , 300 gpd for the 1-bedroom apartment , 200 gpd for the 1-bedroom employee unit . Based on a preliminary conversation with Heiko Kuhn, the Aspen Sanitation District can service the building in accordandce with its standard service procedures without the need for any main line extensions or treatment plant upgrading . 3 . Telephone, Electric, Cable TV. These three utilities are currently overhead in the alley to the rear of the property, between Main and Hopkins . Service connections will be underground if the City' s undergrounding program is cauplet- ed prior to the proposed Spring 1987 construction of the building. The respective utilities can service the building in accordance with their standard service procedures . 4. Gas. Natural gas is in the alley to the rear of the property, between Main and Hopkins . This utility can service the building in accordance with its standard service procedure . Drainage With respect to drainage , all of the on- site drainage from the building and parking area will be collected for disposal in an on- site drywell system. No impervious area surface water will be directly discharged to the existing street drainage facilities. The drywell will be designed and sized based upon soils and percolation tests to be conducted during detail building design . It is possible to improve the existing street drainage system by installing a curb and gutter along the west side of Fifth Street adjoining the property. The east side of Fifth Street already has curb and gutter and the installtion of same on the west side will complete the street drainage system at the intersection of Main and Fifth. Mr . Jim Curtis July 28, 1986 Page Three Traffic With respect to traffic , the project will primarily affect Main Street, and secondarily Fifth Street on the short half-block section between Main and Hopkins . Because the property is conveniently located for walking, bicycle, and bus access, it is expected car trips be significantly less than typical standards, anywhere from 25% to 35% less . An estimate of car trips is given based on a discussion with Dr . Wesson on the typical use of the dental office. The office has 6 dental stations with 4 stations being occupied at any one time. The stations typically turnover 6 patients per day or a total of 24 patients per day. Assuming 2 car trips per patient ( arriving and exiting) , the 24 patients would generate 48 trips @ 100% car usage and more realistically, 36 trips @ the lower 75% car usage. Added to this is the trips generated by Dr. Wesson and an estimated staff of 6 employees . These trips would also include Dr . Wesson' s upstairs apartment and the lower employee apartment to be occupied by a staff member. Assuming 4 car trips per staff per day, the 7 staff would generate 28 trips @ 100% car usage, and more realistically, 21 trips @ the lower 75% car usage. The total combined trips per day of patients and staff would be 76 trips @ 100% car usage, and more realistically, 57 trips @ the lower 75% car usage. By comparison, based on limited data generated recenty by the City Planning Office , the estimted ADT (Average Daily Trips) for Main Street is 22, 500 ADT ; and Fifth Street is 150 ADT. The following observations can be drawn regarding traffic genera- tion of the building. 1. Under the Worst Case scenario of 100% car usage, the esti- mated 76 ADT would only increase traffic on Main street by 0 . 3%. Under the more realistic assumption of 75% car usage, the estimated 57 ACT would only increase traffic on Main Street by 0. 25%. 2. There are currently adequate turning lanes provided on Main Street for access and exit fran Fifth Street . 3 . Because Main Street is the logical primary access route , and Fifth Street is the logical secondary access route, it is difficult to estimate the increased traffic on Fifth Street . However, the traffic impact on Fifth Street will primarily be limited to the short half-block section adjoining the property between Main & Hopkins . Moreover, the total ADT Mr . Jim Curtis July 28, 1986 Page Four for Fifth Street is well below any calculated design carry- ing capacity of the street and no street improvements will be necessry on Fifth Street to handle any increase in traffic resulting from the building. 4. Except for vehicles associated with the apartment or employee unit, all vehicles would only be at the building during regular office hours from approximatley 8: 30 A.M. to 5: 30 P.M. P'arkina It is my understanding seven (7 ) parking spaces shall be provided off the alley at the rear of the building . Since the property is a corner lot parking is also available on Main Street and Fifth Street adjoining the property. The 60 ' lot frontage along Main Street could accomodate 3-4 cars and the 100 ' frontage along Fifth Street could accomodate 5-6 cars . Total on and off street parking available to the propepty is therefore 15-17 cars . Using the parking guidelines of the Municipal Code, nine (9) spaces would be necessary for the building as follows : 7 spaces for the dental office ( 3 spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft .) , 1 space for the residential apartment , and 1 space for the employee unit . As indicated, total on and off street parking available to the corner property can easily accommodate the estimated parking demand especially since the property is located outside the downtown core area and parking along Main and Fifth Street at this location is generally easily available . Moreover, because the property is conveniently located for walking , bicycle , and bus access , this will reduce the parking demand for the building . Again, except for vehicles associated with the apartment or employee unit, all vehicles would only be at the building during regular office hours approximately from 3: 30 A.M. to 5 : 30 P.M. I trust that I have addressed all of the items required for the GMP submittal regarding utilities , drainage, traffic and parking . If you should require any additional information or clarifica- tion, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, -.#0 M Go,; . C. L De Gordon, P. E. ,*' p'_; T /1rr1-7 " At P es id nt # hc ,- tp DWG• ec/6126 r. . t `' Zd f "` .f' r r_r is na" ,� � Ra 4i , x g i y ri a , r ', „t i VY c{• 1 a..,.1:•':?... s' ��rT r tyLi ��<,+�„Ix , v. A:� e 9 e�>4 . 3$ "s ,iKi S 3,t „ Ul #n sc. t° . Ley,. ' 4 , , .xYK,A. a,Yst�4'.•4Y.h Y1)1 -- rt •. . �{� A t } MAP'OF i W4i ASPEN •• COLORADO wz a t �y .yn „+fie ,. i t -k y .,,aa r 5 If .s Ito. �k2 Z 7' `« • h a i� �S a 21, i MMCAVr®®B{B Q .. "©��Ti 4v� 104,07] �r CHESTNUT W®�!• L- 4* ��O _ Y M1} 1 i'aP a,• �. . � :.- ., {rte , °, :Ill +ry i 7i w�i r.15!i� D .ygAy _ �l��7,i .x { i �, s2 u N a,® A rhiA 1� #' A-IPitSii'WA'1 LL4�� /I' I '� wLPNE~I©-1®® F- `i k r i ,r1yF v4-4'�`r",% C �,a ' `.��'i] °Wr�VO •©�I4�,iJ j• L ' I�iZY} X13.'Y •� din 1 m ©3i/asT _ N :. 3.R • - ";t ti © 'e T/,i M1 1:W� r.e ate,Call SY Sl Fb. . }. r .. ,., y i 3 AW ttiltoYl M U L , ray e g MAP ' > a,. i d i ,, � .k k,,* 8 . N !4* 1' v sr , ss1 1 r 1 dS.t Y ax Z'.4N 3FCj • 1 1 hi ,..r....,.,xa BBBaS..©,US WM dnwi l9BB ;'...... .:: . _... ' 1 °j 'tqk fi�,'. +`