HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19931221
AGE N D A
==================================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
December 21, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
ci ty Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I . COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
/-
"
III.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Silver Circle Conditional Use Review for a ),'ood
Service Facility, Mary Lackner
B.
1993 Commercial GMQS Applications
District
Off ice Zone
1. Cap's Auto
a. Special Review
b. GMQS Scoring
2. stapleton
a. Special Review, GMQS Exemption, Exemption
from Park Development Impact Fees
b. GMQS Scoring;
IV. WORKSESSION
A. Juan Street Affordable Housing, Leslie Lamont (time
permitting)
~-
VI.
ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
planning and Zoning Co-minission
TO: Aspen FROM: Suzanne Wolff Administrative Assistant
,
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: December 21f 1993
Regular Meeting January 4 la GMQSf subdivision, PUD &
Billing property Resident
Exemption (ML) a Pilates studio (LL)
Conclitional Use Review for
BCS Moore Property Referral (LL)
�j 0 PM - Tanuary 5: 0
with City council
Work Session Wi
Superblock (LL)
Regular Meeting January 18
�AM-e`M
January 5 : 0 0 PM
Meeting
special visions (CH) with council, BOCC & County P&Z)),
GMQS Re
a. nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning.Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Silver Circle Ice Rink Conditional Use Review for a Food
Service Facility - Public Hearing
DATE: December 21, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Silver Circle Ice Rink Conditional Use Review for a food service facility
with conditions.
APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Ferdinand
Belz and Joe Wells.
LOCATION: Lot 6, Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. The ice rink is
located on Durant Street across from the Ruby Park transit
terminal.
ZONING: P - Park zone district.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use
approval to place a food service cart in the concession area at the
Silver Circle Ice Rink. Ordinance 12, Series 1992 approved an ice
skating rink and a food service concessionaire space for Lot 6 of
the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. This Ordinance requires the
applicant to apply for and receive Conditional Use approval prior
to the operation of a food service cart. Please refer to
application information, Exhibit
STAFF COMMENTS: A restaurant facility is a conditional use in the
Park zone district. The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to
the standards of Section 7-304:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the zone district in which it is
proposed to be located; and
Response: The ice rink and park are the primary uses of the site
and the food cart is proposed as a convenience to the site's users.
The food service area is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan and the intent of the Park zone district.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
Of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development; and
Response: The concession facility will enhance the use of'the site
and surrounding uses, which include commercial, accommodation/lodge
and public transportation uses. As stated in the application, food
service on this site may reduce some pedestrian/vehicular conflicts
on Durant Street which might result if users leave the site to
purchase for refreshments.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;. and
Response: The alcove that is depicted on the Final Plat, and which
has been constructed, was designed to take into consideration
visual impacts, pedestrian circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations and odor. The attached site plan
indicates the concession area is located close to the trash area
and is recessed into the side of the hill.
Presently, the applicant does not have a specific cart design.
Several alternatives are being considered, from a stainless steel
cart to a popcorn -wagon type design. Planning staff does not
believe that the specific cart design would have a significant
visual impact if it is located within the proposed concession area,
and if the height of the cart does not exceed that of the terrace
overlook. Therefore, staff is not requiring a specific design for
consideration of this conditional use application but is
recommending a condition of approval limiting the height of the
cart.
Condition 14 of Ordinance 12, Series 1992, states, "The -concession
area shall provide seating for twenty-five (25) people or less."
Because the applicant does not have a specific cart design, no
location for seating has been provided.' Staff has concern that the
location of seating can negatively impact pedestrian circulation
around the rink. Planning staff would like to review a preliminary
plan of the applicant's proposed seating arrangement, prior to
commencement of use of the food cart. If there are pedestrian
circulation issues staff will bring this arrangement back to the
Planning Commission for review.
D . There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools; and
Response: All public utilities and services are in place at the
site.
2
11
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
Response: The applicant was required to mitigate one employee in
connection with the concession area by deed -restricting a room in
the Grand Aspen Hotel, pursuant to Ordinance 12, Series 1992 which
granted approval of the ice rink. This deed restriction is
recorded in Book 716 at Page 679.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and
by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: The Parks Department has indicated that the applicant
is required to provide one 15 inch spruce tree, as a condition of
the original approval. Staff recommends that this tree be bonded
prior to commencement of food cart use.
This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and all
other applicable conditional use standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
Silver Circle Ice Rink Conditional Use review for a food cart in
the concessionaire's space as depicted on the Final Plat, subject
to the following conditions:
1. In the event the applicant wishes to reconfigure the
concession space, a new Conditional Use review and possible
PUD amendment will be required.
2. All conditions of Ordinance 12, Series 1992 shall remain in
full force and effect.
3. The food service cart/wagon shall not exceed the height of the
terrace overlook's floor.
4. Prior to commencement food cart use, a plan of the proposed
seating arrangement shall be approved by the Planning Office.
5. The applicant shall comply with the food service requirements
of the Aspen/Pitkin County Environmental Health Department.
6. The applicant shall bond the cost -of one 15 inch spruce tree
and labor to install it, prior to commencement of food cart
use. The tree shall be planted once the ground conditions
permit. The -bond will be released after one growing season
of the tree to insure it is healthy.
7. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
3
3
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Conditional Use for a
food cart to be located in the concessionaire's space on Lot 6 of
the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD with the conditions recommended
in the Planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
M
�r
AFFIDAVIT
I, Joseph Wells, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that:
1. I am the agent of Savanah Ltd. Partnership, the applicant in connection with
the Conditional Use request for the Silver Circle on Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain
Subdivision which is the subject of a public hearing by the Aspen Planning &
Zoning Commission on December 21, 1993.
2. I complied with the notice requirements of Sec. of the Aspen
Municipal Code by posting of notice on the subject property and the mailing of
notice to property owners within 300 feet on December 11, 1993.
3. The foregoing statements are true of my o
Z�
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
persopti-�now
Joseph /Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The foregoing Affidavit of Joseph Wells was acknowledged before me this a Sfi
day of 1993.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: -1 /1-3 / R (v -
NOTARY PUBLIC
Address: co
r
Z ?C �• Jc b r1 l v
3401 1,,AST OCEAN BOULEVARD a LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803
T H; Lts PlIONE 4,1$_7484 AREA CODE 81 o
0 0
y '4-2`y
of '-4
ra,c ..o .- k
Lti E 4 N '� 1 'h T
AIX
10
C} is' f ' w 4YPJA 13 /fir 94 44 At � 4 V,� 5'-"40 ot 4 Poo-, it 744
C, 41% C.. 4Qt 5 '! a 6)1 / ►�
"44
et .01
tI h
6v� c pa.A
I
z0 ' d SLOZ22i;, T 2 0
x+
A)
s7a C4 10 a
%%.Ow f w tw -. � � cam• 5' v � � J-4 A mt PP;e. '� 4
e4xf�t
4.4c V
�1
4f 4beT 4 PVe 14
4dp '4 Al/ a
67 41
�- � •�� 1�..� �4-..ems. / ��l �� ' � �
r
�4 0 �%'drj 6\0.0 Kee
44
c;- 7-s I.e 11,19
,;f rn < -KaL V N AL-0 e 9-4 A FOO
2e-d
•+4q.6m
Sk��eGa-
RON
vie
�'1 • ►'b-a., �'7't'� rev J'lt r., � � �. � r�q � !tQ S
J
d5 4Q.4oOr Jk,41Ll —rA u S;,
Y`� s e�► s �n �... �E r �►-.,...{ / � �' s la's 41, �. w day
���hk yak �ar yQ4vcGt.fa�of��
s
-rlp*�14e 1h, C�arm,�,fum 4wrde,,'#lle'fj-)j
SLBZ221;0T2
Gustave A. Larson Company
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 101
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-925-5030
KARL G. LARSON
CHAIRMAN
December 17, 1993
Mary Ladner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Subject: Public notice, Caps Auto Supply
Dear Ms. Ladner,
ut
I will not be able
to attend the public hearing on December 21, 1993, b I am concerned about the parking in front of the Jerome Professional
Building
on Bleeker Street. I have no objection to the telephone yesterday. MY Caps Auto concernSupply
is
application which we discussed by that the Jerome Hotel employees park on Bleeker Street in front of our
stay there all day long generally arriving between 6 and 7 You
building and y
m.
kin out parking for others for the entire business day.inute
Thus, blocking
d that this parking would probably be changed to 90 e fair for
mentioned p ens, I think it would be more
parking in the near future. If this hap lication that reduces on -site
all. If not, I would be opposed to any app
parking.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Karl Larson
cc: Tom Hill, President, Jerome Professional Building Assoc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Cap's Auto 1993 Commercial GMQS in the- Office Zone
District and Special Review for Reduction of Parking
DATE: December 211 1993
----------------------------------------------------=---=--------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This application seeks a Commercial growth management
allocation for 810 square feet of net leasable space. The existing
Cap's auto building will be substantially remodeled. This projects
is competing against the Stapleton project on Main Street for the
4,000 square feet available in the Office zone district.
In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project meets minimum
scoring thresholds. The applicant also requests. Special Review for
parking (cash -in -lieu payment).. Staff suggests that the Commission
first consider the pr.oj ect' s request for Special Review; then begin
the scoring process. We further request that the Commission
forward a recommendation on the Housing Mitigation Package to City
Council.
APPLICANT: Aspen Valley Bancshares, Inc., represented by. Sunny
Vann.
LOCATION: 210 N. Mill Street, a metes and bounds -parcel located
in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.., is
an approximately 8,275 square foot parcel. The project is located
immediately adjacent to the Rio Grande parking garage on Mill
Street.
ZONING: O - Office.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting commercial growth
management allocations for the addition of 810 square feet of net
leasable space in a substantial remodel of the existing Cap's
building. Essentially, the existing building will be demolished
except for the rear wall and completely rebuilt. A new bank is
proposed to accommodate the upper level and basement levels. The
lower level will be available for commercial and office uses
allowed in the Office zone district. The applicant is also
proposing two employee dwelling units in the lower level.
Additionally, Special Review approval -is sought for payment -in --
lieu for one parking space. The applicant will seek from City
Council vested development rights for a period of three years.
Please refer to the complete application package.
PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning Commission first review
the project's requested Special Review for parking as this may be
an issue item in scoring. If the Special Review is approved, the
Commission will score the project. Staff has scored the project
and submits this score to the Planning Commission ( "Exhibit All).
The Commission may elect to accept staff's score as their own.
If the Commission finds the project meets minimum point thresholds,
it will be forwarded to the City Council for GMP allocation of net
leasable area and approval of a housing mitigation package and
vested property rights.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are included as
"Exhibit B".
1. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states
that adequate line and treatment capacity is available to
service this development. Prior to the connection for new
service, the applicant must verify whether any "clear water"
site drainage enters the District system, and to correct that
situation.
2. Electric Department: Bill Earley states that three .phase
power is already available in the alley. . At the most the
transformer may need to be replaced.
3. Engineering Department: Chuck Roth has commented that storm
runoff; trash/utility areas, and.sidewalk/curb. and gutter all
meet the requirements of the City. Code. Mr. Roth also
believes that the proposed realignment -and -addition of three
parking spaces in the adjacent public parking lot is
acceptable,. however a street light will need to be relocated.
4. Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark.sta.tes that the project will
have to meet the Uniform Fire Code.
5. Housing Authority: Dave Tolen has reviewed the applicant's
housing proposal and has calculated that it should receive a
score of 15.
6. Roaring Fork Energy Center: Steve Standiford has stated that
there are not enough details in the application to preform a
review of the energy components of the proposed project..
7. Water Department: Larry Ballenger offers no comment at this
time other than all codes must be followed pertinent to water
supply.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff recommends that the Commission first discuss
the'Special Review for parking prior to scoring the project.
Special Review for Parking Reduction/Cash-in-lieu
Section 7-404(B) allows the Commission to grant a reduction of
required off-street parking. In the Office zone, a cash -in -lieu
2
payment of $15,000 per parking space, at the option of the
Commission, must be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The Commission shall take into consideration the practical
ability to place parking on -site, whether parking needs of the
development have been adequately met on -site, and whether the City
has [plans for] a parking facility which would meet the needs of
the development and the community.
Response: The applicant is required to provide 2.43 spaces for the
new net leasable area of the project, which is rounded down to two
spaces. It is being requested that one of these new spaces be
mitigated by a cash -in -lieu payment. The applicant is providing
a total of nine parking spaces on -site, which is one more than
their existing parking. The existing and proposed parking for the
project is non -conforming, however the proposed remodel does not
have to bring the required parking up to Code standards.
The parking requirement for the on -site affordable housing units
is set by special review.. Theoretically, ,one parking space per
bedroom is required in the 0 zone district. The applicant is.
requesting a waiver -from providing any parking for these.dwelling
units due to the proximity of the parking garage, the .downtown
area, and local bus system. It is . -a planning office policy that
staff does not recommend support a waiver of parking- spaces for
employee units. . Staff recommends. -that the Planning Commission
require the applicant t.o designate two parking spaces of the nine
provided for the -employee units. It is'staff's concern that if a
parking space for 'each unit is not designated on -site, these
residents would be'required to use the parking garage, which may
be full at times and cost a substantial amount of money. The
garage better serves the employees and,patrons of downtown
businesses than residents of the affordable housing units.
Staff recommends that the- applicant designate two of the nine
parking spaces for use by the affordable dwelling units and pay
cash -in -lieu for three parking spaces.
Affordable Housing Mitigation Package
The applicant is proposing to create a studio unit and a one
bedroom unit restricted to the Category 2 income level, in the
garden level of the project. These units will mitigate 3.0.
employees.
City Council adopts the applicant's housing mitigation package
based upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission. When
assessing the housing proposal the Commission should consider the
following:
1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable
housing with monies received from payment of affordable
housing dedication fees..
3
Response: The Housing Authority has a program to acquire land and
develop affordable housing units.
2. Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
Response: This site is not designated in the AACP for use as
affordable housing, however, affordable housing units are permitted
in the Office zone district.
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to develop or historic preservation
concerns.
Response: The site is marginally suited for affordable housing,
due to its location within an auto and transportation oriented
section of Aspen. The site is bordered by Mill Street, the one-
way.driveway to the parking garage, the Rio Grande parking garage
complex, and the Rio Grande surface parking lot.. The specific
siting of the. two dwelling units in the garden level of .the
building was done to reduce- noise and fume impacts from vehicles
surrounding the site. Staff believes that there would be adequate
space above the upper level to add another floor where the employee.
housing can be located. Siting the units in this upper floor would
increase natural light to the units.
All services are available on the site. The site is located in the
center of Aspen, therefore employment opportunities are close by.
No environmental constraints or historic preservation issues affect
this property.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
Response: The employee housing is proposed to be phased with the
proposed development of the project.
S. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs.
Response: The applicant did not indicate whether the proposed
housing will be designated to employees of the new office space.
Staff believes that employees generated by. the increase in space
can live off -site and still meet the service needs of the
development.
4
I
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for a GMQS allocation and Special Review approval for
the Cap's Auto Supply building, which is located at 210 North Mill
Street in the City of Aspen, was given by 1) posting of notice
containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which
posting occurred on December 10, 1993, in a conspicuous place on
the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible
continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said
development application to all property owners within three hundred
(300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on
December 10, 1993.
Applicant:
ASPEN VALLEY BANCSHARES, INC.
0
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this day of December, 1993, by SUNNY VANN
on behalf of ASPEN VALLEY BANCSHARES, INC.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
EL I S A JUL I E N
NOTARY PUBLIC
31300 HWY 82 #11111
ASP EN CO 8 1 61 1
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being f irst duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for a GMQS allocation and Special Review approval for
the Cap's Auto Supply building, which is located at 210 North Mill
Street in the City of Aspen, was given by 1) posting of notice
containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which
posting occurred on December 10, 1993, in a conspicuous place on
the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible
continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said
development application to all property owners within three hundred
(300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on
December 10, 1993.
Applicant:
ASPEN VALLEY BANCSHARES, INC.
In
The foregoing Af f ipvit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this day of December, 1993, by SUNNY VANN
on behalf of ASPEN VALLEY BANCSHARES, INC.
WITNESS my hand and official_ seal.
My commission expires:
EL ISA JUL IEN
NOTARY PUBLIC
3 13 00 HWY 82 #11Yz
AS P EN CO 8 161 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1993 COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATIONS
lic hearing will be he1C on
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub
Tuesday, December 21, 1993 at ameeting to begin al•MeeLI
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Foor
ng
Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Co to
score
the 1993
Commercial Growth Management Quota System applications
the
Office (0) Zone District. Two applications were received for this
competition. They are described below.
1. CAP'S AUTO SUPPLY: Aspen Valley Bancshares, Inc. and Draco,
Inc. are requesting an allocation for 810 squarefeet'
s f net
Auto
leasable office area for a futur N . bank for Mill St.; the
a metes and
Supply building, located at 210
bounds parcel located in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range
84 West of the 6th P.M.. The applicants are also requesting
Special.Review approval to reduce the amount of the required
on -site parking and vested property rights.
2. STAPLETON AGENCY, INC.: Stape Limited Liability Company is
requesting an allocation sufficient toa c mfeete 2f423 square
feet of office space and .1, 600 sqt
affordable housing at 702 W'. Main St.;
east 10 f eet of Lot R
and all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite. Associated
a provals are requested for Special Review for an inrease in
P ect and for parking,
QS
the external FAR of the prod Lion from Park
Exem
Exemption for affordable housing, P
Development Impact Fees for affordable housing and vested
property rights.
6
For fu
rther information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO (303) 920-5090.
s Bruce Kerr,._Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen_ Times_ on_ December -3,_ 1993_________________
City of Aspen Account
-CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN
CO
81611
-COUNTY OF PITKIN
530 EAST MAIN
ASPEN
CO
81611
-COUNTY OF PITKIN
530 EAST MAIN
ASPEN
CO
81611
- DEBORAH D . WRIGHT
232 SAINT ANDREWS
SAINT SIMONS ISLAND
GA
31522
-ESTATE OF NELS REINHARD
ELDER
JANET C. ELDER
202 NORTH MONARCH STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
-FIRST BANK SYSTEM,
FBS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
C/O BRUCE MACGREGOR
P.O. BOX 522
MINNEAPOLIS
MN
55480
-HERBERT S. KLEIN
MARSHA L. KLEIN
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
-HOTEL JEROME
220 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
-J.E. ABELS
BOX 4707
ASPEN
CO
81612
-JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 201
ASPEN
CO
81611
METES & BOUNDS
EXHIBIT 5
LOTS A -I, BLOCK 86, ASPEN
AND METES & BOUNDS
METES & BOUNDS, JAIL &
COURTHOUSE
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
UNIT 1-F
LOTS K-01 BLOCK 78, ASPEN
LOTS M-S, E 1/2 LOT L,
BLOCK 86
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
UNIT 2-F, 2-G, 2-I
LOTS A -I, 0 & S, E 20'
LOT N, BLOCK 79 & METES
& BOUNDS
MONARCH NORTH UNITS 1 & 2
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
UNIT 1-I
-JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
UNIT 1-H
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 201
ASPEN
CO
81611
-KARL G. LARSON
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
MADELEINE LARSON
UNIT 1-B
201 N. MILL STREET
SUITE 101
ASPEN
CO
81611
-KARL G. LARSON UND. 50%
INTEREST
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
M. MADELEINE LARSON UND.
50% INTEREST
UNIT 2-J
201 N. MILL_ STREET
SUITE 101
ASPEN
CO
81611
-KARL LARSON
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
M. MADELEINE LARSON
UNIT 2-K
201 N. MILL STREET
SUITE 101
ASPEN
CO
81611
-LEWIS I. SCHAINUCK
UNITS 11 21 101, 102, 103
201, 201-A, 202 & 203,
3650 SOUTH STREET
MILL & MAIN COMMERCIAL
SUITE 301
LAKEWOOD
CA
90712
-MOSS LIMITED LIABILITY OF ASPEN
LOTS D-I, BLOCK 78, ASPEN
A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
AND METES & BOUNDS
835 ROARING FORK ROAD
ASPEN
CO
81611
-PHILIP R. HODGSON
LOTS A-C, BLOCK 78, ASPEN
PATRICIA H. HODGSON
212 NORTH MONARCH STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
-S & A EQUIPMENT COMPANY
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
A WISCONSON PARTNERSHIP
UNIT 1-A
201 N. MILL STREET
SUITE 101
ASPEN
CO
81611
-SHERRY T. RYAN
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
UNIT 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-G
715 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
-THOMAS C. HILL
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BLDG.
JOSEPH B. KRABACHER
UNITS 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D
201 NORTH MILL STREET
& 2-E
SUITE 201
ASPEN
CO
81611
-TRUEMAN ASPEN CO.
A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
4355 DAVIDSON ROAD
HILLIARD OH 43026
LOT 11 TRUEMAN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
PROJECT
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission request the applicant
to explore the option of locating the affordable housing units in
the upper level of the project.
Growth Management Staff Score
Four city planners jointly reviewed the project pursuant to the
scoring criteria contained in Section .8-106(F) of the land use
regulations. The Planning Office forwards the following
recommended score for the Cap's Auto Supply Commercial GMQS
project:
Scoring Minimum Staff
Categories Threshold Points
1. Quality of Design 7.2 (40%) 11.75
2. Public Facilities
and Services 4 (40%). 5.5
3. Affordable Housing 10 (60%) 15
Total Points 32.25
Pursuant to Section 8-106 (F) (5) a development application shall be
required to meet the thresholds of each category .and combined
categories to be eligible for an allocation... Combined minimum
threshold for categories 1-2 above.is.16.8, points. This, project
scored 17.25.
This.project.meets all minimum threshold scores established in the
Land. Use Code. The Commission may accept -staff Is score or prepare
your own score. Blank score sheets will be provided. at the
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning,Office recommends approval of
the project, .subject to the following conditions
1. The applicant shall pay cash -in -lieu. for three parking spaces
($45,000) prior to issuance of any building permits. The
payment shall be made to the Building department for transfer
to the City Finance department.
2. The applicant shall designate two parking spaces on -site for
use by the affordable housing units.
3. A drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer, prior
to issuance of'a building permit.
4. A housing mitigation program for 2.43 employees must be
approved by City Council and appropriate deed restrictions or
5
s
5
L— -L �-j J. I a tj J. IAH L-r"" r11 LJ—I I
DEC -21 '93 5:22PM RED IITN CORP
3039204736 P.1
Dencb Road
Aspen C010MdO 81611
Deoamb*r 21199J
Kerr,, Chairman
Zon,nq commission
130 South. Calena Street
Anpen, coloredi.�
Re"L StAPletOt ROVi" fit PAR
near Bruce:
As the ownejra of 61, West Main street, the propezty across
the Street from the Stapl�tOn pArtelt wo would like to support
�'Aoreasa in r" fresh 75 tt;; US.
We do not belieV� th&t tuck a PAR adcUtion IWIll haV8 any
1-1
det-�I-_,.-(Aa-AtQj impost on -'--ha char'eat r of the neighbo 111-100a� i
Pini,--Ly believe that viability Of a fc,_,-ty year old 1�,9.-al
bu6jrje5a jf3, moj:e J-mpartant than a small increase 'in FAP—
we hops t1lat ag aff i?,ctod property owners, our support 02 FAR
Spec;�Ial Review approval W, , -r
-L1 1,:�he Paz to vot-� favorably fl�t
'the staple -ton -Veve8t.
Very txnaly yours
1 del)
AFFIDAVIT
I, Joseph Wells, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state that:
1. I am the agent of Stape Limited Liability Company, the applicant in
connection with the Commercial GMQS Allocation request for the east 10 feet of Lot
R and all of Lot S, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen which is the subject of a
public hearing by the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on December 21, 1993.
2. I complied with the notice requirements of Sec. of the Aspen
Municipal Code by posting of notice on the subject property and the mailing of
notice to property owners within 300 feet on December 11, 1993.
3. The foregoing statements are true of my oK persZ nal know
J,dseph Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Affidavit of Joseph Wells was acknowledged before me this tS-/—
day of 16eeem�, 1993.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: -7/i3J 9 Co -
NOTARY
0'TDa-)1' C o
33
MEMORANDUM
TO Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: Stapleton 1993 Commercial Growth Management Scoring in
the Office Zone District,. Special Reviews for Reduction
of Parking and Floor Area Bonus, and GMQS Exemption
Review for Affordable Housing
DATE: December 21, 1993
SUMMARY: This application seeks a Commercial GMP allocation for
2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable space for the redevelopment of a
4,000 square foot parcel in the Office zone district. This
application is competing against Cap's GMP application, for the
4,000 square feet available in the Office zone.
In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project. meets minimum
scoring thresholds.
The applicant -also requests Special Review for parking and floor
area bonus. Staff recommends approval of Special Review for
parking (cash -in -lieu payment) and does not recommend approval of
the floor area bonus. The Commission shall also review and forward
Council a recommendation regarding the method by which the
applicant is providing affordable housing.
Staff suggests that the Commission first consider the project's
requests for -Special Reviews, then begin the scoring process.
APPLICANT: Stape Limited Liability Company, represented by Joe
Wells
LOCATION: 702 West Main Street, (E. 10 feet of Lot R and all of
Lot S. Block 18 Townsite of Aspen).
ZONING: O - Office with an Historic Overlay
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks a Growth Management
allotment for 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable sq. ft. The existing
structure, a single family home with a garage, is proposed to.be
demolished for the redevelopment of the parcel as an office
building. The Stapleton's intend to relocate their insurance
company to this parcel.
Special Review approvals are sought for payment -in -lieu for 3
parking spaces and FAR bonus above .75:1 to .86:1. The applicant
will seek from City Council vested development rights for a period
of three years, GMQS Exemption for on -site affordable housing and
1
a waiver of park development impact fees for the affordable
housing. Please refer to the complete application package.
PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning Commission first review
the project's requested Special Reviews as these are critical to
the continuance of the development. If Special Reviews are
approved, the Commission shall score the project using the
criteria/point system established in the land use regulations for
commercial projects. Staff has scored the proposal and submits
this score to the Commission (Exhibit "A"). Th.e Commission may
elect to accept staff's score as their own.
If the Commission finds that the project meets minimum point
thresholds, it will be forwarded to the City Council for GMP
allocation of net leasable area and approval of a housing
mitigation package and vested property rights.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are included as
Attachment "B".
Electric: Bill Early states that only single phase power is
available at this location. A larger transformer may be necessary
to service the increased load -however, no load information was
presented in the application, so service needs of the new load are
only an estimate. If a larger transformer and/or three-phase power
is desired the applicant shall pay for any upgrades to the system.
Engineering: Chuck Roth comments that the storm run-off mitigation
proposed exceeds Code requirements. Trash storage has been
adequately addressed and proposed sidewalk installation exceeds the
requirements of the Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan.
An accessible ramp in the sidewalk will need to be installed on the
corner and a "sidewalk area" on Sixth Street shall be indicated on
final plans.
The Engineering Department also supports the provision of parking
for residential units on -site and questions whether increased
development rights should be approved when required parking cannot
be provided. on -site.
A roof and snow shed plan should be developed for this project.
It appears from the plans that snow will shed onto the handicapped
ramp on the west side of the building.
Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark had no comments at this time.
HPC: This proposal has received conceptual approval with the
following conditions:
1. The blind dormers on the northern portion of the building shall
be either restudied or removed to simplify the architectural
scheme.
2
2. As an additional recommendation we recommend the non-
contributing structure on the side be allowed to fasciliate
redevelopment of the site. Also that the Board of Adjustment grant
a reversing of the side yard setbacks so that the easterly side
yard is reduced five feet and the west side yard increased 6.66
feet.
Housing Authority: Dave Tolan forwarded comments. The applicants
intend to mitigate for 65% of the employees generated. The
applicants propose to construct two on -site affordable units: one
1-bedroom, .615 sq. ft., category 2 unit and one 3-bedroom, 1,000
sq. ft., category 3 unit. The 1-bedroom unit meets the Housing
Guidelines while the proposed 3-bedroom unit does not meet the
minimum size requirement for a category 3 unit (1,200 sq. ft.).
If the unit were restricted to category 2, it would be consistent
with the Guidelines.
Parks: The Parks Department recommends denial of the waiver of
Park Impact fees because affordable housing occupants do impact
park and recreational amenities.
Parks supports the landscape plan" to plant cottonless cottonwood
tress but requires that protection of the existing trees during
construction shall include no excavation in the drip line of the
trees and no stockpiling of dirt or debris around the trees. A
tree permit shall be applied for prior to the issuance of any
building permits for trees that will be removed or relocated.
The ditch that runs along sixth street shall be restored to
original condition if damaged by construction and cannot be turned
off for more than 48 hours during construction. The Parks and
Water Departments must be contacted if there are any impacts or
questions regarding the ditch.
Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states that adequate line and
treatment, capacity is available to service this expansion. Credit
will be given for the existing fixtures as determined from their
records. A six inch service line may be required for this project.
If the applicant commits to $5000 toward downstream improvements
it will benefit the collection system in this drainage.
Water: No comments at this time other than all provisions of the
City Code must be followed for water service.
PROPOSAL: This application seeks to demolish the existing
residential structure and redevelop the 4,000 sq. ft. parcel for
office related purposes. The applicant proposes to build a 5,350
gross square foot building with 2,423 sq. ft. of net leasable,
3,457 sq. ft. of floor area and 1,893 sq. ft. of non floor area.
3
_Z�
The applicant also proposes to provide two affordable dwelling
units on -site in the basement, one 1-bedroom and one 3-bedroom.
The parcel is considered a non -conforming lot of record in the
Office zone district. The Land Use Code only allows the
construction of a single-family dwelling units on such parcel. The
applicant requested a variance, with Planning Department support,
from the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to vary the minimum lot size in
the Office zone district to construct an office building. The BOA
granted the variance finding that the non -conforming section
encourages single-family residences that may not be appropriate in
a particular zone district.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff recommends that prior to scoring this
project, the Commission review the entire proposal including the
Special Reviews for parking reduction and floor area bonus. A
staff score summary follows the Special Review discussion.
Special Reviews:
Parking Reduction / Cash -in -lieu Section 7-404 B. allows the
Commission to grant a reduction of required off-street parking.
If parking is provided via a payment -in -lieu, the applicant shall
make a one time payment to the city in the amount of $15,000 per
space. The applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of
the residents, customers, guests. and employees of the project have
been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the
projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts
onto the on -street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to
mass transit. routes and the downtown area, and any special
services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and
employees.
I.n determining whether to accept mitigation or whether to require
that the parking be provided on -site, the Commission shall take
into consideration the practical ability to place parking on -site,
whether parking needs of the development have been adequately met
on -site, and -whether the City has [plans for] a parking facility
which meet the needs of the development and the community than
would location of the parking on -site.
Response:, The Office zone district requires 3 spaces/1,000 sq.
ft. net leasable space. The Stapleton office building proposes
2,423 sq. ft.. of net leasable space. aTherefore the applicant is
required to provide 7.2 parking spaces, rounded down to 7. The
development proposal also includes two affordable dwelling units
of which parking is also subject to Special Review. It has been
the policy of staff to recommend a minimum of one parking space per
dwelling unit. Therefore the applicant is recommended to provide
2 residential parking spaces for a total of 9 required parking
spaces.
4
11
As stated in the application, the alley frontage is limited to 40
feet. A portion must be set aside for the trash enclosure. It is
impossible to create more than 4 legal parking spaces in the rear
of the parcel. The alternative would be to provide parking on the
side of the building off of Sixth Street but would compromise the
semi -residential nature of this corner and the site plan/open
space.
The subject parcel is located on Main Street, the primary transit
route in the City. A bus stop is one-half block to the east. The
affordable housing being provided on -site is intended for employees
of the insurance company. The company also provides an employee
van for car-pooling. The neighborhood permit parking program, in
its first phase, will not extend this far west.
Therefore, staff recommends a reduction in the required 9 parking
spaces to 4 on -site spaces with a cash -in -lieu payment for 5
spaces, $75,000.
Special Review for FAR Bonus: The allowable floor area ratio in
the Office zone is .75:1, which may be increased up to 1:1 upon
approval of Special Review by the Commission, with the stipulation
.that 600 of the additional FAR be applied to affordable housing.
The 4,000 s.f. parcel allows 3,000 s.f. of floor area. The floor
area of the,proposed development is 3,457 sq. ft. of floor area,
or .86:1. This represents an additional 457 s.f. of floor area.
Two review criteria -apply -to bonus FAR:
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed
development are designed in a manner which is compatible.
with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses
and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying
Zone District.
Response: The HPC has -conceptually reviewed this project. For
HPC review FAR and the requested development allocation were not
made available to the Committee. This a protective measure for the
applicant because conceptual approval is required prior to a GMP
submittal. Although the HPC approved this project at the
conceptual level, they were concerned that the structure was
incompatible with the adjacent Historical Landmark to the west.
The HPC has included as a condition of,. approval that the applicant
seek a side yard setback variance from the Board of Adjustment in
order to increase the setback from the adjacent Landmark (which the
applicant has not yet pursued). As mentioned in the staff scoring
comments, the two story west elevation is too imposing to the
adjacent parcel. The additional FAR requested only compounds this
negative situation.
5
LO
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of
parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated
viewplane.
Response: Given the proposed development, the property can only
support 4 on -site parking spaces. Although staff recommends
approval of the special review to reduce on -site parking, the
increased floor area of 457 sq. ft. equals 1 additional parking
space if the floor area is also used as net leasable. The
Commission is being asked to reduce required parking primarily
because the site is small which would suggest that the site cannot
accommodate the development as proposed and other service needs
such as trash enclosure, bike racks and parking. In addition, per
staff's scoring comments, siting and bulk/massing issues were
scored low because of- the cramped conditions created by the
proposed design.
Because of the site's proximity to transit routes, provision of an
employee van -pool., and employee housing on -site, staff can
comfortably recommend a reduction in parking with the cash -in -
lieu. But, staff cannot support the request for additional floor
area beyond what is allowed by right in the zone district.
Growth Management Staff Score: Four City Planners jointly reviewed
the project pursuant to the scoring criteria contained in Section
8-106 F. of the land use regulations. The Planning Office forwards
the following recommended score for the Stapleton Office GMP
project:
Scoring
Categories
1) Quality of Design
2) Public Facilities
and Services
3) Affordable Housing
1) Combined 1 & 2
Minimum
Threshold
Points
7.2 (40%)
10.75
4 (40%)
6.5
10 (60%)
10.66
27.91
16.8 (60)
17.25
Pursuant to Section 8-106 F.(5) to be eligible for an allocation,
a development application shall be required to meet the thresholds
of each category and a combined threshold for categories 1 & 2.
Individual and combined categories have been met as shown in the
6
table above. The Commission may accept staff Is score or do its own
scoring procedure. Blank score sheets will be available at the
meeting.
GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing - The Commission shall make
a recommendation to the Council with regard to an exemption for
affordable housing and the method by which an -applicant mitigates
employee generation for a GMQS application.
The Stapleton's propose to provide two on -site affordable dwelling
units, one 1=bedroom unit and one 3-bedroom unit. The proposal
represents a mitigation of 65% of the employees generated by this
development. However, the Housing Office has found that the 3-
bedroom unit does not meet the minimum size requirement for a
category 3 unit according to the Guidelines. The Housing Office
suggests that the application deed restrict the 3-bedroom unit to
category 2 Guidelines or increase the size of the dwelling unit.
Staff also recommends that the bedroom of the 1-bedroom unit- be
switched with the public restroom and mechanical room or enlarge
the bedroom's window well. The front elevation indicates that
there is a large window -well to the wes17- of the front stairs that
could be used to the advantage of the .bedroom to provide natural
light.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of
Special Review for the Floor Area Ratio bonus.
The Planning Office recommends approval with conditions of the
Special Reviews for reduction of parking with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of.any building permits the applicant shall
make a one-time payment to the Building Department for transfer to
the City Finance Department for 5 parking spaces ($75,000).
2. Two of the on -site parking spaces shall be signed and reserved
for each dwelling unit.
Prior to issuance of any building permits:
3. The applicant shall receive final approval from the HPC.
4. A tree removal permit shall be reviewed before any trees over
6" in caliper are removed or relocated.
5. Trees that are to be preserved on -site shall be protected by
7
fencing at the drip lines and debris and excavation material shall
not be stockpiled against the trees.
6. A storm run-off mitigation plan, consistent with the submitted
application, shall be submitted for review to the Engineering
Department.
7. A curb, gutter and sidewalk plan shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department for review and shall include an accessible
ramp on the corner, a five foot wide "sidewalk" area on Sixth
Street, and a street light on the corner of the alley.
8. Ice and snow shed protection shall be indicated on the final
plans.
9. The applicant shall review detailed plans with the Sanitation
District and shall contribute $5000, payable to the ACSD, for
collection system improvements.
10. A housing mitigation plan for 4.75 employees must be approved
by the City Council and appropriate deed restrictions filed.
11. The applicant shall submit an application for electric service
providing load information for review by the Electric Department.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the Special Review for the
floor area ratio bonus."
"I move to approve the Stapleton Office Building Special Review
for reduction of 5 parking spaces with the conditions recommended
in the Planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993."
"I move to score the Stapleton Office Building Growth Management
project at points, finding that required thresholds have been
met for growth management allocation."
additionally:
"I move that City Council only accept a housing mitigation package
which addresses the Housing office's concerns, specifically that
the 3-bedroom unit be deed restricted to category 2 Guidelines or
be increased to 1,200 sq. ft. net liveable to meet the Housing
minimum size guidelines and the bedroom of the 1-bedroom unit be
redesigned to gain more natural light;"
Application Booklet
Exhibits:
"A" - Planning Staff Scoring Sheet / Recommended Score
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
"C" - Public Hearing Proof of Publication
D
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Stapleton office Buildinq DATE:December 21, 1993
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points). Each development
application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points
according to the following standards and considerations:
0 -- A totally deficient design;
1 -- A major design flaw;
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design; or
3 -- An excellent design.
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the
compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale,
siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: Staff has found that there is a design flaw with this
building. The project is located directly to the east of an
Historic Landmark structure. The west facade of the building
(which faces the historic structure) is a long, fairly unbroken
plane, which lacks articulation and over -scales the smaller,
historic structure. In addition, the proposed building does not
address the small scale of the neighboring structure. The floor
area bonus accentuates the massing of the building which staff
finds is -incompatible with the designated structure to the west and
the 2 structures across the street which are on the Historic
Inventory. This block on Main Street possesses some of the few
historic structures in town that have not been significantly
altered. This new structure is incompatible with the historical
context of this block. Finally, the proposed building is pushed
too tightly against the west property line.
(b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the quality and
character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas,
the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of
underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation, including access for service,
increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING: 1.75
COMMENTS: Although the project takes advantage of its corner lot
location and uses the unimproved public right-of-way to expand its
open space, this site design is insensitive to the historic
structure to the west, and is set too close to the west lot line.
It appears from the submitted plans that snow will shed onto the
handicapped/service ramp on the west side and the lack of
significant sunshine may prevent snow and ice from melting. There
is no area delineated for snow storage or a service/delivery area
off of the alley.
(c) ENERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 3 points). Considering the use
of passive and/or active energy conservation techniques in the
construction of the proposed development, including but not
limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation,
efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy
devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids
wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient
woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location,
relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably
result in energy conservation.
RATING• 1.5
COMMENTS: According to the Building Department, the information
submitted in the application is not consistent with the latest
energy conservation techniques. The Model. Energy Code that was
adopted with the. 1988 uniform codes includes more efficient energy
methods for construction. The suggested R-20 value for insulation
in the walls is a low number and without additional roof structure
information staff cannot determine whether the R-60 value can be
achieved in the roof system. Glazing information does not discuss
infiltration and the plumbing and mechanical systems do not appear
to exceed standard measures.
(d) AMENITIES (maximum 3 points). Considering the provision of
usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches,
bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users
of the proposed development.
RATING• 2
COMMENTS: The project provides a bench in front along the
sidewalk. A bike rack is also located to the rear of the building.
However, the location of the rack in between the concrete walkway
and trash enclosure appears to be cramped and when the parking
spaces are full nonfunctional. Another bike rack in the front of
the building would be an added benefit for customers.
E
1'D
(e) VISUAL IMPACT (maximum 3 points). Considering -the scale and
location of the buildings in the proposed development to
prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes.
RATING:2
COMMENTS: There' are no designated viewplanes in the vicinity of
the building therefore the standard score is recommended.
(f) TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS (maximum 3 points) . Considering
the extent to which required trash and utility access areas
are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of
the proposed development and to provide for public utility
placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash bins to be
moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins
trash compaction or other unique measures. ,
RATING• 2
COMMENTS: The Electric Department comments that a larger
transformer may be necessary to serve this project and there is
only single phase power available for the site. All upgrades to
power, if necessary, will automatically charged to the applicant.
The trash enclosure is adequate to service this .project and is
located so it can be easily accessed. Although the application
states that a service area has been provided, it does not appear
on the plans other than in the alley. Access to the building,
using the concrete walkway, would be difficult when the parking
spaces are full.
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). Each development application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the
assigning of points according to the following standards and
considerations;
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense;
1 Proposed development may be handled by existing
public facilities and services, or any public
facility or service improvements made by the
applicant benefits the proposed development only,
and not the area in general; or
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
3
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.
(a) WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering
the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed
development and the applicant's commitment to install any
water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility
upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire
protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provide services according to established response
times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities;
the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for
providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may
be necessary to serve the proposed development
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: There is capacity to serve this project without
upgrading the system or making extensions. The applicant commits
to replacing the Pacific State hydrant and installing a new model
on the northeast corner.of Main and Sixth Streets.
(b) SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of
the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development
and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system
extensions or 'treatment plant or other facility upgrading
required to serve the proposed development.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: The Sanitation District has sufficient line and
treatment capacity to serve this project. The applicant has
committed to making a $5000 contribution toward downstream
improvements which will benefit the collection system in this
drainage area.
(c) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS (maximum 2 points). Considering
the ability of the proposed development to be served by
existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider
the capacity of major, streets to serve the proposed
development without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's
commitment to install the necessary road system improvements
4
1v
to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed
development.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: This project is located along Main Street which is the
primary transit route in the City. The project will contribute
approximately 26 additional trips to the street system. Review of
this project by City agencies has determined that the project will
not substantially alter the traffic patterns in this area. The on -
site parking will .be located off of the alley to minimize visual
and traffic impacts.
(d) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to
which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage
patterns on the development site. If the development requires
use of the city's drainage system, the review shall consider
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary
drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over
the long-term.
RATING• 1.5
COMMENTS: According to the comments received by the Engineering
Department, the storm drainage plan exceeds what is required in the
Code. The storm runoff mitigation will improve the storm drainage
problems in the West End.
(e) PARKING (maximum 2 points). Considering the provisions of
parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs
of the proposed development as required by Article 5, Division
2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with
respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and
convenience and safety.
RATING• 1
COMMENTS: If the project receives Special Review approval for the
reduction in parking then the 4 spaces provided on -site will be
deemed acceptable. However, the location of the parking next to
the walkway and bike rack restricts their use. The location of
parking only off of the ally and not off of Sixth -Street reduces
the visual impact of the parking. R-
At least one space per dwelling unit should be provided on -site to
prevent long-term "storage" of private automobiles in the
neighborhoods. Two parking spaces should be signed for residents
of the building only.
5
1�
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points). Each
development application shall be assigned points for the
provision of housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city, and with
the provisions of Section,8-109.
Points shall be assigned as follows:
Zero (0) to sixty (60) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One (1)
point for each six (6) percent housed;
Sixty-one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the number
of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed
development:
Commercial Core (CC)
and Commercial (C-1):
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
and Service/Commer.
Industrial (S/C/I):
Office (0) :
Commercial Lodge (CL)
and other:
3.50 to 5.25 employees/11000 sq. ft.
(net leasable), based on review of
the city council's housing designee;
2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net
leasable);
3.00 employees /1,000 square feet (net
leasable);
3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net
leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15 )
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the
commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio:
One -bedroom:
Two -bedroom:
Three -bedroom or larger:
Dormitory:
0
1.25 residents;
1.75 residents;
2.25 residents;
3.00 residents;
1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit space.
l�
RATING: 10.66
COMMENTS: The two dwelling units provided on -site, one 1-bedroom
and one 2-bedroom, will mitigate 65% of the employees generated by
this development. However, the size of the 3-bedroom unit does not
meet the minimum size for category 3 dwelling units. The Housing
Office recommends that the unit be deed restricted to category 2
Guidelines or increased to 1,200 sq. ft. net liveable.
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 4 points). Bonus points may be assigned
when it is determined that a proposed development has not only
met the substantive standards of Section 8-106(F)(1) through
(3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting
recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not
exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under
section 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any commission member
awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification
of that award for the public hearing record.
RATING:
COMMENTS: Staff does not assign bonus points.
SUBTOTAL: 27.91
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN
POINTS:
-1 ^ '7 r_
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES &
SERVICES 6.5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 10.66
4. BONUS POINTS 0
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
7
27.91
EXHIBIT B
TO: LESLIE LAMONT
FROM: BILL EARLEY
DATE: OCT 18,1993
RE; STAPLETON COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW
I have reviewed the above request and it will probably only take
a larger transformer to serve this increased load. No load
information was presented so I can only estimate the new load.
The applicant should be aware that only single phase power is
available at this location.
1�
2
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Thru: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer e.1Z—
Date: November L 1993)
Re: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQS Exemption &
Vested Ri�(lhts
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Storm Runoff
Storm run-off has been presented in the application in a manner that exceeds Code
requirements. In use -by -right development, there is no requirement for mitigating storm
runoff. Only in the subdivision section of the Code is storm runoff mitigation required.
The applicant has offered to provide for storm runoff mitigation on site which will be
beneficial to Aspen's West End storm runoff problems.
2. Trash' Storage Area
The trash storage area has been adequately address in the application.
Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter
The Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System Plan calls for sidewall< to be
constructed at the time of development for properties on Main Street. The application
has met this standard and has exceeded requiremems by offering to install a portion of
the sidewalk on private property which will improve the site design and buffer space
between the curb and the sidewalk. This space is typically narrow and restricted on Main
Street.
A handicap ramp will need to be installed at the corner.
The final development flan should indicate a "sidewalk area" on Sixth Strut that
is a five foot wide space usahle by pedestrians and unencumbered by landscaping. The
new cottomvoods shOL11d he pruned up seven feet if they encroach in the "sidewalk area.
�1
4. Special Review for Parking
This same comment section is being written for all three of' the 1993 Commercial
GMQS applications. I and doing this because there are three different planners for the
applications and because the issue should be looked at as a whole for all three
applications.
Each of the three applicants is seeking a reduction in Code requirements - for on -
site parking. It would appear that the Parking and Transportation Director should be
consulted for a policy statement on approving GMQS projects which do not offer to
provide on -site parking for the needs of the proposed projects. Perhaps it may be
inappropriate to (Tram increased development rights when parking is not provided on site.
Each of the applicants states that it is not possible to provide on -site parking. The
statement must be evaluated more as a statement of apparent economic feasibility than
as in engineering or construction comment. That is, it might he possible to provide on -
site parking, but the costs might be greater than paying cash-in.-liel_i. Please note that the
City's cash -in -lieu amount is probably too low, which may contribute to the three
applicants' choosing to offer cash -in -lieu instead of constructing parkin�(T spaces on site.
This was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting for the Kraut Property
project. They reported higher costs for providing on -site, stih-grade .parking spaces than
the City's cash -in -lieu amount.
Permitting caSll-in-lieu Tor daytime office ol- coninlercial parl<ino may have less of
yin adverse impact, but it would �ippeai that on -Site spaces should he provided for
i-eSidCntial units in all caSes.
Note that providing parl<ing spaces and trash and utility areas often is a "conflict"
for developers versus maxiniizing on -site net. leasable space. The Galena Plaza project
could potentially construct an in -set trash and utility area into the apartments which would
save the existing two on -site parking spaces. The City has discussed in other instances
constructing in -set trash and utility spaces in existing buildings in the commercial core so
that the problem of removing dumpSters from the alleys can be alleviated. Again, this
becomes an isstae of loss of net leasable space. In the commercial core, it is sometimes
also an issue of wllethei- Or not such a recessed enclosure into an historic building
represents a compromise of the historic building. -
�. Roof Snow and Ice Shed
Roof snow and ice shed does not appear to be a problem for this project, but it
might be worthwhile to have a standard requirement in final development plans to provide
a roof snow and ice shed plan.
6. Street Lights
It is recommended that installation of a standard City antique street light be
required at the corner of the alley. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee is interested
in recommending to City Council that an improvement district be formed for installing a
complete system of sidewalks and street lights in the "West End" on the south side of
Main Street. Given the closeness of. this project to Main Street and the commercial
nature of the project, it is recommended that a street light at the alley be required if the
project is approved.
7. Work in the Public Right -of. -way
Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public
rights -of -way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department
(920-5120) for veaetation species, and shall obtain permits for any worl< or
development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets
department (920-5130).
/:7w o '07t
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Electric
Parks
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Clean Air Board
-FROM: Leslie Lamont Planning Office
RE: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review,
DATE: September 29, 1993
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by David &
Don Stapleton requesting approvals for Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special
Review, GMQs Exemptoin & Vested Rights.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 1, 1993. Thank you.
Development Review Committee is scheduled for October 14th at 3 pm in the
City Council Chambers.
z0
To: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office L_es\i =-
From: Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Subject: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment
Date: 8 November, 1993
Summary: The Stape Limited Liability Company, owner of the 4,000
square foot parcel at 702 West Main street is requesting a GMQS
allocation for the construction of a new office building on the
site. The applicant proposes to meet the employee mitigation
requirement by providing two deed restricted units onsite, in the
basement.
GMQS Scoring for Affordable Housing: Under the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, Growth Management Quota System, the applicant receives
points for the percentage of affordable housing that is included in
the proposal. The applicant is requesting points as follows:
Total Development: 2,423 sq. ft
Employees Generated: 2,423/1,000 X 3 = 7.27
(3 employees per 1,000 sq. ft.)
�. Housing Proposed
1 - 1 BR unit @ 1.75 residents/unit 1.75 employees
1 - 3 BR unit @ 3.00 residents/unit 3.00 employees
Total 4.75 employees
Percentage of employees housed:
4.75 / 7.27 = 65%
Points Awarded:
1 point /'6% up to 60% 10 points
1 point / 8% above 60%
65.3% 60% = 5.3% / 8 = .66 points
Total 10.66 points
The applicant has proposed to construct two onsite affordable
units. The proposed one bedroom, 615 square foot unit deed
restricted to Category Two -price and income guidelines would meet
the minimum requirements of the Housing Guidelines. The proposed
three bedroom unit, at 1, 000 square feet, does not meet the minimum
size requirement (1,200 square feet) for a Category 3 unit.
Affordable Housing Priorities Identified by Housing Guidelines: The
1993 Affordable Housing Guidelines establish priorities for
affordable housing mitigation associated with commercial
-development. The current priorities are for construction.of onsite
affordable housing, with an emphasis on family oriented sales
units, entry level sales units and low income rental units. The
proposed one bedroom, Category 2 unit would be consistent with one
of these priorities. The .three bedroom, Category Three unit is
smaller than required by the guidelines. If the unit were
restricted to Category Two, it would meet the minimum size
requirement and would also be consistent with the Housing Office
priority for low income rental units.
Recommendation: Forward the application to the planning office
with the following comments:
The applicant scores 10.66 points for the provision of a one
bedroom Category Two unit and a three bedroom Category Three
unit onsite.
The provision of a Category Two income rental unit is
consistent with one of the priorities established in the 1993
Housing Guidelines. The three bedroom Category Three unit
would not meet the minimum size requirements of the Housing
Guidelines, and would not be consistent with the Housing
Office priorities unless it was .restricted to Category Two or
lower.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
FROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DATE: October 22, 1993
RE: Stapleton Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review, GMQS
Exemption, & Vested Rights
The Parks Department has reviewed the application submitted by the
Stape Limited Liability Company and has the following comments and
requests. First, we recommend denial of the exemption from Park
Development Impact fees. Traditionally, Council has denied
exemption requests as well because affordable housing occupants do
impact park and recreational amenities.
The Parks Department is in agreement with their landscape plan to
plant cottonless cottonwood trees in the right -of -way (ROW).
However every effort must be made during the construction project
to protect the existing trees, including no excavationN.in the drip
line of the trees and.no stockpiling of dirt or debris around the
trees. The landscape plan does not detail if any other
significant trees (six inches or greater in diameter at four and
one half feet above grade)will be impacted by the development of
the parcel. If any trees will be removed by the development, a
tree permit must be applied for prior to issuance of the building
permit.
The ditch that runs along sixth street must be restored to its
original condition if damaged by construction and cannot be turned
off for more than 48 hours during construction.- The Parks
Department and the Water Department must be contacted if there are
any impacts to the ditch ,---7
D
Z�
.aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J. Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
November 1, 1993
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Stapleton Commercial Gl1QS
Dear Leslie:
FAX #(303) 925-2537
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to provide service for
this project.
Credit for the demolished portion of the existing structure will
be given in the exact amount previously paid and credit is given
for the existing fixtures as determined from our records. Once
detailed plans are available, a tap permit can be completed at
our office which will estimate the connection fees associated
with the expanded use of this site.
A six inch service line may be required for this project since
there will be multiple dwelling units sharing a. common connection
to our 8 inch line in the alley. The applicant is encouraged to
review the detailed plans of the development with our line
superintendent to determine the required service line for the
project.
If the applicant commits to contribute $5000 toward downstream
improvements, as is suggested, a general benefit to our
collection system in this drainage would result.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely.,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 7/
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
EXHIBIT C
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1993 COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday,. December 21, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, to 2nd Flrooe thee
Meeting
Room, City Hall, *-130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Co co 1993
Commercial Growth Management Quota System applications for the
office (0) Zone District. Two . applications were received for this
competition. They are described below. Inc. and Dracof
1. CAP'S AUTO SUPPLY: Aspen Valley Bancshares,
Inc. are requesting an allocation for 810 square feet of net
leasable office area for a future bank fSt
the Cap's Auto
Supply building, located at 210 N. Mill .; a metes and
bounds parcel located in Section 71 Township lo Southf Range
84 West of the 6th P.M.. The applicants are also requesting
Special.Review approval to reduce the amount of the required
on -site parking and vested property rights.
2. STAPLETON AGENCY, INC.: Stape Limited Liability Company is
requesting an allocation sufficient to accomodate 21423 square
feet of -office space and l..600 square feet of required
affordable housing at 702 W. Main St.; east 10 feet of Lot R
and all of Lot S, Block 18 Aspen ToWnsite. Associated
approvals are requested for Special Review for an increase in
the external -FAR of the project and for parking, GMQS
Exemption for affordable housing, Exemption from. Park
Development Impact Fees for affordable housing and vested
property rights.
. Aspen/ Pitkin Planning office,
contact the
For further information, s3Bruce20
03)-
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO err5090. , Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on December 31 1993.
City of Aspen Account
payments must be completed, prior to issuance .of a building
permit.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to score the Cap's Auto Supply Growth
Management Project at points, finding that all required
thresholds have been met. I further move to approve the request
for special review for parking with the conditions recommended in
the Planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information
"B" - Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District referral memo
"C" - City Electric Department referral memo
"D" - City Engineering Department referral memo
"E" - Aspen Fire Protection District referral comments
"F" - Housing Office referral comments
"G" - Roaring Fork Energy Center referral memo
"H" - Water Department referral comments
6
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: Cap'S Auto Supply (Staff) DATE: 121211
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points). Each development
application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points
according to the following standards and considerations:
0 -- A totally deficient design;
1 -- A major design flaw;
2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design; or
3 -- An excellent design.
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(a) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (max.imum 3 points). Considering the
compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale,
siting, massing, height, and building materials) with. existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 2.75
COMMENTS: The design is compatible with the nearby historic Hotel.
Jerome. . Considering the constraints of the site, the design should
complement the Rio Grande and Mill Street streetscapes. The .
structure has a fair amount of height which is not useable space,
while the employee units are in subgrade space.
(b) SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points). Considering the quality and
character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas,.
the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of
underground utilities; and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation, including access -for service,
increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
RATING• 2
COMMENTS: The configuration of the affordable dwelling units
provides for privacy. The trash area is poorly sited outside of
the dwelling unit window wells and along the north facade of the
building The applicant is reconfiguring a portion of the Rio
Grande parking lot to accommodate public spaces and to improve
traffic circulation Snow storage for the courtyard and pedestrian
areas will be removed by a snow melt system The nine parking
spaces are proposed to be plowed with the City's surface lot,_
however, no snow storage will take place on site.
11
COMMENTS: The trash area, although enclosed, is located outside
of the window wells which provide light and air to an employee
unit. The applicant's proposal to place a transformer -(if needed)
in the employee courtyard is generally degrading to that space.
Although staff understands that not having alley access creates
some difficulties, we believe the trash area is not appropriately
sited in relation to the residential dwelling unit.
Subtotal: 11.75
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). Each development application _shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the
assigning of points according to the following standards and
considerations:
0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense;
.1 -- Proposed development may be handled - by existing
public facilities and services, or any public
facility or service improvements made by the
applicant benefits the proposed development only,
and not the area in general; or
2 -- Proposed.development improves. the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In.those cases where.points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature.
(a) WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points). Considering
the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed
development and the applicant's commitment to install any
water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility
upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire
protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provide services according to established response
times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities;
the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for
providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may
be necessary to serve the proposed development
RATING: 1
3
COMMENTS: The project can be serviced by existing facilities. No
upgrades are proposed or required.
(b) SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points). Considering the ability of
the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development
and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system
extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading
required to serve the proposed development.
RATING• 1
COMMENTS: There is adequate line and system capacity to provide
service to this project No improvements are proposed by the
applicant.
(c) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS (maximum 2 points). Considering
.the ability of the proposed development to be served by
existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider
the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed
development without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing-- street system -or causing a need to
extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's
commitment to install the necessary road system improvements
to serve the increased usage attributable. to the proposed
development.
RATING• 1
COMMENTS: The proposed development can be serviced by the existing
transportation and street system No improvements are proposed or
required to service the project.
(d) STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2-points). Considering the degree to
which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage
patterns on the development site. If the development requires
use of the city's drainage system, the review shall consider
the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary
drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over
the long-term.
RATING: 1.
COMMENTS: Although historic drainage patterns are beincamaintained
in the _proposed development, the existing drainage design is
inadequate because of drainage flowing off -site. Due to the
proximity of the develo ment to the river, staff also has further
concerns about river pollution Staff would prefer to score the
applicant a zero in this category, however, the standards of this
4
�O
category allow an inadequate situation to receive a higher score.
(e) PARKING (maximum 2 points). Considering the provisions of
parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs
of the proposed development as required by Article 51 Division
2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with
respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and
convenience and safety.
RATING• 1.5
COMMENTS: The applicant has proposed to improve public parking by
creating three new spaces in the Rio Grande surface parkinq lot.
Staff, however, does not support the applicant's Special Review
request to waive the parking requirement for the residential
component of the project The 9 parking spaces have been located
to reduce visual impact along Mill Street and to provide
convenience to the structure. Staff is concerned that there is no
sidewalk provided at the front of the parking spaces and this may
cause some pedestrian and auto conflicts in the parking lot.
Subtotal: 5.5
3. PROVISION OF- AFFORDABLE MOUSING (maximum 15 points). Each
development application shall be assigned points for the
.provision of 'housing which complies with the housing size,
type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city, and -with
the provisions of Section 8-109.
Points shall be assigned as follows:
Zero (0) to sixty -(60) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One (1)
point for each six (6) percent housed;
Sixty-one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed.
development: One (1) point for each eight (8) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the number
of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed
development:
Commercial Core (CC) 3.50 to 5.25 employees/11000 sq. ft.
and Commercial (C-1): (net leasable), based on review of
the city council's housing designee;
5
Neighborhood 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net
Commercial (NC) leasable);
and Service/Commer.
Industrial (S/C/I):
Office (0) : 3. 00 employees/1, 000 square feet (net
leasable);
Commercial Lodge (CL) 3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. net
and other: leasable).
If it is determined that the proposed development generates
no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15 )
points available within this section.
In order to determine the percentage of employees generated
by the proposed development who are. provided with housing, the
commission shall use the following criteria:
Studio: 1.25 residents;
One -bedroom: 1.75.residents;
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents;
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 resident per 150 per
square feet of unit space
RATING: 15__
COMMENTS: The proposed residential dwelling units comply with. the
housing size, type, income, and occupancy guidelines adopted by the
City. Staff does not believe that the subgrade units are adequate,
however, points are awarded on a percentage of employees housed.
Further discussion of the housing package is in the Planning Office
memorandum.
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 4 points). Bonus points may be assigned
when it is determined that a proposed development has not only
met the substantive standards of Section 8-106(F)(1) through
(3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting
recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not
exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under
section 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any' commission member
awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification
of that award for the public hearing record.
RATING• N/A
COMMENTS: Planning staff does not recommend the award of bonus
points This is a decision of the Planning Commission._
6
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES: POINTS:
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN 11.75
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES &
SERVICES 5.5
3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15
4. BONUS POINTS 0
TOTAL POINTS: 32.25
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Staff
7
\7)
Ex k*t bi'i " A N
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
December 13, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Cap's Auto Supply 1993 Commercial GMQS Application
Dear Mary:
Outlined below is the additional information which you requested with respect to
the 1993 Cap's Auto commercial GMQS application. .For convenience, I have
organized the information under an appropriate heading.
Reconstruction
As the attached upper level floor plan and building section prepared by. Bill Poss ,
and Associates Architects illustrates, portions of the south and west exterior walls
of the existing Cap's building have been incorporated within the design of the
expanded structure. More specifically, the south wall will be used to create a
subgrade window well for the building's lower. level office space. The window well
will be covered with a transparent material to prevent the accumulation of snow
and debris. Portions of the existing west wall will be used for site retainage
adjacent to the building's front entry. The portion of the wall located above
grade will be faced with brick to match the building.
Snow Storage
As the site plan on page 8 of our GMQS application illustrates, virtually all of the
project site will be occupied by the proposed building. A snowmelt system will be
installed in the lower level courtyards, the building's entry area, and proposed
sidewalks to prevent snow accumulation. The resulting snowmelt will be accom-
modated on -site and incorporated into the project's stormwater management plan.
The building's parking area will be plowed in connection with the adjacent public
access driveway.
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 303/925-6958 • Fax 303"920-9310
Ms. Mary Lackner
December 13, 1993
Page 2
Engineering Report
As we discussed, I have also attached a revised engineering report prepared by
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Consulting Engineers. Please note that the revised
report is based on the final building design which is included in our GMQS appli-
cation. The original report, which is attached to the application as Exhibit 4,
Appendix B, was prepared prior to completion of the final application, and
assumes a slightly larger structure. The only change in the report is a reduction
in the project's projected traffic generation and number of required off-street
parking spaces. The relevant application text, however, is correct as supplied.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be .of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VANN ASSOCIATES
Sunny Van, AICP
SV:cwv
Enclosure
cc: Kim Weil
Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
c:\bus\city.1tr\1tr23193.m11
0
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER /�in��� - • :.
September 3, 1993
Mr. Sunny Vann
VANN ASSOCIATES INC.
230 East Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO. 81611
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
RE: Cap's Auto Parts, Office Growth Management Application Engineering Report
Dear Sunny:
This letter comprises an engineering report for relevant aspects of the Cap's Auto Parts building
Office Growth Management Application to the City of Aspen. My remarks are based on our
discussions of the project, conversations with representatives of the primary utilities and
inspection of the site. I have also structured my comments in response to the engineering
related criteria of City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 8-106 F., Commercial and office
development standards.
Introduction
The Cap's property is. located at 210 North Mill Street on the "Caps' Auto" (Draco .Inc.)/City of
Aspen Land Exchange Subdivision., The site currently includes an approximately 5,000 square
foot commercial structure and on -site parking and circulation. The application is for growth
management approval of approximately 1,900 additional square feet of net leasable office space
in the Office (0). zone district (this figure represents a maximum anticipated expansion, the final
figure may be lower). The expansion will also incorporate approximately 1,200 square feet for
an affordable housing unit or units.
One general comment with regard to all potential utility connections that may require excavation
into Mill Street involves the City of Aspen's intention to repair and overlay the street in 1994.
Conversations with City of Aspen Street Superintendent Jack Reid indicate his plan .to mill and
overlay the street, preferably early in the summer construction season. Jack has suggested that
any anticipated excavation work to support an approved office expansion be completed as soon
as possible in 1994 to avoid cuts into the new pavement.
With regard to the requirements of Aspen Code Section 8-109 F. (2), Availability of public facilities
and services, I offer the following comments:
(a)
Water supply and fire protection Based on my meeting with City of Aspen Water
Superintendent Larry Ballenger, the site is currently served by a 6 inch diameter cast iron
main in the North Mill Street right-of-way. The condition of the existing water service line
is not known but expansion of office use may not require a new or upsized service tap
if the existing service is large enough and in good condition. If a new service is required,
a new tap will be feasible from the Mill Street main. The City water system has sufficient
capacity to serve the expansion of the commercial structure and provision of water
ervice would not pose any special problems from a technical standpoint. As a.site within
ie City, service would be subject only to payment of appropriate tap and connection fees
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E 9 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 * (303) 945-1004
September 3, 1993
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 2
for the additional capacity required by the expansion (whether or not a new service tap
is required).
(b) Sanitary sewer Based on my discussion of the project with Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) System Superintendent Tom Bracewell, there is an existing
sanitary sewer main in North Mill Street along the property frontage. The line is a 12 inch
diameter trunk that receives flow from the Galena Street interceptor and the remainder of
the Mill street line to the south. The existing service tap may also be adequate. If a new
tap is required, service connection to the North Mill Street sanitary sewer main will be
feasible. The ACSD has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed expansion of the Cap's
building and would provide service, once again, subject to payment of appropriate tap
and connection charges associated with the capacity requirements of the expansion.
(c) Public transportation/roads The Cap's site is located between North Mill Street and the
Rio Grande parking structure, adjacent to Rio Grande Park. The Galena Street shuttle
van provides frequent service between the Clark's Market parking lot past the site on
Spring Street to the Rubey Park transit center. The site also fronts on the bus routes that
serve North Mill Street. The Cap's Auto Parts site is very well served by available transit.
North Mill Street, as indicated above, is scheduled for some rotomilling and overlay work
by the City Streets Department in 1994. Existing public parking is available, particularly
in the adjacent short-term lots of the Rio Grande park as well as along North Mill Street,
and will not be reduced as a result of the Cap's building office expansion. Given the
location. of the property along the Mill Street corridor within 1 1/2 blocks of the Mill and Main
intersection and the commercial core, much of the anticipated increase in business traffic
to the office uses will likely be pedestrian oriented.
To anticipate some basis for traffic generation from the additional office space, I would
reference Section II, "Road Design Standards" of the Pitkin County Road Standards -and
Specifications, as adopted on December 4, 1990, which recommends a vehicle trip
generation figure for commercial office space of 8 vehicles per day per 1,000 square feet
assuming a strong transit system. In addition, the on -site affordable housing unit could
generate 3 vpd. This would result in a traffic generation figure of 15 vehicles per day
impacting adjacent streets. While recent traffic counts on Mill Street are not available, the
adjacent street already experiences fair traffic. loads of over 7,600 vehicles per day
according to the City of Aspen Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element in 1987.
North Mill Street is under its available capacity at this time.
An additional, and conservative, 15 vpd represents a minimal percent increase in adjacent
traffic volumes. In addition, the very strong transit serving the site and its location within
walking distance of the other businesses of the commercial core will further minimize the
additional vehicular activity it will actually generate. No changes to the area street system
are required by the Cap's building expansion proposal.
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
\1
September 3, 1993
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 3
(d) Storm Drainage No substantive changes to the current impervious surfaces of the site
will occur as a result of the Cap's building expansion. The additional building area will
be either above the existing structure or replacing existing paved surfaces and the net
impact of site changes is zero. Historic drainage patterns will be unaffected as a result
of this project and the City of Aspen's drainage facilities will not be impacted additionally.
(e) Parking Parking is required within this office zone site, as indicated in Article 5, Division
2 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations, at 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
additional net leasable space. This requirement can be reduced to 1.5 spaces per 1,000
square feet (and no parking for affordable housing) by Special Review, resulting in a
requirement of just 3 spaces for the project. It is my understanding that the Applicant will
be providing some combination of additional on -site parking and cash, in lieu of on -site
parking, to fulfill the parking requirement relevant to the office expansion.
The Rio Grande parking facility does offer some 400 spaces of paid public parking
adjacent to the Cap's building and will continue to serve drivers accessing the site. As
indicated in the above section on roads, available public parking is neither created nor
removed from adjacent streets as a result of this proposal. The Cap's building's location
adjacent to one of the few large, permanent, public parking structures render it an easily
accessed location for those who drive into the area.
I hope these comments will be sufficient for the Office Growth Management application for the
Cap's building. Please feel free to contact me if I may provide further information or detail.
Very truly yours,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.
VJ2
ay W. Hammond, P.E.
Principal, Aspen Office
JH/jh 93151ER
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
kv
17
ASPEN VALLEY BANK
UPPER LEVEL WNL-IeHT
-iT Yo LDV,45F-- X-Vv l
1 �iM"�r��`:�s. �n ���.'r '— t i>•Y•�:i�••,..-;; � :�:.—�_ _ —_- `+s ., :,,.k .: ��'�?=,.i i+iti.:i 'ts � -- — ...?�•.R:��C!;! •' 1'� 'v—.
..y:4'�..F....+ wi �.>•<�S:o.:.f�strwSvtiv:Si. •.t::+�:%..n�i:r`.%+:::i';�;,:;!
t '
j1s t1
1 .
} i
I !
i
i
i
f t
i
1
I �
k i
• i
i
i
i
t
1
1 /
GONGEPTUAL DESIGN
GALE: SEFTEMBER 15, I qQ3
ASPEN \IALLE***r BANK
BUILDING 5EGTI ON
.--
GONGEPTUAL DESIGN
eCALE: 5EF-I EMBER 15,lQQ3
--- - - .. t 2 . t�p .1:;�
T
.aspen Consolidated Sanitation(District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 FAX #(303) 925-2537
Sy Kelly - Chairman
John J. Snyder - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
November 1, 1993
Mary Lachner
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, GO 81611.
Re: C•a.p' s Commercial GNQS
Dear Mary:
Albert Bishop
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District current!", has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to provide: service for
this deve l oi.7-,ment .
The total connection fees associated with the project can be
estimated once derailed plans are available. Credit for the
existing structure will be riven in the exact amount previously
paid. Cred i t _ o_ t IN 4- li,g f i xtur != s will be- _ i,,en f or those
f i x t u r e s that the Di s r i ct has a record. o.f. .
A six inch service line may be required for the proposed
development since there are multiple. dwelling units associated
with the commercial use. The applicant i-s encouraged to contact
our line superintendent. for our specific line requirements. if a
new service is required, fees must be paid it full prior to.
connection to 01_1r System. if the ..existing service I ine is
approved by our Iine superintendent for use, then 'fees must be
paid prior to construction of the new building..
As usual the service is provided contingent upon comr=,iiance with
our Rules and, Regulations which are - on fii le at our office. No
clear water connect- ions to our system will be a11owed (perimeter
drains, roof drains, patio drains, etc.). There have been ground
water problems as:sociateci with deve 1 oriment in this area.
Please call _f you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ce 1.lathe�r i Bru v
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
CKM64"'C"o,
TO: MARY LACKNER _.
FROM: BILL EARLEY
DATE: OCT 18, 1993
RE: CAP'S AUTO SUPPLY COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW
No load information was presented however I do not think this will
be a problem. The alley currently has three phase power and the
addition is fairly small. At most the transformer may need to be
replaced.
1 �
e,Vk&Ih4If,D*
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
TlhrLI: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer &MC,
Date: November 1, 1993
Re: Cap's Auto Supply Commercial GMQS Allotment, Special Review & Vested
Rights
Having reviewed the above referenced application,. and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
I. Storm Runoff
Storm runoff has been adequately addressed in. the application.
?. Trash and Utilities Area
The trash and utilities area. has been adequately addressed in the application. The
applicant should note that the dumpster.is currently located off of the applicant's property,
on the City Parking Plaza property.
3. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter
These facilities are largely in excellent condition at this time with the exception of
several small areas of sidewalk that must be patched in order to meet City Code
rtgLIii-enlents of Sections 1.9-103 and -1-04.
4. Parkin 7
The applicant has offered to reconfigure a section of curb and gutter in the City
parl<ing lot in front of Caps's so as to provide an additional three public spaces there. I
have reviewed this in the field with the Street Superintendent, and the proposal is
acceptable. Note that a street light will also need to be relocated.
S. Special Review for Parking
This same comment section is being written for all three of the 1993 Commercial
G MQS applications. I and doing this because there are three different planners for the
applications pplicions and because the issue should be lool<ed at as a whole for all three
appllCatlollS.
Each of the three applicants is seeking a reduction in Code requirements for on -
site parking. It would appear that the Parking and Transportation Director should be
consulted for a policy statement on approving GMQS projects which do not offer to
provide on -site parking for the needs of the proposed projects. Perhaps it may be
inappropriate to grant increased development rights when parking is not provided on site.
Each of the applicants states that it is not possible . to provide on -site parking... The
statelllellt I11LISt be evaluated More as a statement of apparent economic feasibility than
as yin engineering or ConStRICtion comment. That is, It Illlght be possible to provide on,
site parl<ing, but the costs night be greater than paying. cash-irl=lied. Please note that the-
City's cash -in -lieu amount is probably too low, which may contribute to the three .
applicants' choosing to offer cash -in -lieu instead .of constructing parking spaces on site.
This was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting for the Kraut Property
project. They reported higher costs .for providing on -site, sub -grade parking spaces than -
the City's cash -in -lieu amount.
Permitting cash -in -lieu for daytime office or commercial parking may have less of
an adverse impact, but it would appear that on -site spaces -Should be provided for
residential units in all cases.
Note that providing parking spaces and trash and utility areas often is a "conflict"
for developers versus rnl iximizing on -site net leasable space. The Galena Plaza project
could potentially construct an in -set trash and utility area into -the. apartments which would
save the existing two on -site parking spaces. The City has discussed in other instances
constrtictln(y in -set trash and utility spaces in existing buildings in the commercial core so
that the problern of. removing dunlpsters from the Mlle}�s can be ali.eviated. Again, this
becomes an issue of loss of net leasable space. In the commercial core, it is sometimes
also an. issue of whether or not such a recessed enclosure into ail historic building
represents a compromise of the historic building.
6. Roof Snow and Ice Shed
It is not apparent from the drawings that roof snow and ice shed onto public
sidewall<s and other public spaces will not be a problem. It is reconlnlended that a snow
and ice shed drelwill�(T be required in order to identify the areas of those Impacts.
Z�
7. Work in the Public Right-of-wa
Given the continuous problems -of unapproved work and development in public
rights -of -way, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public Tights -of -way, parks department
(920-51.20) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, .including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets
department (920-51.30).
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer C.
Date: December 15, 1993
Re: Cap's Auto Supply GMQS - Additional Comments
Following additional discussion with the Planning Office, the Engineering Department must
revise its comment on storm runoff as follows:
1. Storm Runoff
Section 24-8-106.F(2)(d) of the Municipal Code provides for reviewing a commercial
GMQS application for storm runoff as follows:
"Storm drainage (maximum 2 points). Considering the degree to which the
applicant proposes to maintain the historic drainage patterns on. the
development site. If the : development requires use of the 'city's drainage
system, the review ' shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install
the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the
long-term."
The City has generally. interpreted "historic drainage patterns" to refer to site conditions
prior to Any development. Existing developments on properties have not been interpreted
to qualify for "historic drainage patterns." The proposed development also definitely
proposes to use the city's drainage system. Therefore it appears to be appropriate for the
Engineering Department to require that the applicant submit a storm drainage plan
meeting the requirements of Section 24-7-1104.C.4.f of the Municipal Code.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M93.283
zb
ExKlt it " E OV
MESSAGE DISPLAY
J MARY LACKNER
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Oct 01,93 1:50 PM
Status: Certified Previously read
Subject: CAP'S AUTO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
THE ONLY COMMENT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME IS THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO
WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AS AMENDED. BY THE WAY,
WHAT DOES THE TERM "VESTED RIGHTS" MEAN ?
t*Xh;4;t "f "
To:
From:
Subj ect :
Date:
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office /-t a%
Dave Tolen, Housing Office
Cap's Auto Supply Commercial GMQS Allotment
8 November, 1993
Summary: The Aspen Valley Bancshares, prospective purchaser of the
property currently occupied by Cap's Auto Supply is requesting a
GMQS allocation for the expansion of the existing building and
conversion of the entire building to use as the Aspen Valley Bank.
The applicant proposes to meet the employee mitigation. requirement
by providing two deed restricted units onsite, in the lower level.
GMQS Scoring for Affordable Housing: Under the. City of Aspen Land
Use 'Code Growth Management Quota System, the applicant receives
points for the percentage of affordable housing that is included in
the proposal. The applicant is requesting points as follows:
Total Development: 810 sq. ft.
Employees Generated: 810/1-1000 X 3 = 2.43
(3 employees per 1,O00 sq. ft.).
Housing Proposed
1 - studio unit @ 1.25 residents/unit 1,.25 employees
1 - 1 BR unit @ 1.75 residents/unit 1.75 employees
Total 3.00 employees
Percentage of employees housed:
3.0 / 2.43 = 124%
Points Awarded:
1 point / 6% up to 60% 10 points
1 point / 8% above 60%
100. % - 60% = 40 % / $ % = 5 points
Total 15 points
Affordable Housing Priorities Identified by Housing Guidelines: The
1993 Affordable Housing Guidelines establish priorities for
affordable housing mitigation associated with commercial
development. The current priorities are for construction of onsite
affordable housing, with an emphasis on family oriented sales
units, entry level sales units and- low income rental units. The
proposed units will be deed restricted to the Category Two levels.
Both units would meet the priority for affordable rental units in
category one and two.
Zl
Recommendation: Forward the application to the planning office
with the following comments:
The applicant scores 15 points for the provision. of a studio
unit and a one bedroom unit restricted to Category Two
occupancy and rental price guidelines.
The provision of onsite, Category Two rental units is
consistent with one priority established in the 1993 Housing
Guidelines.
FROM hZYW PHONE NO. 9631545 Nova 01 1993 05:22PM P01
00
�OARINa FORK ENERG Y:C NTEa ,o-
•' • 42 M. 11 .C,1
Nc?v6rnber 1•, 1993
TO ; , Many Lackder Aspen/Pitkin' Planning Of f iCO
Yet:' .Stove Stand"if ord' ' ; Direct -or.
RE Comments an.,Cap' s Auto Supp.ly C&gmerc�ial GMQS Allotment
The following. cottrdents are directed 'at the energy: canservata.an ;
e Lures of the propas ' ! from, Cap'' a Auto- Supply' as 'lisped
on pag6';25 Of ""the 'spp�Jdation'.
the re are .not. •ariy de.a,i1.sxom which to perorrn a' -review of
the energy. components ':of the proposed develapme t .. 'Further',
tYst .meeting the• !'ininjmum requirements of -.-the Model-' Enercgy.
Code" does nod nece.9sarlly .mean this propasbLl 111: be energy'
and deservilof the %axiraum 'amount of inirits
available ... ,
• We' would- like to *Bee the. detailed . design of the building vY%en
• 16 is C*pXe.ted A•E that point , we can, perform an •ennergy
anaiys'is 'with commerit.s::
& erve natural resources,
' �.,% pr/nted on recycled paper �lo help cons
exk,b;4 H of
Mary Lackner
_L Kristin Sund
MESSAGE DISPLAY
CC Bob Gish
From: Larry Ballenger.
Postmark: Oct 18.93 4:38 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Cap's Auto GMQS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
The Water Dept. has no concerns, objections and/or comments on the
GMQS/Special Review on the Cap's Auto Supply Commercial Application.
3[
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: December 21, 1993
RE: Juan Street Worksession
I have attached a memo from Alan Richman who is the project
consultant for the Juan Street project. The City has purchased a
12,000 square foot parcel for the development of affordable
housing. The Housing Office has begun to develop a proposal for
development and would like to review their conceptual ideas with
you at this worksession.
Alan's memo also discusses some of the dimensional restrictions of
the AH zone district that appear to bind this project. His memo
is'very detailed with regard to a proposed code amendment. Please
remember this is a worksession and you may give guidance and
suggestions but you may not tell the Housing Office whether you
support or do not support this amendment to the code. Those types
of decision must be left for the public hearing process.
What the applicant is looking for (and staff) is whether the
ability to build detached, smaller homes in the AH zone district
is desireable and should not be discouraged. by technicalities in
the code and whether the code should be revisited.
7
Mvf.M0OIN`N !IM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services
SUBJECT: Juan Street Affordable Housing Project
DATE: December 15, 1993
On behalf of the project team creating the Juan Street Affordable
Housing project, thank you for the opportunity to have a work
session with the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.
Our thinking in requesting the work session is two fold. First, we
would like to present a preliminary project site plan to P&Z and
hear any ideas they want us to consider during the design process.
Second, we need to discuss a.dimensional limitation problem we are
facing with the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District and to see
how P&Z might react to a proposed Code Amendment to solve the
problem. The remainder of this memo will focus on the Code issue.
As you will see from the presentation of our preliminary site plan,
the proposed. development program includes two small duplexes and
two small detached dwelling units. Each of the six dwelling units
is proposed to contain approximately 1,4.00 square feet.
The problem that we are facing .arises from the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit (density) limitations of the AH Zone District. The
AH Zone District requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet
per detached dwelling unit, but only 1,500 square feet per duplex
dwelling unit. Our 12,000 square. foot site could accommodate the
proposed six units (2 x 3,000 + 4 x 1,500 = 12,000), were it not
for a small area of 30% slope, which reduces our usable lot area to
just over 10,500 square feet. Density cannot be varied by PUD or
any other Code mechanism, other than a Code Amendment.
When this problem arose, it was pointed out that the East Hopkins
project had faced a similar density problem: The Housing Office
suggested, therefore, that a solution be proposed which would
address both this project's needs and the variety of family -style
housing designs which will be brought forward in the coming years.
We conclude the problem is due to application of the 3,000 sq. ft.
minimum lot area requirement per unit to a small detached dwelling
unit. The maximum allowable FAR for a detached dwelling on a 3,000
sq. ft. lot is 2,400 sq. ft., yet we are only seeking to build a
1,400 sq. ft. dwelling. We suggest therefore, that the Code be
amended to establish a minimum lot area of 1,500 sq. ft. per unit
for detached dwelling units (the same as that for duplex units),
provided the detached unit has a floor area of 1, 500 sq. ft. or less.
If there is a concern as to how this density change could affect
the development of large parcels of land, we suggest that a cutoff
of 27,000 square feet be established for application of this higher
density. This type of cutoff already exists for the density
limitation for multi -family projects in the AH Zone District.
Following is a complete summary of the existing and proposed Code
language, with the proposed language in bold and the language to be
deleted in the strike 4- .9 ;- -
"Sec. 24-5-206.2 D2: Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.)
• • •
Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit:
Detached Residential Dwellings and Duplex Dwellings
Lots of 27,000 square feet or
Lots in excess of 27,000
less
square feet
Detached residential dwelling
Detached Residential Dwelling:
or duplex dwelling: 1,500 sq.
3,000 sq. ft. per unit
ft. per unit
Duplex Dwelling: 1,500 sq. ft.
per unit
For multi -family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less
or for. lots of 43,560 square feet or less when approved by special
review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4, the following square . feet
requirements apply:
studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1,200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400
square feet of lot area.
For multi -family dwellings on a lot of more than 27, 000 ' square feet
(except when varied by special review) the following square feet
requirements apply:
studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1,000
square feet of lot area."
We look forward to discussing these and other issues with the P&Z
next week.
2
PUBLIC NOTICE
DATE �-��
TIME-�r��
PLACE =' �'r�
PURPOSE=��/:2w��
-Zi
FOR FURTHER —ORMATION CONTACT THE ASPEWPITKIN PLANNING OFFICE,
130 SOUTH GALENA. ASPEN. Co (303) 920-5M i
707
PUBLIC NOTICE
DATE___
TIME.. '-
PLACE
PURPOSE
Wl
Kok
E
R1CI if' MD TIC L'
DATE
IME"LACE
,
KWO
MlMOf[
Sun
11 swum
W
.V ■