Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.309 E Hopkins Ave.Block 81 51A-88; Ly P4,a 3a t off roorl 10 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street a-73.7-073 -3?003 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 15- LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL / - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY / - 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING - SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER --f— Name' v h n Address: Check # Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: •- O Date: # of Hours: :0 0 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/15/88 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-073-38-003 51A-88 STAFF MEMBER: G PROJECT NAME: 309 E Hopkins Avenue Commercial GMP Project Address: 309 E Hopkins Avenue Legal Address: Block 81, Lot C APPLICANT: John L. King Applicant Address:15 Wellington Gross Pointe, MI 48230 REPRESENTATIVE: Charles Cunniffe & Associates Representative Address/Phone: 520 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 301, Aspen PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1,965.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: (f)TEP: P&Z Meeting Date ® PUBLIC HEARING: � E �) NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFE ity Attorney City Engineer \--/Housing Dir. _ spen Water ��ity Electric E vir. Hlth. � spen Consol. S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross � ire Marshall Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Energy DATE REFERRED: 9�' Center INITIALS: OMP e. �Se School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Building Inspector Other ------- -- -- _____ __--____ =_--------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ), % V% INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other - FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: I Idi,t� APR-19-193 MON 00:50 ID: TEL NO: • #418 P02 0 April 6, 1993 Ms. Diane Moore City of Aspen Planning Director 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Diane: I am once again writing on behalf of Larry Brooks, owner of the Katie Reed Plaza. Larry has been negotiating with a prospective tenant who would like to open a restaurant in the brick victorian. According to Brook Peterson, who represents the prospective tenant, he was looking into building code considerations recently on behalf of his client and apparently a question was raised about whether a restaurant would be permitted in the victorian. The question had to do with the restaurant definition, which states that "a restaurant shall be required to have service delivery access from an alley or other off-street service delivery area". I believe this language was incorporated in the Code, in light of the relatively high service requirements of restaurants, to assure that restaurants would not be permitted where they could only be serviced from the street. That is not the case at the Katie Reed Plaza, where service delivery access from the alley clearly has been provided for. Larry always made it clear throughout the review process that service to the victorian would be from the service area on the alley, through the common area and across the courtyard between the new building and the victorian to the rear entry of the victorian. Larry intends to incorporate a provision in the lease requiring any tenant of the victorian to service the space in this way, and never from the street, regardless of the use which ultimately takes the space. This issue did come up during the P&Z's consideration of our Special Review application and once we explained how the building would be serviced, it was no longer an issue to the P&Z. I am attaching a copy of those minutes for your review. The prospective tenant has suggested that Larry should be responsible for getting a determination from the Planning Office on this issue. Once you've had a chance to look over the minutes, could you give me a call to discuss this matter? Sincerely, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/su cc; Larry Brooks Gideon Kaufman Heidi Hoffman No 1)1 recf A111-1� t}Ccess . Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design April 12, 1993 Ms. Diane Moore City of Aspen Planning Director 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Diane: I am once again writing on behalf of Larry Brooks, owner of the Katie Reed Plaza. Larry has been negotiating with a prospective tenant who would like to open a restaurant in the brick victorian. According to Brook Peterson, who represents the prospective tenant, he was looking into building code considerations recently on behalf of his client and apparently a question was raised about whether a restaurant would be permitted in the victorian. The question had to do with the restaurant definition, which states that "a restaurant shall be required to have service delivery access from an alley or other off-street service delivery area". I believe this language was incorporated in the Code, in light of the relatively high service requirements of restaurants, to assure that restaurants would not be permitted where they could only be serviced from the street. That is not the case at the Katie Reed Plaza, where service delivery access from the alley clearly has been provided for. Larry always made it clear throughout the review process that service to the victorian would be from the service area on the alley, through the common area and across the courtyard between the new building and the victorian to the rear entry of the victorian. Larry intends to incorporate a provision in the lease requiring any tenant of the victorian to service the space in this way, and never from the street, regardless of the use which ultimately takes the space. This issue did come up during the P&Z's consideration of our Special Review application and once we explained how the building would be serviced, it was no longer an issue to the P&Z. I am attaching a copy of those minutes for your review. The prospective tenant has suggested that Larry should be responsible for getting a determination from the Planning Office on this issue. Once you've had a chance to look over the minutes, could you give me a call to discuss this matter? 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 • rI Diane Moore Katy Reed Project Page Two Sin rely, seph Wells, AICP jW / su cc: Larry Brooks Gideon Kaufman Art Daily Brook Peterson Heidi Hoffmann --�--Y- APR-19-193 MON 00:50 ID: • TEL NO: . #418 P03 PZM4.16.91 and surrounding it. The Lily Reid building will be completely restored to it's original state. That does a couple of things. #1 it permeates the Lily Reid bldg. Instead of being seen between 2 ovorscaled buildings as a single facade we now see it in all it's 3 dimensions with pedestrian space around it. Secondly the way we have used the corner we have created a very special corner in Aspen relating to the open space here and creating pedestrian space around the Lily Reid bldg and around the corner. It also, by putting the Lily Reed bldg here, helps create a transition from the scale of the downtown to the scale of the residential areas. In fact paring it up the Lily Reid with the victorian on the corner kind of sentinels the transition. As well the scale of the City has been brought down to the residential. As well the building has been designed to step back to allow sun and to also give a relief background for the lower scale Lily Reed bldg. We have reviewed this with HPC in terms of materials and colors. They were very excited about it and supportive of it and, in a nutshell, the things that we talked about we came through on in the final form of the architecture. ? Is that a parapet on top of whatever that is there? Am I looking at a gable there? ?: It is the elevator. It is where the elevator comes up instead - Roxanne: That was added at final. ?: It was on the original model as originally shown to you. Sara: How do you get to downstairs? To the basement. ?: The stair up to the second levels here and the stair down is this right there directly oft the plaza level. And of course the elevator at this location is straight down. Roger: I am interested in the service to it. Is there a service access to a potential restaurant in the basement? ?: Service access directly to a service elevator right up here that goes directly to the basement. It does not go up. It goes down to --that is strictly service. There is another elevator -- passenger. Roger: Because we are reducing the service area how are you going to handle the trash? But before I get to that --service to the retail facilities in the Lily Reed house. It looks like it is from the allay through this space. APR-19-193 MON 00:51 ID: • TEL NO: • #418 PO4 P2M4.16.91 ?: No. Lily Reed to what extent this is a 600ft-- Roger: Right. I assume it is going to be a T-shirt shop or something or whatever retail space or ice cream parlor or what have you. How are you planning service to the retail facility? ?: It will be directly off here. It can be brought from the location back here through the building. Roger: That in what we would prefer. Is there an entrance to that facility that they can access off that little mall in the back as opposed to coming around to the front door? ?t Is there a rear entrance to this building? There is a side access. It is off the sidewalk there. We went through this with HPC and they did not want to allow us any other openings than what is already there. Roger: If HPC says no other doors but those 2 doors, OK. But I want it put on the record that service to that should be off of the alley and not off the street. My worry is that service is going to be off the street where that door is to Monarch. So can you confirm that the service is going to be through-- ?: It can be operational req uirement quirement if that is part of the deal you make with them. Welton: Would you like to make that a condition *11 that service access to Lily Reed House be from the alley through the house? Gideon: 0K. There are 2 conditions I would like to talk about. #6 we would like some ability to just put in there if it is required by the code we would like an opportunity to look into that to see whether in fact we are required to give up the well and so we would like the ability to check that out. Welton: Asked if there any objections to adding to the and of #6 "If required by code". Gideon: And then #1. But we are going to wait to discuss the employee housing at one time. Then we don't have any other problems with #1 through #11. MOTION Welton: There is 3 items to be taken tonight. The first is I would entertain a motion to move to approve the special review for the reduction in open space and utility trash service area with the 57 APR-19-'93 MON 00:52 I 0 TEL NO: 0 t#418 P05 T' 0 PZM4.16.91 conditions the same as the Planning Office memo dated April 16, 1991 with condition #6 having it required by code as the and of it and condition #11 be added that service to the Lily Reid house as being off the alley and not from the street. Roger: I will so move. Bruce seconded the motion. Sara: Asked about snowmelt and the expense. Welton: It is not that expensive. When it comes right down to it the actual cost can be less than comparable to hiring somebody driving from Rifle to do the shoveling. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Welton: The next approval is for GMQS exemption for expansion of an historic landmark pending the interpretation of city council. XOTION Roger: I so move. Welton asked the applicant if they had any problem with those condition. Gideon: #3 which again we talk about 8 and I need to talk about on the housing because there are some other things that we are going to discuss later. Walton: I think I may have a way of handling that item once we get to the approval.. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton: It seems like you are trying to do some things that are outside of the approved guidelines of the Housing Authority. Now anybody who can figure out what the approved guidelines of the Housing Authority are has got to be a genius. Their qualifications, their guidelines, the size of the units, the type of housing is so chameleon -like that I --when I deal with my clients I say "The only thing you can do is sit down with them at least a half dozen times and you hash out on approved plan with the Housing Authority because you can't anticipate from reading anything what the rules are going to say as to what is approvable and ghat is not". Sara: Do they have to mitigate employees for what is going to get landmark designation? P11 RING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 November 17, 1988 n TO: Cindy Houben - Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford - Director Jkx RE: Comments on GMP Application - 309 E. Hopkins ENERGY CONSERVATION COMMENTS The insulation levels specified for the structure are far above standard and the developer deserves praise for this action. Their attention to detail with sealing the building envelope and the use of high quality doors/windows will greatly enhance the overall energy efficiency of the project. Although the particular mechanical system is not specified, their discussion on this aspect makes us confident they will provide a very energy efficient system. It is refreshing to see attention paid to water conservation and the energy demands of water heating. Once again, the project deserves commendation for this approach. The use of low-E glazing will improve comfort levels while saving energy. On the other hand, it will also decrease the amount of passive solar energy gains. The discussion on interior wall finishes and thermal mass indicates an awareness and sensitivity to the benefits of using solar energy. Without further details, it is very hard to define the overall contribution of solar energy. It is obvious that the project team has expertise in the fields of energy conservation and solar energy design. Based on the limited details in the application, this appears to be one of the best projects we have reviewed, in terms of overall attention to energy use. The only complaint we have is with the snowmelt sidewalk but we realize that in the "real world" there are other concerns besides energy conservation. In summary, the project is sensitive to energy efficiency which should lead to the construction of a building that uses energy wisely. We can only hope that this project will become the norm for future developments. It was a pleasure to review. We look forward to seeing the exact products and systems that are utilized, if the project is built. C� J PJ Aspen (Ponsolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Cindy Houben Planning Office 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co 81611 RE: 308 E. Hopkins Ave. GMQS Application tar Cindy: Tele. (303) 925-2537 October 19, 1988 ie Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient treatment and _ne capacity to service this project at this time. The applicant would responsible for paying plant capacity, line improvement and connection tes at the time the tap is made. Lncerely .uce Matherly Lstrict Manager 4/ ld TO: FROM: DATE: RE: APPLICATION: MEMORANDUM CINDY HOUBEN, PLANNING OFFICE JAMES L. ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR OCTOBER 20, 1988 309 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATION The application submitted by Charles Cunniffe and Associates on behalf of John L. King and is requesting GMQS Allotment, Special Review Approval to increase Off-street Parking Requirements, Conditional Use Approval for one free market residential unit and GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Development. EMPLOYEE HOUSING: This application has two areas of employee generation that produce an employee housing commitment of 3.8 emps. COMMERCIAL (1,234 SQ. FT.) - The applicant is proposing to construct 2,134 sq. ft. of net leasable retail and office space. The applicant states that there exists 900 sq. ft. of leasable space, therefore the net new square footage is 1,234 sq. ft. The calculation for employee generation is indexed to Employee Guidelines - Retail/Wholesale (3.5 emps./1000 s.f.) category. Using Retail/Wholesale category produces an employee generation of 4.32. The code requirement is to house 60% of the employees generated which is 2.59. ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL (1-TWO BDRM.) - The application includes an on site two bedroom free market unit. The employee generation for the free market unit is 1.21 emps. (low income), i.e., 1-two bdrm. free market unit = 2.25 residents; 2.25/.65 = 1.21. The applicant proposes to meet their employee housing commitment in the following manner: *Build 1-one bedroom on site employee unit 1.75 emps. *Relocate and deed restrict Berko house (1-one bedroom) 1.75 emps *Payment -In -Lieu of $5,025 .3 emps TOTAL 3.8 emps. 1 • • HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: following conditions: ONE -BEDROOM ON SITE EMPLOYEE UNIT Approve the application with the 1. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site one -bedroom employee dwelling unit before an issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the development. Said unit shall be restricted to the then current Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the moderate income category. RELOCATED BERKO HOUSE (one -bedroom, single family) 1. After relocation of the Berko house and before issuance of a Building Permit for any free market portion of the project, the applicant shall have recorded a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority for the Berko house. Said house shall be restricted the then current Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the low income category. 2. The relocated Berko house shall be inspected by the Aspen/ Pitkin County Building Department to determine if the house is in conformance the Uniform Building Code ("UBC"). The relocated Berko house shall be in conformance with the UBC before issuance of a Building Permit for any portion of the project. PAYMENT -IN -LIEU 1. The payment -in -lieu for .3 employees shall be made at the time of issuance of a building permit for any portion of the proposed development and indexed to the then current Employee Housing Guidelines Moderate Income Category. 2 ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben FROM: Jim Markalunas SUBJECT: 309 E. Hopkins DATE: 10-14-88 ----------------------------------------------------------------- We have reviewed the 309 E. Hopkins application as it pertains to water supply. As stated in the application, water will continue to be supplied from the existing 6" water main located in Hopkins Street. There is sufficient capacity at this location to provide service for the anticipated improvement. Upon receipt of the required tap fees, the City will make the necessary connection to the facility. It is understood that the applicant agrees to sever and abandon the old service lines. JM/jm cc: Judy McKenzie @A�e� A;' A�tl'e� WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2690 TO: Cindy Houben, Planning FROM: Wayne Vandemark14-?/ RE: 309 E. Hyman Ave. September ,.?.6 ,.:1 J8'8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the GMQS application from John L. King. We find that the structure is within a three minute response time. There is adequate water via hydrants in the area for fire protection. With the proximity of other buildings in this area, an automatic sprinkler system would enhance this project and assure additional fire protection in the immediate area should a fire occur in this structure. SE,-: 2 6 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date:9/23/88 Richard Kline Charles Cunniffe & Associate 520 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 309 E. Hopkins Avenue Commercial GMP Application Dear Richard, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS complete with the exception of the following: Proof of ownership in the form of a Title Commitment. We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 8, 1988. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. Your application requires public notice pursuant to Section 6-205 E. of the Land Use Regulations and I have attached a copy of "Public Hearing Notice Requirements" for your information. A copy of the Public Notice to be published in The Aspen Times will be mailed to you in time for you to mail copies to the adjacent property owners. If you have any other questions, please call Cindy Houben , the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, A�� AL�- Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant 0 TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: CC and C-1 Zone Districts GMQS Applications: 516 E. Hyman Avenue 309 E. Hopkins Avenue DATE: September 23, 1988 Attached for your review and comments are the two applications competing in the Commercial Competition for development allotments in the CC and C-1 Zone Districts. 516 E. Hyman Ave. has been submitted by Bill Poss & Associates on behalf of SJA Associates and is requesting GMQS Allotment, Special Review Approval to reduce Off-street Parking Requirements and GMQS Exemption for a 400 square foot moderate income, deed restricted employee unit. 309 E. Hopkins Ave. has been submitted by Charles Cunniffe & Associates on behalf of John L. King and is requesting GMQS Allotment, Special Review Approval to increase Dimensional Requirements and reduce Off-street Parking Requirements, Conditional Use Approval for one free-market residential unit and GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Development. Please review this material and return your comments no later than October 26, 1988 so that I have time to prepare a memo for the P&Z. Thank you. I. COMMERCIAL GMP SUBMISSION A. Description of Proposal. This is an Application for Commercial GMP allotment under §8-106(F) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "the Code"). The existing commercial building on the site will be relocated to a site at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and restored to its residential use and original facade. A new building will be constructed to blend with and complement the adjacent commercial buildings. The basic intentions of the design of the project are to relate to the existing adjacent buildings, as well as to the general environment of the adjacent commercial district in scale, massing, proportion and materials. In a special effort to work within the HPC guidelines, careful attention has been given to avoiding the imitation or compromising of the established character of the building's neighbors. In particular, the setbacks relate to both adjacent buildings, the massing has been stepped back, recessed entrances are proposed, and the rhythm for the fenestration of this building is tied to adjacent structures. The new building is seen as a clean and quiet structure which will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent structures. The FAR limitation in the CC zone district is 1.5:1 or 4,500 sq. ft. The ratio may be increased to 2.0:1, or up to 6,000 sq. ft. by Special Review (Art. 7, Div. 4), if 60% of the bonus square footage, or 900 sq. ft., is on -site affordable housing. The square footage of on -site affordable housing is 903 sq. ft.,Iin excess of the required percentage. Net Leasable Free - FAR Comm.& Market Restricted Sq.Ft. Office Housing Housing Basement level -0- -0- -0- -0- Ground level 2,116 1,522 -0- -0- Second level 2,238 612 -0- 903 Third level 1,610 -0- 1,266 -0- 5,964 2,134 1,266 903 Commercial GMP Procedures request written information covering twelve areas of concern, as follows: 1. Water System. Water will continue to be supplied by the existing 6" City water main in Hopkins which - 1 - has approximately 100 P.S.I. Estimated increased demand will be minimal as only five (5) restrooms are anticipated in the new building which will replace a half bathroom in the existing building. Adequate capacity is available to service this project with its demand of under 1,000 gallons per day. 2. Sewage System. The project is served by the existing 8" Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District line in the alley to the south of the site. Impact on the system resulting from the additional five (5) restrooms is negligible. Adequate capacity is available to service this project with its demand of under 1,000 gallons per day. 3. Drainage System. On -site storm drainage for the proposal will comply with current City standards. Presently, water from the site flows to the curb and gutter system in Hopkins Street and then to the northwest. 4. Fire Protection System. The building will be only one block from the Aspen Fire Station, with a response time of less than five (5) minutes. There is a fire hydrant at the northwest corner of both Hopkins Street intersections to the east and west of the building. 5. Development Summary. The proposed project is a commercial/office/residential building, including one (1) employee unit, one (1) two -bedroom accessory free-market unit, one (1) office and commercial space. Office and commercial uses are permitted as uses by right, and the residential use is a conditional use. The height of the building is well within the height limitations -for the zone district and the FAR is within that permitted l special review. 6. Estimated Traffic Count Increases. In order to estimate increased daily traffic on adjacent streets resulting from the proposal, we have utilized the guidelines of the 1985 County Road Standards; the increased number of trips has been estimated as twenty-six (26) one-way trips Two off-street parking spaces will be provided. The balance of the off-street parking required will be by a payment -in -lieu estimated at $60,000. All RFTA bus routes are within two (2) blocks of the proposal; the Rubey Park Transit Center is three (3) blocks to the Southeast (See Vicinity Map). No bike paths are provided through the Commercial Core. The location of the project is the greatest disincentive to auto use. The site is within comfortable walking distance of the majority of accommodations in the City's lodge districts. 7. Affordable Housing. One (1) one -bedroom 903 sq. ft. moderate -income employee unit will be provided on -site. The relocated Berko House will provide an additional - 2 - Bicyclists are required to use the streets through the commercial core, as no bike trails are anticipated in this area under this master plan. Because the existing bike racks installed in the immediate area of the project are clearly sufficient to meet the needs of both the project and the immediate neighborhood, we propose to install a bike rack in an alternate location where the City has identified that there is a need for one. (e) Visual Impact. The height of the building has been established to not only relate to the addition but to architectural elements of the neighboring buildings, and also to minimize the visual impact of the project. It is important to note that the height of the building (approximately 33%, feet to the parapet) is well below the 40 foot height limit in the CC zone district. In addition, the Hotel Jerome Viewplane, one of a number established to Protect Mountain views from obstruction from designated parks and other public places, is higher than the zoning height limit when it crosses over the site some 45 above the ground plane. This is the only viewplane which extends over the project site. We believe the project is totally consistent with established community goals relative to visual compatibility, as evidenced by the height limit established for the area and the absence of other limitations on height established through the creation of viewplanes. The HPC agreed that the vertical element of the n'LOp� building breaks the horizontal mass of the Mill Street Plaza and provides visual relief. (f) Trash and Utility Access Areas. We have included an analysis of trash service area requirements for the project, and a comparison to the actual area provided, in Section II.D., where we are requesting approval of a reduction in required area. While the overall area available is adequate to meet that required, the area set aside for trash facilities, approximately 8',' wide x 121,' deep, does not meet the minimum requirement of the Code, which is twenty (20) linear feet with a depth of ten feet (101). A gate is provided as a visual screen of the trash area. Comparison to the Mill Street Plaza project adjacent to the site is helpful in determining whether trash storage proposed for this project is adequate. That project includes 28,000 square feet of retail and office space, including three (3) restaurants and an additional 1,500 square feet of restricted housing. Four (4) dumpsters are provided, or one (1) dumpster for each 7,000 square feet of commercial space. In comparison, the proposal for this project includes one (1) dumpster for 2,100 square feet of commercial and retail - 7 - space. In addition, no restaurants are presently proposed in the project. This compares quite favorably with the trash facilities provided with the Mill Street Plaza. The Applicant will schedule extra trash pick-ups at additional cost if trash generation is a problem during peak times, such as during the Christmas Season. 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. (a) Water supply/Fire Protection. The Aspen Water Department has confirmed that adequate capacity exists to provide for the needs of the project without system extensions or upgrading. Water service will be provided through the existing 6" City water main in Hopkins. Estimated increased demand will be minimal, as only three (3) half-restrooms and two (2) full restrooms are being added, replacing one (1) restroom. The Applicant commits to the payment of fees associated with the fixtures added as a result of the project. Fire protection service to the project can be provided without the necessity of upgrading fire protection facilities. The Fire Department is one block from the project, and response time is estimated to be less than five minutes. Existing fire hydrants at the northwest corner of Hopkins and Monarch and at the northwest corner of Hopkins and Mill provide adequate coverage for fire protection without further upgrading of fire protection facilities. Water pressure and capacity is adequate for fire protection flow. In discussing water service in the area of the project with Jim Markalunas, Director of the Water Department, it is clear that water service is more than adequate in the area of the site. Therefore, we have discussed the possibility of adding a main extension to serve a new hydrant at the corner of Main and Hunter Street. This is a location that has been identified by the Water Department as an area with inadequate hydrant coverage as well as a location for a needed main interconnect between the Hopkins Avenue and Main Street water lines. mainextension Applicant is prepared to commit to -install -the--) �__ n and hy�dr_a_n_t_� Since t e location is not in the immediate vicinity of the project, however, it is unclear whether the applicant will be awarded additional points. Therefore, this commitment is conditioned an award by the Planning and Zoning Commission in excess of 1.5 points, since it is clear that the project merits a score of one (1) point without this additional improvement. The main extension and hydrant will not only increase fire protection in the area, but will also serve as a first step toward the interconnect desired by the Water Department. _- (b) Sanitary Sewer. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has confirmed that the capacity of the existing sewage collection system is adequate to accommodate the project. Sewer service will continue to be provided through the existing 8" District line in the alley to the south of the site. This line flows to the west and connects to a 8" main in First Street which continues to the north toward the treatment plant. The Sanitation District has budgeted approximately $165,000 to upgrade this latter section of sewer line this fall. In order to improve sanitary sewer service in the area, the Applicant proposes to contribute $5,000 toward the upgrading of the First Street main, to offset District expenses for this improvement. This commitment is in addition to the Applicant's commitment to the payment of any fees Issociated with increased sewer service to the project. (c) Public Transportation/Roads. The project is within two blocks of all RFTA bus routes, and within three blocks of the Rubey Park Transit Center. The site is also little more than one block from Aspen's pedestrian mall. The primary hours of operation for the commercial uses in the building will be approximately 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. In addition, there are two residential units on -site; the applicant is requesting the opportunity to rent the restricted housing unit to qualified employees within the building. The location of the project assures convenient vehicular access on existing streets with adequate capacity; access to proposed parking and for service vehicles will be from the alley between Mill and Monarch streets. The daily auto one-way trips generated by the new project are projected to be twenty-six (26) trips, well within the capacity of existing streets in the area. This estimate of trips has been arrived at by using the guidelines of the 1985 County Road Standards; because of the project location, these estimates should be relatively high, since the factors were established for uses in rural locations. Rates for applicable uses are as follows: Residential Apartment 3/du x 2 du's = 6 trips Business Office 8/1,000 sq. ft. x 612 sq.ft. = 5 trips Retail shops 10/1,000 sq. ft. x 1,522 sq.ft. = 15 trips TOTAL DAILY TRIPS 26 trips (d) Storm Drainage. Site topography presently directs surface drainage into Monarch Street where it is collected in the existing curb and gutter system and directed to the northwest of the site. The drainage concept for the • E project is to meet the requirements of the City of Aspen regulations as described in Section 7-1004C(4)(f). This will be accomplished by providing on -site detention for site drainage. Upon approval of the project, a drainage plan will be prepared by a qualified engineer to assure that the historical rate of runoff for the 100-year storm event will be maintained. Surface drainage will be directed and collected through surface grading. Area drains will be located in exterior areas with hard surfaces and collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to drywell structures designed to discharge water at the rate of the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site. For off -site runoff entering the site, measures will be taken to maintain historic drainage patterns and flows. (e) Parking. The proposal is within comfortable walking distance (1,500 feet) of the majority of accommodations in the L/TR zone district. In addition, as stated previously, the project is within two blocks of all RFTA bus routes. Because of increasing congestion in the commercial core as a whole, a growing number of Aspen's tourists arrive and depart the commercial core by taxi. Consistent with current parking requirements for the CC zone district, two off-street parking spaces are included in the proposal. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the off-street parking requirement for the one -bedroom affordable housing unit, as permitted under §5-301(B). The Applicant proposes to provide the balance of the off-street parking required for the project through a payment -in -lieu. The shortfall has been calculated as four (4) spaces, requiring a payment of $60,000.00. In addition, in order to improve the availability of public parking in the area, Applicant proposes to make a payment of an additional $15,000.00 for one (1) parking space beyond the requirement for the project. 3. Provision of Employee Housing. To meet the minimum threshold requirements of Commercial GMQS which applicant commits to, it is necessary to house 60% of the employees generated. The award for housing 60% is 10 GMQS points. Based on the current program of 2,134 sq. ft. of net leasable retail and office space, less 900 sq. ft. of existing net leasable space (net new square footage of 1,234 sq. ft.), and using an employee generation factor of 3.5/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable, employee generation for the commercial use is 4.32 employees. The minimum housing requirement at 60% is, therefore, 2.59 employees. Using a factor at the bottom of the range for employee generation in the commercial core, established as 3.5 - 10 - • • to 5.25 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space, can be justified for two reasons. First, the project is at the fringe of the commercial core, with little likelihood of attracting the kind of pedestrian traffic which exists on the Mall. Therefore fewer employees are needed than in comparable retail space on the Mall. Second, no food or beverage facilities are proposed for the project; since restaurant facilities are considered the highest employee generator among all uses listed in the housing guidelines, a lower number is justified. In order to address mitigation for the accessory residential unit, employee generation for that use is calculated on the basis of §8-106(D), Residential Development Standards (see §8-104C[l][d]). To meet the minimum threshold in the residential competition, it is necessary that 35% of the population associated with the residential use be housed under low-income guidelines as calculated below: Population of 2-bedroom free-market unit: 2.25 residents ( 65%) Required Restricted Population: 1.21 residents ( 35%) Total population: 3.46 residents (100%) Affordable housing to be provided with the project includes a 903 sq. ft. one -bedroom unit in the building, and the relocated Berko house; therefore, housing is provided for 3.5 employees: 1 moderate -income 1-bedroom on -site @ 1.75 = 1.75 1 low-income 1-bedroom (Berko) @ 1.75 = 1.75 3.50 With a total housing requirement of 3.8 employees (2.59 employees for the commercial space and 1.21 employees for the residential commitment), the Applicant proposes to address the shortfall of .3 employees to be housed with payment -in -lieu. Under moderate -income guidelines, the payment would be $5,025.00 as follows: .3 employees x $16,750.00/employee = $5,025.00. II. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Bonus Commercial Square Footage. The provisions of §5-209D(10) permit up to .5:1 bonus floor area by Special Review, of which up to .2:1 can be additional commercial space if the balance of .3:1 is committed to affordable housing. The construction of 900 sq. ft. of on -site restricted housing permits consideration of additional bonus commercial area of up to 600 sq. ft. Commercial: 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. x 2,134 sq. ft. = 4 Required Parking: 6 Parking Provided: 2 Payment -in -Lieu Required: 4 spaces Parking payment -in -lieu required: $15,000/space x 4 spaces = $60,000 Plus one extra parking space: $15,000 TOTALS: $75,000 D. Reduction in Trash and Utility Access Requirements. In the CC zone district, a minimum of 20 linear feet (with a minimum vertical clearance and depth of 10 feet) is required for a utility/trash service area under the provisions of §5-209(D) for a project of up to 6,000 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area. The utility/trash service area proposed is 8� linear feet with a depth of 12� feet. The Applicant is requesting special review consideration by P&Z of the adequacy of the utility trash service area to serve the proposed expansion. The review criteria to be considered by P&Z in its consideration of the appropriateness of a reduction in trash and utility access requirements (See §7-404C) are as follows: 1. Adequacy of the Proposed Trash/Service Area. Comparison to the Mill Street Plaza project adjacent to the site is helpful in determining whether trash storage proposed for this project is adequate. That project includes 28,000 square feet of retail and office space, including three (3) restaurants and an additional 1,500 square feet of restricted housing. Four (4) dumpsters are provided, or one (1) dumpster for each 7.0P0 s uare feet of commercial space. In comparison, the proposal for this project includes one (1) dumpster for 2,100 square feet of commercial and retail space. In addition, no restaurants are presently proposed in the project. This compares quite favorably with the trash facilities provided with the Mill Street Plaza. 2. The Adequacy of Access. The alley behind this Project is perhaps the most orderly of all the alleys in the Commercial Core, due to the effectiveness of off -alley trash storage requirements for new construction. There are presently no trash storage containers or other significant encroachments into the alley right-of-way to interfere with access to the site. 3. Measures to Facilitate Trash Removal. The proposed trash storage area is well organized, protected from - 13 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION (Article 8) A. Description of Proposal 1 B. Commercial GMP Evaluation Criteria 1. Quality of Design 3 (a) Architectural Design 3 (b) Site Design 4 (c) Energy Conservation 5 (d) Amenities 6 (e) Visual Impact 7 (f) Trash and Utility Access Areas 7 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 8 (a) Water Supply/Fire Protection 8 (b) Sanitary Sewer 8 (c) Public Transportation 9 (d) Storm Drainage 9 (e) Parking 10 3. Provision of Employee Housing II. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES (Article 7, Division 4) A. Bonus Commercial Square Footage 11 B. Payment -in -lieu for Open Space 12 C. Reduction in Required Off -Street Parking 12 D. Reduction in Required Trash and Utility 13 Access III. Conditional Use Request for One Free -Market Residential Unit (§5-209C[8]) 14 IV. Request for Exemption from GMQS Procedures for an Accessory Use in Mixed Use Development (§8-104C[l][d]) 15 V. Request for Exemption from GMQS Procedures for One Affordable Housing Unit (§8-104C[1][c]) 16 VI. PUD Review for A.C.E.S. Site for Relocation of Berko House (Article 7, Division 9) 16 APPENDICES A. Disclosure of Ownership B. Consent of Applicant C. Drawings 1. Location 2. Zoning 3. Circulation 4. Perspective 5. Roof/Site Plan 6. Basement Floor/Ground Floor 7. Second Floor/Third Floor 8. North Elevation/West Elevation 9. South Elevation/East Elevation D. Compliance with Dimensional and Use Requirements • ATNr 1 • LAND USE APMCATICK FUR4 1) Project Name _ 309 East Hopkins Avenue 2) Project Location 309 East Hopkins Avenue, Lot K 1 (indicate street address lot & block rxmber, legal descripti� wt�� appropriate) 3) cc Present 7aning 4) Lot Size 3,000 sq . ft. S) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone John L. King, 15 Wellington Gross Pointe, Michigan 48230 (313) 567-.1000 6) Repre-sentative's Name, Address & Phone # Charles Cunniffe & Associates, 520 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 301, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5590 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): X Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual historic Dev. X Special Review Final SPA Final Historic .Dev. 8040 Greenline dal PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream. Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation Qond�i n i i en i �atlon Tm&VXap, AIDenaw7t X GK�S Allotment Lot split,/lot Line X 6W ]E�A�tion . Adjus e t 8) Description of E t) n Uses (amber andtype of existing stnic4mes; approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property) - The site currently on ains the Rarkn commercial building consisting of 900 commercial square feet. The Applicant has received conceptual approval from the HPC to relocate the Berko building and construct a new building. ' 9) DescT'iption of Development Application Applicant proposes a new commercial/office/residential building. The application includes the following requests: (1) commercial GrIQS allotment; (2) GPIOS Exemnfinn for employee units; (3) conditional use; and (4) Special Review. 10) have you attached the following,> X Rye to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission its X_ Rye to Attadm 3, Specific submission Contents _X_ Resp to Attachment 4, Review Standards for your Application I I. COMMERCIAL GMP SUBMISSION ' A. Description of Proposal. This is an Application for Commercial GMP allotment under ' §8-106(F) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "the Code"). ' The existing commercial building on the site will be relocated to a site at the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and restored to its residential use and original facade. A new building will be constructed to blend with and t complement the adjacent commercial buildings. The basic intentions of the design of the project are to relate to the existing adjacent buildings, as well as to the general environment of the adjacent commercial district in scale, massing, proportion and materials. In a special effort to work within the HPC guidelines, ' careful attention has been given to avoiding the imitation or compromising of the established character of the building's neighbors. In particular, the setbacks relate to both adjacent buildings, the massing has been stepped back, recessed 1 entrances are proposed, and the rhythm for the fenestration of this building is tied to adjacent structures. The new building ' is seen as a clean and quiet structure which will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent structures. The FAR limitation in the CC zone district is 1.5:1 or 4,500 sq. ft. The ratio may be increased to 2.0:1, or up to 6,000 sq. ft. by Special Review (Art. 7, Div. 4), if 60% of the bonus square footage, or 900 sq. ft., is on -site affordable housing. The square footage of on -site affordable housing is 903 sq. ft., in excess of the required percentage. ' Net Leasable Free - FAR Comm.& Market Restricted Sq.Ft. Office Housing Housing ' Basement level -0- -0- -0- -0- Ground level 2,116 1,522 -0- -0- Second level 2,238 612 -0- 903 Third level 1,610 -0- 1,266 -0- 5,964 2,134 1,266 903 Commercial GMP Procedures request written information covering twelve areas of concern, as follows: 1. Water System. Water will continue to be supplied by the existing 6" City water main in Hopkins which 1 has approximately 100 P.S.I. Estimated increased demand will be minimal as only five (5) restrooms are anticipated in the new building which will replace a half bathroom in the existing building. Adequate capacity is available to service this project with its demand of under 1,"000 gallons per day. 2. Sewage System. The project is served by the existing 8" Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District line in the alley to the south of the site. Impact on the system resulting from the additional five (5) restrooms is negligible. Adequate capacity is available to service this project with its demand of under 1,000 gallons per day. 3. Drainage System. On -site storm drainage for the proposal will comply with current City standards. Presently, water from the site flows to the curb and gutter system in Hopkins Street and then to the northwest. 4. Fire Protection System. The building will be only one block from the Aspen Fire Station, with a response time of less than five (5) minutes. There is a fire hydrant at the northwest corner of both Hopkins Street intersections to the east and west of the building. 5. Development Summary. The proposed project is a commercial/office/residential building, including one (1) employee unit, one (1) two -bedroom accessory free-market unit, one (1) office and commercial space. Office and commercial uses are permitted as uses by right, and the residential use is a conditional use. The height of the building is well within the height limitations for the zone district and the FAR is within that permitted by special review. 6. Estimated Traffic Count Increases. In order to estimate increased daily traffic on adjacent streets resulting from the proposal, we have utilized the guidelines of the 1985 County Road Standards; the increased number of trips has been estimated as twenty-six (26) one-way trips. ' Two off-street parking spaces will be provided. The balance of the off-street parking required will be by a payment -in -lieu estimated at $60,000. All RFTA bus routes are within two (2) blocks of the proposal; the Rubey Park Transit Center is three (3) blocks to the Southeast (See Vicinity Map). No bike paths are provided through the Commercial Core. jThe location of the project is the greatest disincentive to auto use. The site is within comfortable walking distance of the majority of accommodations in the ' City's lodge districts. 7. Affordable Housing. One (1) one -bedroom 903 sq. ft. moderate -income employee unit will be provided on -site. The relocated Berko House will provide an additional ' - 2 - d 1 one -bedroom low-income affordable housing unit of approximately 600 square feet. The Applicant is committing to provide the required 60% commercial GMP employee housing and thirty-five percent (35%) residential employee housing. 8. Stoves and Fireplaces. The development will be limited to one (1) fireplace utilizing gas logs, although the Code currently would allow an additional certified stove. 9. Location Relative to Public Facilities. Given the downtown location, the building will be within close proximity to all public facilities. 10. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets. This criterion does not apply to commercial/office applications. The limited residential development will have minimal impact on service outlets. 11. Effects of the Proposed Development. The proposed building complements surrounding land uses while providing needed employee housing. 12. Construction Schedule. Upon approval, construction of the project will begin next Spring, following relocation of the Berko Building. The project will be completed in one phase, with completion currently anticipated by Thanksgiving of 1989. B. Commercial GMP Evaluation Criteria. 1. Quality of Design. (a) Architectural Design. In addition to accommodating the required functions of the building, the basic intentions of the design of the project are to relate to the existing adjacent buildings, as well as to the general environment of the adjacent commercial district in scale, massing. oroportion and materials. These goals have been accomplished, in part, by stepping the building back in vertical section keeping the first two floors as the dominant building height, and by providing a projected bay storefront window at the center of the first level. This will promote a compatibility of massing, proportion and alignment with the adjacent existing structures. Considerable emphasis has been placed upon creating a vocabulary of forms and materials that will fit in comfortably with surrounding structures, and which are in keeping with HPC guidelines and committee member comments. The variously stepped faces of the front facade alternately align with the faces of the buildings to either side. A somewhat horizontal character has been given to the building in order to balance 1 - 3 - its low profile, and to further enhance a compatible visual p P expression when seen in context with its immediate neighbors. ' The south side of the building which faces the alley has been treated as an important developed building facade in its own right. The intention is to avoid the appearance of being the back or rear of the building. This is accomplished by the use of the same materials as the front, as ' well as careful attention to the scale and detail of opening and massing. In a special effort to work within the HPC guidelines, careful attention has been given to avoiding the imitation or compromising of the established character of the building's neighbors. In particular, the setbacks relate to ' both adjacent buildings, the massing has been stepped back, recessed entrances are proposed, and the rhythm of the fenestration of this building is tied to adjacent structures. ' The new building is seen as a clean and quiet structure which will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent structures. (b) Site Design. Given the lot size , 30' x 1001, and the HPC's desire to have new buildings aligned with ' the front of existing buildings to complement the Victorian streetfront style, site design options were limited. Nonetheless, creative alternatives were sought. With the ' location of the building within the commercial core, the major orientation and identity will be for pedestrian traffic of shoppers along the storefronts. Access to service, delivery and the second floor employee housing will be through the alley at the rear. The alley, and any disturbed areas of the sidewalk, will be repaved by the developer. New paving will define the ground plane along the sidewalk in front of the new building, yet will provide a clean transition to the existing paving on either side. jIn order to follow the HPC guidelines and committee member comments, the placement of the new building is in an alignment with the front of existing neighbors, and it cooperates with and strengthens the existing architectural boundary of the Hopkins Avenue storefronts as already defined by the adjacent buildings. Together, the position, form and texture of the new building are designed to both complete and enhance the streetfront along Hopkins Avenue. By holding and defining the street edge in plan and elevation, the building will strengthen the commercial street's intended linear character, and provide a continuity of perception along the sidewalk. Two new Norway Maples are proposed to soften the streetscape, and to continue the existing rhythm and alignment of trees already established along the sidewalk. While the open space is limited, it is useable and partially sheltered from the elements. All utilities have been undergrounded to ' - 4 - n I� fl lessen visual impact. A snowmelt sidewalk is provided to limit the need for snow storage areas. The south side of the building site will be repaved with bituminous concrete to match the existing paving of the alley. (c) Energy Conservation. The new building will be designed to maximize benefits in energy conservation and operating costs while minimizing initial expenditures and system complexity. Energy conservation efforts will be directed toward selection and design of systems which have proven performance over extended periods of time. All energy conserving devices will be simple to understand, operate, adjust and maintain so the efficiencies achieved can be reasonably maintained over the effective life of the building systems. The following specific conservation features will be incorporated in the detailed design of the project. (1) Insulation. The greatest opportunity for energy conservation occurs in the types of materials specified in the construction of the building envelope. An infiltration barrier wrap such as "Tyvek" will be installed around the entire building exterior which will significantly reduce infiltration. All penetrations of the wrap will be carefully caulked and sealed to further enhance the effectiveness of the barrier. High quality windows and doors with state-of-the-art closures and gasketing methods will be specified throughout, and bat and rigid insulation specifications will exceed minimum standards. Insulation values for the project's walls and roof will be R-28 and R-38 or better, respectively. In addition to the exterior barrier wrap and internal bat/rigid insulation, an interior vapor barrier will be provided. This vinyl vapor barrier will not only further decrease infiltration, but will tend to hold interior humidity levels at least ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent higher than exterior levels, resulting in a greater degree of occupant comfort at lower room temperatures. All penetrations of the vinyl vapor barrier at wall switches, outlets, etc. will be sealed. With the individual unit's envelopes sealed and insulated, an air-to-air heat exchanger will be used to control the indoor environment while significantly reducing energy losses. (2) Mechanical Systems. Comfort heating will be provided, utilizing high efficiency, state-of-the-art mechanical systems. Consideration will be given to integrated systems which provide optimum efficiency in the production of both comfort level heating and domestic water heating. The use of individual temperature controls for major occupancy areas will be maximized to the greatest extent possible so that building energy inputs can be matched to the occupants daily F - 5 - use patterns. Although initial installation cost for high efficiency systems may be slightly higher than conventional systems, the long range effectiveness and efficiency in operation will be the governing selection criteria. Primary heating systems will also be selected and designed to incrementally match the seasonal and daily demands of the commercial retail, office and residential units. (3) Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures and fittings will be of a low flow, low water consumption type. Faucet aerators and shower heads will be selected to provide the maximum apparent flow at relatively low actual flows. All plumbing will be fully insulated to prevent excessive water usage at the point of use while waiting for adequate temperatures to be achieved. Domestic water heater design will incorporate the latest technology, and may be integrated with heat recovery from the heating system. Should the final selection be a stand-alone water heater, it will incorporate all of the current pilot, flue and flame efficiency designs, as well as high efficiency storage tank insulation. (4) Glazing. All of the glazing in this project will be selected with the highest "R" value practical. Glazing located within six feet (61) of the floor will be low "E" type to enhance the warmth radiating between occupant and glazing. The use of low "E" glass will permit a significant improvement in the occupant's sense of comfort because of its effectiveness in re -radiating interior warmth. The selection of interior finishes and colors, particularly in those rooms ' with south facing glazing, will carefully consider the advantages of radiant absorption and mass heating. While the specific design intent is not to create a perfect passive environment, the design team will utilize proven techniques in ' enhancing the natural solar heating capabilities within the finished interiors. (d) Amenities. The revised design for the project responds to the HPC's desire to have new buildings in the commercial core align with the store fronts of existing ' buildings as suggested in the recently adopted Historic Guidelines. Because of this open space provided on -site is limited to 218 square feet; the balance of the open space requirement is to be met through an open space payment -in -lieu ' in the amount of $48,744.00, based on the appraised value of the land. This payment -in -lieu is discussed in more detail in Section II.B. of this Submission. ' The limited amount of open space remaining provides relatively little opportunity for other amenities on -site. However, pedestrian access in and around the project will be enhanced through the installation of a snowmelt system in the walkways on the north side of the project. L —1 Bicyclists are required to use the streets through the commercial core, as no bike trails are anticipated in this area under this master plan. Because the existing bike racks installed in the immediate area of the project are clearly sufficient to meet the needs of both the project and the immediate neighborhood, we propose to install a bike rack in an alternate location where the City has identified that there is a need for one. (e) Visual Impact. The height of the building has been established to not only relate to the addition but to architectural elements of the neighboring buildings, and also to minimize the visual impact of the project. It is important to note that the height of the building (approximately 33=, feet to the parapet) is well below the 40 foot height limit in the CC zone district. In addition, the Hotel Jerome Viewplane, one of a number established to protect Mountain views from obstruction from designated parks and other public places, is higher than the zoning height limit when it crosses over the site some 45 above the ground plane. This is the only viewplane which extends over the project site. We believe the project is totally consistent with established community goals relative to visual compatibility, as evidenced by the height limit established for the area and the absence of other limitations on height established through the creation of viewplanes. ' The HPC agreed that the vertical element of the building breaks the horizontal mass of the Mill Street Plaza and provides visual relief. 1 (f) Trash and Utility Access Areas. We have included an analysis of trash service area requirements for the project, and a comparison to the actual area provided, in Section II.D., where we are requesting approval of a reduction in required area. While the overall area available is adequate to meet that required, the area set aside for trash facilities, approximately 83=' wide x 12%,' deep, does not meet the minimum requirement of the Code, which is twenty (20) linear feet with a depth of ten feet (101). A gate is provided as a visual screen of the trash area. Comparison to the Mill Street Plaza project adjacent to the site is helpful in determining whether trash storage proposed for this project is adequate. That project includes 28,000 square feet of retail and office space, including three (3) restaurants and an additional 1,500 square feet of restricted housing. Four (4) dumpsters are provided, or one (1) dumpster for each 7,000 square feet of commercial space. In comparison, the proposal for this project includes one (1) dumpster for 2,100 square feet of commercial and retail - 7 - 1 space. In addition, no restaurants are presently proposed in the project. This compares quite favorably with the trash facilities provided with the Mill Street Plaza. The Applicant will schedule extra trash pick-ups at additional cost if trash generation is a problem during peak times, such as during the Christmas Season. 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. (a) Water Supply/Fire Protection. The Aspen Water Department has confirmed that adequate capacity exists to provide for the needs of the project without system extensions or upgrading. Water service will be provided through the existing 6" City water main in Hopkins. Estimated increased demand will be minimal, as only three (3) half-restrooms and two (2) full restrooms are being added, replacing one (1) restroom. The Applicant commits to the payment of fees associated with the fixtures added as a result of the project. Fire protection service to the project can be provided without the necessity of upgrading fire protection facilities. The Fire Department is one block from the project, and response time is estimated to be less than five minutes. Existing fire hydrants at the northwest corner ' of Hopkins and Monarch and at the northwest corner of Hopkins and Mill provide adequate coverage for fire protection without further upgrading of fire protection facilities. Water ' pressure and capacity is adequate for fire protection flow. In discussing water service in the area of the project with Jim Markalunas, Director of the Water Department, ' it is clear that water service is more than adequate in the area of the site. Therefore, we have discussed the possibility of adding a main extension to serve a new hydrant at the corner of Main and Hunter Street. This is a location that has been identified by the Water Department as an area with inadequate hydrant coverage as well as a location for a needed main interconnect between the Hopkins Avenue and Main Street water lines. Applicant is prepared to commit to install the main extension and hydrant. Since the location is not in the immediate vicinity of the project, however, it is unclear whether the applicant will be awarded additional points. Therefore, this commitment is conditioned on an award by the Planning and Zoning Commission in excess of 1.5 points, since it is clear that the project merits a score of one (1) point ' without this additional improvement. The main extension and hydrant will not only increase fire protection in the area, but will also serve as a first step toward the interconnect desired by the Water Department. L. (b) Sanitary Sewer. The Aspen Consolidated ' Sanitation District has confirmed that the capacity of the existing sewage collection system is adequate to accommodate the project. Sewer service will continue to be provided through the existing 8" District line in the alley to the south of the site. This line flows to the west and connects to a 8" main in First Street which continues to the north toward the ' treatment plant. The Sanitation District has budgeted approximately $165,000 to upgrade this latter section of sewer ' line this fall. In order to improve sanitary sewer service in the area, the Applicant proposes to contribute $5,000 toward ' the upgrading of the First Street main, to offset District expenses for this improvement. This commitment is in addition to the Applicant's commitment to the payment of any fees ' associated with increased sewer service to the project. (c) Public Transportation/Roads. The project ' is within two blocks of all RFTA bus routes, and within three blocks of the Rubey Park Transit Center. The site is also little more than one block from Aspen's pedestrian mall. ' The primary hours of operation for the commercial uses in the building will be approximately 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. In addition, there are two residential units on -site; the applicant is requesting the opportunity to rent ' the restricted housing unit to qualified employees within the building. The location of the project assures convenient vehicular access on existing streets with adequate capacity; ' access to proposed parking and for service vehicles will be from the alley between Mill and Monarch streets. 17 The daily auto one-way trips generated by the new project are projected to be twenty-six (26) trips, well within the capacity of existing streets in the area. This estimate of trips has been arrived at by using the guidelines of the 1985 County Road Standards; because of the project location, these estimates should be relatively high, since the factors were established for uses in rural locations. Rates for applicable uses are as follows: Residential Apartment 3/du x 2 du's = 6 trips Business Office 8/1,000 sq. ft. x 612 sq.ft. = 5 trips Retail shops 10/1,000 sq. ft. x 1,522 sq.ft. = 15 trips TOTAL DAILY TRIPS 26 trips (d) Storm Drainage. Site topography presently directs surface drainage into Monarch Street where it is collected in the existing curb and gutter system and directed to the northwest of the site. The drainage concept for the 1 a ' project is to meet the requirements of the City of Aspen p 7 q Y P regulations as described in Section 7-1004C(4)(f). This will ' be accomplished by providing on -site detention for site drainage. Upon approval of the project, a drainage plan will be prepared by a qualified engineer to assure that the historical rate of runoff for the 100-year storm event will be maintained. ' Surface drainage will be directed and collected through surface grading. Area drains will be located in exterior areas with hard surfaces and collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to drywell structures designed to discharge water at the rate of the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site. For off -site runoff entering the site, measures will be taken to maintain historic drainage patterns and flows. (e) Parking. The proposal is within comfortable walking distance (1,500 feet) of the majority of ' accommodations in the L/TR zone district. In addition, as stated previously, the project is within two blocks of all RFTA bus routes. Because of increasing congestion in the commercial core as a whole, a growing number of Aspen's tourists arrive and depart the commercial core by taxi. Consistent with current parking requirements for ' the CC zone district, two off-street parking spaces are included in the proposal. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the off-street parking requirement for the one -bedroom ' affordable housing unit, as permitted under §5-301(B). The Applicant proposes to provide the balance of the off-street parking required for the project through a payment -in -lieu. The shortfall has been calculated as four (4) spaces, requiring ' a payment of $60,000.00. In addition, in order to improve the availability of public parking in the area, Applicant proposes to make a payment of an additional $15,000.00 for one (1) parking space beyond the requirement for the project. 3. Provision of Employee Housing. To meet the ' minimum threshold requirements of Commercial GMQS which applicant commits to, it is necessary to house 60% of the employees generated. The award for housing 60% is 10 GMQS ' points. Based on the current program of 2,134 sq. ft. of net ' leasable retail and office space, less 900 sq. ft. of existing net leasable space (net new square footage of 1,234 sq. ft.), and using an employee generation factor of 3.5/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable, employee generation for the commercial use is ' 4.32 employees. The minimum housing requirement at 60% is, therefore, 2.59 employees. ' Using a factor at the bottom of the range for employee generation in the commercial core, established as 3.5 I - 10 - ' to 5.25 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space, can be justified for two reasons. First, the project is ' at the fringe of the commercial core, with little likelihood of attracting the kind of pedestrian traffic which exists on the Mall. Therefore fewer employees are needed than in comparable ' retail space on the Mall. Second, no food or beverage facilities are proposed for the project; since restaurant facilities are considered the highest employee generator among ' all uses listed in the housing guidelines, a lower number is justified. In order to address mitigation for the accessory residential unit, employee generation for that use is calculated on the basis of §8-106(D), Residential Development Standards (see §8-104C[l][d]). ' To meet the minimum threshold in the residential competition, it is necessary that 35% of the population associated with the residential use be housed under low-income guidelines as calculated below: Population of 2-bedroom free-market unit: 2.25 residents ( 65%) Required Restricted Population: 1.21 residents ( 35%) Total population: 3.46 residents (100%) ' Affordable housing to be provided with the project includes a 903 sq. ft. one -bedroom unit in the building, and the relocated Berko house; therefore, housing is provided for 3.5 employees: 1 1 moderate -income 1-bedroom on -site @ 1.75 = 1.75 1 low-income 1-bedroom (Berko) @ 1.75 = 1.75 3.50 With a total housing requirement of 3.8 employees ' (2.59 employees for the commercial space and 1.21 employees for the residential commitment), the Applicant proposes to address the shortfall of .3 employees to be housed with payment -in -lieu. Under moderate -income guidelines, the payment ' would be $5,025.00 as follows: .3 employees x $16,750.00/employee = $5,025.00. ' II. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Bonus Commercial Square Footage. ' The provisions of §5-209D(10) permit up to .5:1 bonus floor area by Special Review, of which up to .2:1 can be additional commercial space if the balance of .3:1 is committed ' to affordable housing. The construction of 900 sq. ft. of on -site restricted housing permits consideration of additional bonus commercial area of up to 600 sq. ft. - 11 - Under 7-4 the criteria to be considered b for § � Y P&Z bonus FAR, (1) compatibility with surrounding land uses; and (2) mitigation of impacts, relate very closely to the GMP scoring criteria for architectural design, site design and visual impact, discussed previously. We feel that this project ' meets the criteria and is entitled to a bonus square footage. B. Payment -in -lieu for Open Space. ' The open space requirement in the CC zone is 25% of the site, or 750 sq. ft. Approximately 218 sq. ft. of open space is provided. The P&Z may approve by Special Review a payment -in -lieu for that portion of the open space not provided, based on the appraised value of the unimproved land. The payment -in -lieu of open space is calculated based on the formula in §7-404(A)(3) as follows: ' "Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by the percentage of the site required to be open space which is to be developed, equals value of payment." At an estimated value of $275,000.00 for the unimproved land, and using a total of 70.9% as the percentage of the required open space to be developed, the cash payment would be: ' 70.9% x 25% x $275,000.00 = $ 48,744.00 It is inappropriate to have more open space since other buildings along the street front have the same relationship as the proposal to the property lines and additional open space would serve no public purpose. Furthermore, the building design complies with the HPC guidelines regarding building and ' streetscape relationship. ' C. Reduction in Required Off -Street Parking. In the CC zone, the relevant parking requirement is: ' Residential: 1 space/bedroom (Parking for affordable housing is established by Special Review. See §5-301(B)) ' Commercial: 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. net leasable ' The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the parking requirement of one (1) space for the on -site affordable housing unit. A payment -in -lieu for on -site parking of $15,000.00 per space for other uses may be approved by Special Review by the ' P&Z under §7-404(B). Since it is possible to provide only two (2) spaces on -site, the payment -in -lieu of parking is as follows: Residential:l space/bedroom x 2 bedrooms = 2 - 12 - Commercial: 2 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. x 2,134 sq. ft. = 4 Required Parking: 6 Parking Provided: 2 Payment -in -Lieu Required: 4 spaces ' Parking payment -in -lieu required: $15,000/space x 4 spaces = $60,000 Plus one extra parking space: $15,000 TOTALS: $75,000 ' D. Reduction in Trash and Utility Access Requirements. In the CC zone district, a minimum of 20 linear feet (with a minimum vertical clearance and depth of 10 feet) is required ' for a utility/trash service area under the provisions of §5-209(D) for a project of up to 6,000 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area. ' The utility/trash service area proposed is Sk linear feet with a depth of 12, feet. The Applicant is requesting special review consideration by P&Z of the adequacy of the utility ' trash service area to serve the proposed expansion. The review criteria to be considered by P&Z in its consideration of the appropriateness of a reduction in trash and utility access requirements (See §7-404C) are as follows: ' 1. Adequacy of the Proposed Trash/Service Area. Comparison to the Mill Street Plaza project adjacent to the site is helpful in determining whether trash storage ' proposed for this project is adequate. That project includes 28,000 square feet of retail and office space, including three (3) restaurants and an additional 1,500 square feet of restricted housing. Four (4) dumpsters are provided, or one (1) dumpster for each 7,000 square feet of commercial space. In comparison, the proposal for this project includes one (1) dumpster for 2,100 square feet of commercial and retail space. In addition, no restaurants are presently proposed in the project. This compares quite favorably with the trash ' facilities provided with the Mill Street Plaza. ' 2. The Adequacy of Access. The alley behind this Project is perhaps the most orderly of all the alleys in the ' Commercial storage Core, due to the requirements for new effectiveness of off -alley trash construction. There are presently no trash storage containers or other significant encroachments into the alley right-of-way to interfere with access to the ' site. 3. Measures to Facilitate Trash Removal. The proposed trash storage area is well organized, protected from ' - 13 - 1 1 1 the elements by a roof overhang, and minimize ice buildup. A single 618" will serve the needs of the project increased pick-ups can be scheduled the owner, if necessary, in order to for these limited periods. slightly elevated to x 3'6" trash container adequately. At peak times, at an additional cost to handle trash requirements 4. Provisions for Trash Compaction. In recent months, the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission have investigated trash compactor systems which might be appropriate for the entire Commercial Core area. Such a system is only feasible if all the building owners in each block are prepared or required to participate in the cost of such a system. The owner does not presently anticipate a need for an individual trash compactor system, given the nature of uses proposed for the project. 5. Adequacy of Area for Utilities. A portion of the service area is set aside for transformers and other utilities equipment for the building. We believe these facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the building for the foreseeable future. 6. Assurance That the Access Area Will Be Constructed. The service area as proposed is an integral part of the Applicant's GMP Submission. It will not be possible to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the building until the service area is completed as approved. III. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR ONE FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNIT. Applicant requests approval of one (1) free-market residential unit as a conditional use pursuant to §5-209(C)(8) This residential dwelling unit will be located on the third floor. The proposed residential unit is a two -bedroom unit of 1,266 square feet. As explained in Section IV, below, the free-market residential unit is an accessory use in this mixed use, commercial/office development. Pursuant to §7-304, the following review standards have been met: 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 because providing residential uses in the commercial core enhances the core's diversity while providing necessary housing. 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 and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. - 14 - ' C. The location size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional residential use minimizes adverse effects. The visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties ' are minimal. 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. E. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of ' this chapter. IV. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMOS PROCEDURES FOR AN ACCESSORY USE IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT City Council may grant an exemption from GMQS procedures ' for an accessory use in a mixed use development under the provisions of §8-104C(1)(d). Under the previous Code, an interpretation was made that one dwelling unit could be exempted from GMQS procedures; under the new Code, that ' provision was clarified to eliminate that interpretation. Therefore, the only exemption under the new Code which would ' allow the Applicant to avoid having to file a second GMQS submission for the proposed residential unit is the one referred to above. The following responses address the conditions which must be met in order to be eligible for the ' exemption: 1. The building is designed as an integrated whole, containing uses requiring the submission of development ' applications in more than one allotment category. ' 2. The building is designed in such a way that separate review of its components would be redundant. 3. The principal use of the project is as a commercial building with retail and office uses. The accessory residential unit will be available for the owner's use from time to time to oversee the operation of the building. ' However, the unit may be occupied by other than building employees or owners and may be conveyed separately. 4. An Application for a Commercial GMQS Allotment for the principal use is included in Chapter I of this submission. 5. The impacts of the accessory use on public facilities and affordable housing are mitigated under the I - 15 - 1� i 1 commitments made in Chapter I, the Commercial GMQS Submission. For clarity, calculations included in that section include those for the residential unit, as well as the commercial space. 6. The site design and architectural aspects for all of the uses included in the proposal are also discussed in Chapter I. Exemption of the proposed residential unit is fully consistent with the intent of §8-104C(1)(d) in that, by granting an exemption, the City is able to avoid requiring separate GMQS submissions while still achieving adequate mitigation for the accessory use. V. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMOS PROCEDURES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (§8-104LC1f1jjcl). Applicant requests exemption from GMQS procedures for the affordable housing units pursuant to §8-104(C)(1)(c) as the development complies with the City's adopted housing plan. Applicant proposes to provide a one -bedroom, moderate -income ' employee unit, consisting of 903 square feet, on the second floor of the building. ' In addition, Applicant will provide, in the relocated Berko house, a one -bedroom, low-income, employee unit, consisting of approximately 600 square feet. These two employee housing units provide greatly needed affordable ' housing for the community. This affordable housing is particularly desirable because one unit is on -site and one unit is proposed for the A.C.E.S. property in the heart of the community. ' VI. P.U.D. REVIEW FOR A.C.E.S. SITE FOR RELOCATION OF BERRO HOUSE. A.C.E.S. is in the process of preparing a master plan for its property which will include a specific P.U.D. application ' for the relocation of the Berko house. As one of the conditions of City Council's approval of our commercial quota and special review application, A.C.E.S. must receive P.U.D. approval for the Berko house relocation prior to the issuance of a relocation permit for the new building. \clients\king\gmp.app I - 16 - `'UHPUSES ONLY AND IS NOT A PART 2 Pr 5 Premium VV 6 Survey Amendment •APPENDIX "A" Of IRE POUCY 3 Coun 6 Rate Rule 9 Additions, Chains $ f 85-00-882818 A 097 350,000.00 894.50 101-01 10/19/87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 LajlWrs Ttle Insurance Orporation OWNER'S POLICY Schedule A CASE NUMBER DAZE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE ' POLICY NUMBER THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN PCT- 1095-87 OCTOBER 19 1987 ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST $350,000.00 AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED 85-00-8828 18 @ 11:32 A.M. NUMBERONTHECOVERSHEET ' 1 Name of Insured: EILEEN H. KING and JOHN L. KING 2 The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is: IN FEE SIMPLE ' 3 The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: EILEEN H. KING and JOHN L. KING ' 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: ' LOT C, BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, ' COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. r i r PI IN OUNTY ITL , ruiner gnaiurc uinor rred �cergemP01a 5 (Rev. 2/7 I Ths invalid unless the cover sheet Form No. 035.0-0 /3 and Schedule 8 are attached P10.1n County Tltle, Inc. 601 E. Hopkins (303)925-1766 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Isau.d at (Locanon) ALTA Owner's Policy Form 8 1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 and 10.17.8A) JOHN L- KING' THOMAS L. LOTT DONALD D. COOK ROBERT A. HUDSON FRANCIS J. NEWTON, JR. THOMAS M. SULLIVAN ROBERT E MILLER JOHN P. REILLY' WILLIAM C. SCHAEFERI GEORGE R. SOKOLY GARY D. BRUHN SHERYL A. LAUGHREN DENNIS M. MITZEL JAMES P. MURPHY SCOTT J. RYNEARSON EILEEN K. HUSBAND BARBARA A. DODENHOFF JOHN T. PETERS, JR. CAROLYN E. BALSTER MITCHELL K. GASCHE HUDSON A- MEAD • • APPENDIX "B" BERRY, MOORMAN, KING & HUDSON PROFESSION AL CORPORATION 600 WOODBRIDGE PLACE DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226 (313) 567.1000 RAYMOND H. BERRY (1891.1959) A. H. MOORMAN (1914-1979) TELECOPIER: (313) 567-1001 CABLE BERRYMOOR ALSO ADrITT.D Ix 0..0 t ALLO..—T.. Ia ... To.. i ALSO ADIITT.D IN rLOR-A In re: Growth Management Plan Application 309 E. Hopkins Street Aspen, Colorado TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I, John L. King, owner of the property at 309 E. Hopkins Street, Aspen, Colorado, do hereby authorize Charles Cunniffee and Associates to submit a commercial growth management plan application for this property on my behalf and to do and perform all things necessary to secure its approval. 1 ry ly y urs, l/ r John L. Kina JLK/ds r S E P 1 11988� I CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOC ASPEN, CO HALLAM 8T. Q 1 [:7--1 R10 GRANDE PARKING SLEEKER 8T. � H � L� COUNTY COUATNOU!! MAIN $T. HOTKL . nl K L N 1 1KOJECT HOPKINS AVE. LOCATION IIpE •TAT. -CITY HALL J gMVMAN AVE. ICJ L.��J yII COOPAVE. II' DURANT AVE. _ N N -GTY MARKET RUSEY PARK TRANlIT CENT. � I �oo M M M M M M M M M M M M I HALLAM ST. F J R-6 I RIO ORANDE PgRKINO ......N SLEEKER ST. / U SCE / ----------- . .. ./ il............. ...... ..t.......■ �i PUB % R—M F -ROJ CT LOCATION �J ■ ■ ■ 7RIAR N N ■ N...L� L-�J ■ ■ b � L.� ; N L-3me R—MF ■ ■ ■ N H ■ ■ ■ WAONER MRI(' RAN BIT CENTE ; ; CL ; on .............. L-2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ C ■ m r m m = = = � r = = = m = = = = m moo RIO ORANDE A%RKINO SLEEKER ST. . S ROUTE p O O p 0 0 I �c..c�.mAN MALL I i COUNTY COURTHOUYE HOTEL JEROME O ALL ROUTE.(EXC PT HUNTER CRK.) is OOOp000 00000000000000000000 0 0000000000000�000 HO OTd000p 000000 OOY O 40a�o O 'p �=10 00 0 i--i� z 0 N 10 0 0 - PROJECT HOPKINS AVE. •Iwe ETATI. HALL 0 LOCATION p 0. F F f 0 F F OH H �W0 0 j0 H I H Z 1m I Z �J V 0 HVMAN AVE. 000000000 - a l J >O 0 _ H � I �1 0 P E. TRI N MALL iO 0 _- 100 '0 COOPER AVE. 0 - - - 00000(pbSF(l sOOOQ0000000 `p 0 _ - p HUNTER CREIK a0 O 0 0 H N IO CITY.. 0 J 0 O �( 0 RUEEY PARK 0 O 0 TR ANEIT CENT R O O ��ppOppOppp00070A0000000000Q0000000000 00000000000 00 DU11AN7 AVE. Y ALL ROUTES f O J dh �J 0 0 0 0 rr rr �r r rr �r �■r r� ar r �r r r� r r� �r r� r r 140 m m m m m m m m i m m i r= m m r m m EATY LINE ROOF / SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/0' - 1•-O' a m M - NEW TMEESE NN x � m m m m m = m ! S m ! m = = m »o OATS.- _TSA1!! _-' _ s 1! EASEMENT FLOOR SCALE: 1/0' s I' O' ASPEN ARCADE BUILDING A6ATaon.. 4 �M MILL STREET PLAZA SCALE: 1/0' a 1'- O' AETALaHIW �� JV'� '�EL. Lour r � lr- �• dr •j, -nn S tl a. SECOND FLOOR V SCALE: 1 / S' m 1—O' ? VV7C � O 0 nnw 0 7T. Zee a ; 0 a IN- TL THIRD FLOOR �*� t•tA SCALE : 1 / S' - 1'- O' - -- mmCK HOPKINS AVE / NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1 / 9- = V - O' WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1 / S' = V - O' m r m m m = m m m m m= i m m m m m �_�ro woor r111wD IL. i�- o= _4..COMD IL. ■L. � 1 Y - O' SCALE: 1 / S' - V- O' y � i I i ILL. u • �r jL�� II EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1 / S' - V- O' • • APPENDIX D COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED PROPOSED 1. Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq.ft. 3,000 sq.ft. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling One bedroom per 3 bedrooms Unit 1,000 sq.ft. of lot area 3. Minimum Lot Width No Requirement N/A 4. Minimum Front Yard No Requirement N/A_ 5. Minimum Side Yard No Requirement N/A 6. Minimum Rear Yard (ft.) No Requirement Reduction to 82� except trash/utili- x 122, reques- ty service area of ted by Special 20 ft. in length, Review required with a minimum vertical clearance of 10 ft. and a minimum depth of 10 ft. unless reduced by Special Review 1 7. Maximum Height 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (ft.) 9. Percent of open space required for building site 10. External Floor Area Ratio 11. Internal Floor Area Ratio Require.use 40 ft., not to 37 feet at peak exceed 4 stories 3 stories above above grade grade No Requirement N/A 25%, may be reduced 218 sq.ft. pay - by Special Review ment-in-lieu of $48,744 1.5:1; however, the 1.98:1 reques- 1.5:1 external floor ted by Special area ratio may be Review increased to 2:1 by Special Review 1:5:1, increasable Commercial Use to 2:1; however, if .26:1, restrict the external floor housing is 60% area ratio is of additional increased y Special area requested Review pursuant to Special Review Art. 7, Div. 4, then 60 % of the add- itional floor area must be approved for residential use res- tricted to affordable housing 5 PAEPCKE RARK:•• H N `z r— a a HALLAM ST. BLEEKER ST. H MAIN ST. HOPKINS AVE. Q z 0 HYMAN AVE_ IMI 4 i I COOPER AVE. DURANT AVE. ii i H i I H PROJECT LOCATION N T--T� J H H i WAGNER PARK H --- FIRE STATION CITY HALL H H 10 N 1Q Muj L 1 j EH H z STRIAN MALT L:J -- H PEDESTRiAfi► .:4 RUBEY PARK TRANSIT i N N z Q - �z N 0 � U CITY MARKET I LOCATION HALLAM ST. R-6 RIO GRANDE PARKING BLEEKER ST. ■ommmmmmm ■...., ■ ■ 1 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoommmmmmmmmm.A■■ m.....mmmmmmmm i ■ ■ MMMMMMMMMMMMMOI MAIN ST_ ■ j ■ ■ ■ ! CC ■ I I ■ H O oil HOPKINS AVE. : PROJECT LOCATION ■ N N ■ i N■ �N H H 10 cc_1 UJ U I U ■ *-T c_J ' W c ■ ' N Q■ H H ` j i 1-1 ' J 1 Q ZI ;_._�; Q e) i PUB ■ i.A■.A■r•Ir.lr.A�Ai R-MF I O iy J mmmme { V { HYMAN AVE_ ■ F-$iTR1AN" :MALE. i ■ ■ H H ■ ■lemma ■ �-_._ mmmmm.......:-- --- ■ ...�..... ■ T------- — ■ r--- - -- _.__� ■ - H------T ■ -----� ■ ■ ■ R MF ■ ■ ' ■ MM MMMM' ■ COOPER AVE. ■ ■ PEDESTRIAN MAL ■ �M�MMM�MMM�MM t ; ; ; .............; ■ ■ ■� ■ P ■ ■ ■ ■ ; WAGNER PARK.'. TRANSIT ATE ■ CL ■ ; N C I ■ DURANT AVE_ `...................................mmm&mmmmmmmmmmmmmjm ■mmmmmMMMMMM4 ■ i ICL i ■ 3 � ■ Isi■m ■mmmmmmmmmmmmm■.A■mmmmmmmm1■A■.......mmmom............m...m.m...o...... ■ L-2 ■ ■ ■ ■ H ; ■ N W Z I ■ C ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ZONING Z N I i R-M F i HALLAM ST. RIO GRANDE PARKING BLEEKER ST. BUS ROUTE 00001 0 PEDESTRIAN MALL OCOUNTY COURTHOUSE O ST. HOTEL JEROME o qLL ROUTES (EXCEPT HUNTER CRK.) 00000000000000 000A0000000 p 000000(>O�OWO 000000('0�0000000000000.00.0000 O - p H w° ' it0 O r.: o ° p L U p 1 I O 'C� OC 0 0 f j p —__ -- 0 — —, IT -- -... O 0 H �° IH ?O H $O 1 -12 L_ 10- 0 0 PROJECT ,(N p HOPKINS AVE_ � LOCATION FIRE STATION CITY HALL 0 p O p H —' O — — — ............. F- N N° NO H H ey N 1 0 N O ' o _._ _ w 7— �O H H 201 H iH ,Z i0CC Z No p Q a Q Q p a_ Zo p c� im i— °° N .— ° HYMAN AVE. 0000000(>00- �, O O 0 ° H -� O9 o H H 0 l 0 �_ P OESTRIAN ALL ip Z ° _____ o H ----�° mp ! 0 - 0 ;p10 + o o __ z° ° - - o0 00000000Oo 0000000 N O COOPER AVE. p _ _ p HUNTER CREEK r— \ O r —._._.._ 0 II 10 QO ! L CITY MARKET �p p I ! 10 0 I RUBEY P'" �K - ° p ! O ' p TRANSIT cNl 10 I•�000000000000�0000000000.00000000000 00000000000 0 I DURAN T AVE. ALL ROUTES t CIRCULATION : r. 'JiM.::': y-t$ad�.i'R1;te4'rt••. 'n. �'.4e`d�S}.�'�YJ:hI'.1lrl'1's�:tiNJ.eir.�',. 4Y n-. v..a .. .1� .. .-... _� "�"'�,... .�.... � ,r,.,,,.:..,•""�`"'-'`yam-9r" "". rt" �.. ��-.'+,,.,r,� ry, ,,...i�� _.J f � 4 • ry • f I � ~•1 1 � '•-�--� -ice"'-'�=zx<x-- . _ __ t ^? y ( !...-! r fit al n I, oft r t +_sue- T. B. C_ }}� ,ERTY LINE ROOF / SITE PLAN SCALE: 9 / 8" = l ' -O" --.- NEW TRE! i GATE - BASEMENT FLOOR SCALE: 1 / 8" = l ' - O" �r�vuNv rwvr-� SCALE: 1/8" = y'- O" T.B.C.- :)PERTY LINE 1 � E� y >t NEW TREES a c r L i ki" SCALE: 1 / 8" = 1 ' - O" TH I FID FLOOH SCALE: 1 / 8" = 1 ' - O" BRICK T.O. PARAPET T.O. ROOF EL. T; METAL RAIL I THIRD FLI, 7 0- --- - - ------ GLAZED TILE lk" SECOND FL. EL. FIR*T FL.jl' 0. EL = .' 0 HOPKINS AVE. NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8- = 1 o- W., ALLEY SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8" 0"