The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.516 E Hyman Ave.48A-88516 E. Hyman Ave. commercial G -P & GMQS 2737-182-13-004 48A-88---- ,= Z ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 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 13 (zZ/ REFERRAL FEES. G 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH rl) 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING J A 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 SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Name: — Phone: — Address: _ Project: Check # Date: Additional Billing: — # of Hours: 41 bt5� 516 ' east h y m a n avenue 1 I commercial gmqs application 605 EAST MAIN STREET AopsmuoLmnA000m,/ September 6, 1988 Alan Richman Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 516 East Hyman Dear Alan, \ n We respectfully submit this application for a commercial GMQS allocation according to Article 8 of the Aspen {_and Use Code. As required, we have submitted twenty - one copies of the proposal along with a check in the amount of $2,090.00 to cover the 'review process. At this time we wish to thank your staff for their help in answering our questions during the development of this proposal. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, KW:gak COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM ALLOCATION APPLICATION for 516 EAST HYMAN Applicant SJA Associates c/o Steve Marcus P.O. Box 1709 Aspen, Coloraoo 81612 925-7615 Architect Bill Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-4755 copyright 1988 Bill Poss and Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS �ection Page I INTRODUCN 1 II GENER�L APPLICATION INFORMATION 2 III PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 A. Water System 3 8. �aste System 4 C. �torm ain-EA ge System � D. Fire Prorection 5 E 5 F. Traffic, Parkzng and Pedestrian 7 G. Employee Housing Proposal 7 H. Fireplaces / Woocistoves 8 l. Location of Public Facilities 8 J. Locar�on of Retazl and Service Outlets 9 K. Impact of Adjacent Land Uses q L. Construction Schedule 10 IV SITE UTILIZATION 11 V �EVELOPMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 12 1. Qua1ity ot Design 12 A. Architecture 12 B. Site Design 14 C. Energy Conservation 15 D. Amenities 16 E. Visuai �mpacts 16 F. Service Yard 17 �. Availabzlity of Public Services 18 A. Water / Fire Protection 18 B. Sanitary Sewer 19 C. Pub1ic Transportation / Roacls 19 D. Storm Drainage 20 E. Parking 20 3. EmpIoyee Housing 21 4. Bonus Points 21 VI SPECIAL REVIEWS A. Introduction 23 B. Parking 24 C. HPC 25 �II GMQS EXEMPTION 26 APPENDIX 1. Land Use Application Form 2. Applicants letter of authorization 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Water Department letter 5. Sanitation Department letter 6. Aspen Volunteer Fire District letter I � SECTION 1n accordance wzc� Hrt�cle � of pen Land Use Code, this application for a Growth Managemen uota System allocation N� is submzrted by SJA Assoczates. This allocation will be used for a seconr-1 floor on the building under construction at 516 East Hyman Avenue. N� �� he proper�y zs i: �he LC Zone sn� was the past location of N� Cheap Shots. prior to -, 1emolitio1.1 there was 2533.4 square + e first f]oor will N� -_ are feet of this area leaving .��square foot credit for the second floor. In addition to the applGMQS al1otment, this m� proposal also contains information on the specza1 revzews and � GMQS exempt�on which are aditzonally required for the pro��ct. �inally, every effort hamade to insure that this m� application is complete. If however, during the evaluation process, there arises a statement which needs further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the N� a�plicant who ill be happy to provide the requested information in as timely a manner possible. -1- F r� I SECTION 11 II GENERAL APPLICATION INFORrIATION �WNER� SJA ASSOCIATES C/O STEVE �ARCUS P.O. BOX 1709 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 925-7615 OWNER'S AGENT: BILL POSS / KIM WEIL BILL POSS AND ASSOCIATES 605 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 1 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 925-4755 STREET, ADDRESS516 EAST HYMAN ASPEN, COLORADO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1 PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP: SEE APPENDIX -2- 1 I SECTION III III PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applic��rs completeo pro�ect will consist of t�o stories N� above grade along with a full basement. There wil1 be 4504.4 square feet of exrerna1 Floor area in the Uuiiding. The net increase in f!oor area is therefore 4504.4 square feet less the 2533.4 square feet which will be reconstructed or 1971 square feet. Additional�y, the applicants are requesting N� GMQS exemption for a deed restricteo employee studio of 400 N� square �oe� �/'ingzng the GMQS �llotment request t square The uses within the building will be consistent with those N� permitted in the CC zone. The basement wi ll be used for tenant storage and mechanical space. The plaza level will m� contain one retail space. The upper 'eve1 will be office space and one employee stu�io. N� A. WATER SYSTEM m� Water service for the property is provided by a 12" main under Hyman Avenue. The existing service 1ine will be abandoned in a manner acceptable to the water department and N� a new 4" service line will be installed to serve the project. The water department has determined that the existing system m� is capable of providing enough water at a �ufficient pressure without any improvements necessary. �� B. WASTE SYSTEM �he Aspen Consolanitation L,istrict has an 8" line � flowing west on the alley at the North end of the property. The completed project will require a 4" service line. This increased load can be handled by the existing treatment +acilities. The for col_lectzon system the entire district does need upgrading, however, and the applicant is certainly wz1lng to �ay ! is share. C. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM The project contains a dry well under the basement slab. -- This dry well wilI collecr water from the building's roof, servzce yard roof, foundation drains, and the paved plaza area. The attempt is to intercept 100% of the runof+ before 1eaves the properry' -'--- '--------'--'-- � This is a far superior situation than 1-iistorica11.y occurred N� on the site. Previous to this time, the site did not contain a dry well and water which hit the ground was shed into Hyman Avenue or the alley. In addition, the previous building had a pitched roof which directed water onto the adjacent lots. -4- D. FIRE PROTECTION project is lccared approximate�y 1 block from Aspen Volunteer F�re Department. The response time would be 3 mznutes any rime of day. The building itself will be protected by an automatic sprinkler system on all three lsvels ano the service yard. systemrequzred o�asement, but will be ----- provided in �h� entire building as a safety benefit to not on1y the applicants project but the neighborhood as well. E. DEVELOPMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS Table 1 summarzzes the data for 516 E. Hyman TABLE ! Development 11ata Lot Area Building Footprint Trash Area/Service Yard Open Space External Floor Area F.A.R. Development Credit -;MO S Exemption (Employee Housing) 1988 GMQS Allotment Request -5- 3010 S.F. 2252.2 S.F. 306.3 S.F. 451.5 S.F. 4504.4 S.F. 1.5:1 2533.4 S.F. 400.0 S.F. 1571 S.F. ble 2 demons�rates �he projects compliance with the dimenszonal requirement� set forth for CC zone. TABLE 2 Dimensional Requirements Compliance Requzrement Proposed Compliance Min Lot Size 3000 3010 yes Min Lot ng 1000 3010 yes Min Lot idth 0 30.1 yes Min Fronr Yard 0 15 yes Min Side Y�rd 0 0 yes Min Rear Yard 0 0 yes Service Yard 200 300 yes Max. Height 40 35'8" yes Open Space ' 3% 1 15% , yes Floor Area 4515 eS (1) open space on site prior to demo1iticn (2) 1.5 times site area Table 3 demonstrates the projects compliance with the use restrictions set forth for the CC zone: TABLE 3 Table of Uses Use(s) Basement Tenant Storage Plaza Level Retail Upper Level Office/employee housing Status Permitted Permitted Permitted -6- F. TRAFFIC, PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN project is loca�ed 1/2 blocx from the pedestrain mall uno 2 blocxs from the Huby Park Transit Center. Given this location ihe commercial core, there should be little if any increase in vehicular traffic on aace n t streets resulting from an increase of just 1571 gross square feet of commercial development. �he �ro�ect '.zll contsin a bencr and a bike rack to enc -------------- bi The entire plaza will be snowmelted to eliminate snow build up. The applicant will provide a cash -in -lieu payment for the required parking spaces subject to special review. The informatio� cf Lhis located in Section VI of this proposal. G. EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROPOSAL As shown on Table 1, the applicants request is for GMQS allotment of 1571 square feet. All of this allotment would be used as office space on the upper level generating 3.9 employees for each 1000 o+ net ".easable square footage. The upper level is 71.6% efficient leading to a increase in net leasable square footage of .716 times 1571 or 1125 square feet. This increase generates 1.125 times 3.9 or 4.3875 employees. -7- �he applicants propose to provide housing for 3.34 (76%) _-- employees througM a combination of an on site deed restricted emp1oyee unit and paymentofa housingoeoication fee. Specifically, the project contains one deed restricted studio apartment on the second level. According to the Aspen/Pit--..in County HousIng Authority 1988 Employee Housing Guidelines, this apartment satisfies the housing needs of 1.25 employees. The applicants propose to pay a housing dedication fee to �ffset Ie cost of housing the remaining 2.09 employees. The exact amount oF this fee is to be determzned in cooperation with Housing Authority and is subject to all applicable guidelines. The applicant would like to point ouz that they are providing ` an on site employee unit without requesting an F. A. R. +Ioor- H. FIREPLACES/WOODSTOVES There are no fireplaces or woodstoves planned for the project. I. LOCATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES The addition of such a small amount of commercial space should have an insignificant impact on the use of public f�cilities. Table 4 shows the re1ationship between the project and the pertinent public facilities. -8- i7Q�E � isrance �� Publzc acilities Pedestrzan Mall Wagner Park Fire Station City Hall �ourrhouse �ost Office Cab Stand Ruby Park Gondola J. LOCATION OF RETAIL AND SERVICE OUTLETS 1/2 block � 1/2 blocks 1 1/2 blocks 1 b1ock 2 blocks 4 blocks 1/2 block 2 blocks 2 blocks This section is not applicable to commerczal GMQS proposals. K. IMPACT ON ADJACENT LAND USES Since the applicants proposed project and all the neighboring projects contain uses consistent with the CC zone, there should be no adverse effect on the adjacent uses. In fact, since the proposed project is an in fill project, there should be an enhancement of the surrounding neighborhood. _9_ L. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE �he basement and plaza 1evels are present1y under -- construction They should be completed by November 1, 1988. 'he upper level will start construction in April of 1989 and should be comp1eted by July .1. 1989. It is important to note that both schedules try to avoid construction during e heaviest tourist seasons. -10- I SECTION IV This section contazns drawings which graphically explain the applicant's proposal. -11- i _ r iu r Q' c 'Courthouse = a Main �""""" . .. ...�.... ....s.... . .� Honk i�is I i i Hyma .. • Coop r • Pedestrian Mail Rub•~ a Park • 1 ' LP! CL• _Durant "`�� • �r • ��• • �.�• �i.......__� • - ' N LOCATION/ZONING 1111l111�71 CorridorMechanical Storage Storage 10 ad 0 5 10 20 BASEMENT PLAN N PLAZA LEVEL PLAN N 0 5 10 20 0 5 10 20 UPPER LEVEL PLAN N �� ") Sandstone Base MASON & MORSE 516 EAST HYMAN PITKIN CENTER 0 5 10 zo HYMAN AVENUE m R��ilrlinr. in C.�. rem.. r..��nrl 0 to 20 WEST m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m r m Building in Foreground n. 10 _20 EAST. m m m m m m m m m m m m —Concrete Block--• Service Yard PITKIN CENTER 516 EAST HYMAN "V ASON & MORSE -0 5 10 20 ALLEY MASON & MORSE 516 EAST HYMAN PITKI N CENTER N STREETSCAPE PLAN 0- i c9 ` C C C o*Courthouse 0- Main • • • ' ........rr. • �` • Hopkins Hyman J, i Cooper Wagner Park Firehouse Pedestrian _ Mail Rubey Park -Durant • i "City Hall s Pedestrian -� Traffic � r fill I M11% I III I lilt k I k 1111111111 it it ...Bus Routes i� i i N CIRCULATION 1 I SECTION V V.. !:_�EVIBW In accordance with the genera1 appiication requirements, the �ollowing section explhow the proposed development conforms to the specific criteria created for review of a commercial GMQS allotment application. 1. Quality of Design A. Architecture The architectural design of the project had the fol1owing items as principal goals: 1. To incorporate historic elements and building materials in a contemporary design. 2. To have that contemporary design be compatible with its neighbors and the historic district. 3. ro give enough individual identity and elegance to a building which is not as large as most of its neighbors. 4. To provide a plaza area which connects Pitkin Center and a redeveloped Mason and Morse entry. The result of these objectives is the design shown on schematic floor plans and elevations contained in Section IV of this proposal. The building is rectangular in shape rising to a height of 35'8" well under the 40'0" maximum neight permitted in the CC zone. The J0'0" wide facade on -12- Hyman Avenue with �ts symmetrzion and pediment reinforce the project's ties to t�e hisroric district. The center portion of this Hyman Avenue facade is set out a slight distance to enhance the symmetry. The storefront incorporates large panes of glass with wood 'jetailed bulkheads be1ow. [ombineo w1.th the historzcally proportioned glass and wood panel doors the plaza level comp1iments te historical district extremely well. The upper Ievel fenestration is a combination of historically prevalently double hung windows and tall, thin casement windows with transoms. The major building material is brick. However, san�stone will �e very evident as a base, aanding, as lintels, as �etazling, and as parapet caps. Window trims and details will be made of wood and painted. This use of materials is very remiscent of those on the nearby Elk's 8uilding and the Courthouse. We feel the care taken to make this project aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its neighbors and the historical district make this an exceptionally well designed project. Requested Score: 3 points B. Site Design 516 East Hyman is an in fill project. The major site design — objective was �o have our open space create a link between N� a the plaza t Pitkin Center anr d the edesigned plaza at the Mason and Morse building. The exposed aggregate surface will N� be contiguous from Mason and Morse to Pitkin Center. This surface will be scored in a contiguous pattern so that the ~~ plaza will seem to flow from one buzlding to the next, whzle N� still being just the foreground for three distinct buildings. The net effect clf this will be a half block- 1ong pjedestrian -'--- N� il torher ne walk, carry on casual conversation or window -J- -i cap The entire plaza will be snowmelted to m� eliminate snow storage problems and ensure year round use. Prior to demolition, there was an open space area o+ N� approxi 3% t t'e. Under Section 9-103 of the _ f'» Aspen Lanc�lJse Code, the applicant was not required to ~~ provide any more space than previously existed on the property. However, in a effort to enhance the pedestrian experience, a building location of slightly ahead of Mason N� and Morse but behind Pitkin Center was decided upon. This ^ location yields 15% open space. Planting will consist of specimen size trees and flowers in tree grates on Hyman Avenue. A bench is provided along Hyman N� Avenue. A bike rack will also be provided. We feel ts t�e s�l ��ree buil�ings �ogether into one p1aza area and prov�oe significantly more open space than previously existed enhances the ei-ttire neighborhood and is an exceptiona1 scheme. Requested Score: 3 points C. Energy Conservation �16 E. Hyman �as only 325 square �eet of glass for 6756.6 square feet of heated space. The glass area o fIoor area ratio is only 4.8%. In addition, 77% (250 of 325square feet> uf the glass area faces south. The low g�ass area combined with the insulating prop�rties of R-19 �alls and R-30 roofs snould make for an extremely energy efficient building. The mechanical system will be fired by a 96% efficient gas boiler. Hot water will be delivered to each space and then distributed by fan coil units. This is the most efficient heating system for this type of structure. -15- The sma1l glass area, higher than required insu1ation, the efficzent heating system and the lack of wood burning devices will lead to an exceptionally energy efficient building. Requested Score: 3 points D. Amenities Every at�emp� has been made to make T_-his project an asset to the neighborhood, the historic district, and the entire town. As a result, the following amenities were provided: 1) A small scale, half block long pedestrian plaza from Mason and Morse to Pitken Center 2) A bench 3> A bike rack 4) Snowmelted plaza Requested Score: 3 points E. Visual Impact Considerable effort has �een made to insure 516 E. Hyman integrated 11-Ito its surroundings. The use of brick with a sandstone base and sandstone banding is reminiscent of the -16- Elk's Building and the Courchouse. A paraper will screen the mechanical equipment from s�reet l�ve1. The building does not project into any view planes and in fact is lower than permitted in the CC zone. We feel the low height and exceptional brick and stone detazling warrant special recognition. Requested Score: 3 points F. Service Yard The service yard at 516 East Hyman is located in the alley completely screened from public view. Each tenant has direct accet to the rear exit which leads directly to the service yard. The Aspen Land Use Code requires a 200 square foot service yard for buildings containing up "Co 6000 square f leasable area. The applicants project will contai square feet of net leasable area and have a 300 square fo -~- service yard. This service yard is easily large enough to not only handle the expected trash generated by the project but also provides room for the utility meters. In addition, there is room for either a s or one oversized dLIMP ster which could be used by others in an effort to remove I Owa / �ome of the dumpsters whzch presenr1y encroach into the alley. �inally, the applicant wishnoa es to poit out that thisra tsh area will be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Direct alley access, extra dumpster area and fire protection all combine to make for an exceptionally well thought out service yard. Requested Score: � points 2. Availability of Public Facilities and Services A. Water/Fire Protection As previously stated, the existing service in Hyman Avenue has enough capacity to serve the project. No upgrade will be required. The proximity to the fire house and �he installation of the automatic sprinkler system throughout the project make this �:-,uilding an exceptionally low fire risk. It should be noted that this fire sprinkler system is only required in the basement and is being provided in the rest of the project, including the service yard as an extra measure of safety to the neighborhood. Requested Score: 2 points -18- B. Sanitary Sewer �he existing zreacment �lanc �i1l be ab1e to nandle the small increased loads generated by the project. The collection system' however, will requzre --Tlinor upgrading. Tom Brasewell of the Sanitation District has stateo, that this upgrading is a system wide problem and not unique to this individual project. The applicants are willing to contribute their share of the antzced upgr�dzng. Requested Score: 1 point C. Public Transportaion /Roads The project c3.n be served by the existing roadway system. No safety hazards will be created and no traffic patterns will be altered. Service to the project can easzly be accomplished from the alley and all tenant spaces will direct access to the rear entry. The Ruby Park Transit Center is only 2 blocks away, meaning public transit users from Mountain Valley to El Jebel will have convenient access. Requested Score: 1 point -19- D. Storm Drainage �lie- construction at 516 E. Hyman will greatly upgrade the drainage patterns that historically exist�d on the property for the following reasons- 1. The pitched roofs which shed water onto adjoining properties to the east and west have been removed. 2. Site drainage onto Hyman has been eliminated by the addition of site drain in the plaza. 3. Site drainage to the alley has been eliminated by the addition of a roof over the service yard. 4. A drywell has been added to collect and disperse, under the applicants property, water which lands in the plaza or on the flat roofs. Requested Score: 2 points E. Parking The off street parking requirement for the project breaks down as follows: Deed restricted employee unit by special review �=7| 1125 gain in net leasable space 2 spaces Unfortunately, the dimensional constraints of the applicants property does not allow for parking on site. The applicant, -20- therefore, will request to satisfy this requirement by providing a cash -in -lieu payment. This payment may be used to offse� the cost of recent1y approved municipal parking garage. The detailed speczal review requirements appear in Section VI of this proposal. Requested 3core: 1 point 3. Employee Housing As stated in section 3 of this proposal, the applicants propose to provide employee housing for 76% of the new employees generated by a combination of an on site unit and cash -in --- iieu funds. Requested Score: 12 points 4. Bonus Points The applicants feel they are proposing an exceptional project which is deserving of additional bonus points. The particular areas worthy of recognition are: 1. The strong ties to the historic dzstrict in the architecture. -21- 2. The creation of the pedestrian plaza on Hyman Avenue. J. The o;ersized service yard provided in an attempt to alleviate the existing "alley clutter". 4. The improved storm drainage in the area. 5. The improved fire safety in the area because of the fire sprinkler system. 6. The providing of an on sits -deed restricted employee ilousing unit with ourequestingfloor area bonus. Th0se items were explained in Section 1II of this proposal. -22- 1 I SECTION VI VI 13PECIAL REVIEWS A. Introduction ;n addition to the SMQS allotment request, there are a series of special reviews requested for the project. The following section detazls those request and addresses the criteria for evaluating them. B. Parking 1. Description of Request N� The applicants request that the parking requirement for the deed restricted studio apartment be set at zero. 0� Additionally, given the dimensional constraints of the applicants property, they request to satisfy their off street parking requiremenby providing a cash-1n-lieu payment. 2. Discussion The applicants request set the parking requirement at zero is based on the historical precedent that has been long N� established in the CC zonethirty. None of the approximately deed restricted employee units in the CC zone has access to _ -_-__---__-_----_--___-' _ it a parki In addition, for the reasons presented -/ below, the dimensional constraints of the site preclude on site parking. N� -23- �� The applicants request to satisfy their on site parking requirement by providing a cash -in -lieu payment to the city -- is based on the following two arguments. First, given the N� small site, there is physically not enough land area for useable open space, a service yard, on site parking, and N� still have a marketable ground floor retail space' In this particular case, the inclusion of on site parking would have moved the building south causing a loss of open space. in addition, the service yard would have had to be reduced. On this specific site, the applicants feel the open space and N� service yard provide significant benefits. Finally, providing parking onthis site would lead to potential conflicts between cars and service trucks. The second argument is the anticipated construction of the municipal parking garage. This garage will be located 2 1/2 N� blocks from the project and should adequately serve not only this project the entire commercial core. 3. Neighborhood Analysis There is very little on site parking in the commercial core on developed parcels. The alleys in this area are heavily m� used for service. The addition of a parking garage on the Rio Grande property should free up street parking. -24- 4. Payment If this request is accepted the applicant will provide a cash -in -lieu payment to the city. This payment will be used to satisfy the on site parking requirements for the project This payment will comform to all applicable regulations. C. Historic Preservation The project received unanimous HPC final approval June 14, 1988. -25- F 1 I SECTION VII 1. Description of Request The applicant request a 400 square foot GMQS exemption. This square footage wi1l be used for a moderate income, deed restricted employee unit. There will be just one studio unit on the property and it will conform to all the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 1988 Employee Housing Guidelines. -26- I APPENDIX ATTACHMENr 1 1) Project Name S 1 ii Fast 1-1--man 2) Project Iocation 91 ii -'act i;'man; , of 1 ni f-kin (r,nror S"uriiLlSinn ( indicate street address, lot & block mmiber, legal description on where appropriate) ' 3) Pit Zoning CC 4) lot Size 3010 S.F. S) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Sya .associates, c/o Steve Marcus, ' P.O. Box i709, Aspen, Colorado 81612, 925-7615 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Bill Poss and Associates, 605 Fast 'lain .'aspen, Colorado &f611, ?25-4755 7) Type of Application (please Check all that apply): Conditional Use Donoeptual SPA Ooryoepbual Historic Dev. Special Peview Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline docrpt ual PUD Minar Historic Dev. Stream Mai -gin Final FM Historic Demolition Motmtain . View Plane Subdivision Historic ati on Conti minitanization T xVMap Amendment X CMQS Allotment lot Split,/I t Isne Y GMD_S Emm tion ' Adjustment 8) r cr-iT ;cry of FKdsting Uses (mm ber and type of ex i st-; j stx I; ' apprmamate sq. ft. ; Prey) . n=ber of bedrooms; any Previous approvals granted to the 1 structure containing 2533.4 gross square feet of retail space was demomlised in July 1988. Final IIPC approval was granted in June 1958. ' 9) Description of Development Application G_i0S allotment: 1571 S.F. Commercial ' Special Review: Cash - in - Lieu •of on site parkin; G:10S Exemption: 400 S.F. Enployee 11ousin; 10) Hahne you attached the fallo U4.7 Yam_ Responm to Attachment 2, Minimum &I—ission 03ntents n In Response to Attachment 3, Specific Stynissirn Qontg , ;7 P S Response to Attachment 4, Heview Standards for Your Application 1 SJA Associates c/o Steve Marcus P. O. Box 1709 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Mr. Alan Richman Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 516 East Hyman Dear Alan, In reference to the above referenced project the applicant: SJA Associates c/o Steve Marcus P. O. Box 1709 Aspen, Colorado 81612 925-7615 herebv authorizes: Bill Poss and Associates 605 East Main Street, Suite 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-4755 to act in their behalf in all matters pertaining to the commercial GMQS allotment procedures for 1988. Sincerely, Steve Marcus PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that SJA ASSOCIATES, LTD., are the owner's in fee simple of the following described property: LOT 1, PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION (A LOT SPLIT), as shown on the Plat thereof recorded February 22, 1983 in Plat Book 14 at Page 36. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ENCUMBRANCES: 1. Deed of Trust from : SJA Associates, Ltd. to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin for the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company to secure $475,000.00 dated August 1, 1988 recorded August 1, 1988 in Book 570 at Page 9. Subject to easements, rights -of -way of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PIT N COUN TLE, INC. BY: ,zthori i nature DATED: AUGU , 1988 1 1 1 1 1 1 CIT 13 August 8, 1988 i. PEN eet 611 Kim Weil Bill Poss and Associates 605 E. Main Suite #1 ' Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 516 E. Hyman As you requested, this letter is to verify that water is avail- able and can be provided to the above referenced sight upon payment of the required fees. We also require that the existing service be abandoned at the main. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Jim Markalunas, Director Aspen Water Department JM:ab 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Aspen (Ponsoiidated Sanitation -District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Bill Poss & Associates 605 E. Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn:Kim Weil RE: 516 E. Hyman Building Dear Mr. Weil: Tele. (303) 925-2537 August 23, 1988 The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient capacity at the treatment plant for the additional demand. However, the collection system will need some minor upgrading to accomodate the relatively minor additional demand. It is the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's understanding that the owners at this project are willing to contribute their share of the anticipated upgrading. Sincerely Bruce Matherly District Manager BM/ld RECEIVED AUG 2 11988 I;ILI Pp;>S AND ASSOCIATES Egg - 0- V-4, R-A. e 1117J.4 , M. 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5532 TO: Kim Weil v „% 1+ FROM: Peter Wirth RE: 516 E. Hyman Project DATE: august 16, 1988 In regards to your second floor project at 516 E. Hyman I see no problem in providing fire fighting service to the project. The location is approximately 2 blocks from the fire station and our response time averages 3 minutes to the site 24 hours a day. I also understand that the second floor of ,your project is to be fulls- sprinklered. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. PLAZA LEVEL PLAN N 0 5 10 20 • 0 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/7/88 DATE COMPLETE: qk-L ,kc3s� PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-182-13-004 48A-88 STAFF MEMBER: C-� PROJECT NAME: 516 E. Hyman Avenue Commercial GMP & GMQS Exemption Project Address: 516 E. Hyman Avenue Legal Address: Block 94, Lot O APPLICANT: SJA Associates c/o Steve Marcus Applicant Address: P. O. Box 1709 Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Weil, Bill Poss & Associates Representative Address/Phone: 605 E. Main Street %25-4755 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $2,090.00 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date °�� PUBLIC HEARING YE 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: --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS: L/City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District _k_,�City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas i Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) pen Water _ V re Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Roaring Fork Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other �r _Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. DATE REFERRED: 7 /2 (,, / Fe INITIALS: _ FINAL ROUTING: City Atty Housing FILE STATUS AND DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Engineer Zoning Env. Health _ Other: LOCATION: J RE: 516 EAST SUBMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE HYMAN AVENUE COMMERCIAL GMP CONCEPTUAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Second Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to consider and score an application submitted by Bill Poss & Associates on behalf of SJA Associates requesting a 1571 square foot GMQS Allotment, in order to construct a second floor on the building at 516 East Hyman Avenue, Block 94, Lot O. The applicant also requests Special Review Approval to reduce Off- street Parking Requirements and a GMQS Exemption for an on -site 400 square foot moderate income, deed restricted employee unit. The property is in the Commercial Core Zone District. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 920- 5090. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on October 27, 1988. City of Aspen Account MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer v 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office N,4z` RE: 516 East Hyman GMQS Allotment and GMQS Exemption (for an employee unit) DATE: February 13, 1989 SUMMARY: On November 22, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the Commercial Growth Management allotment request by 516 East Hyman. The Planning Commission scored the project above the minimum threshold of 26. The project's score was 32.5. In addition, the Planning Commission approved two Special Review requests to waive the Employee Dwelling Unit parking space and to pay cash -in _-lieu for the required commercial parking spaces created by the project. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Growth Management allotment for 1,571 square feet of commercial space and a GMQS Exemption for one 400 square foot employee unit. APPLICANT: SJA Associates APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Weil, Bill Poss & Associates LOCATION: 516 East Hyman Avenue; Lot 1 Pitkin Center Subdivision (See Attachment 1, Location Map.) ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting an additional 1,571 square feet (1,125 sq. ft. of net leasable space) of commercial space to be constructed as a second level to an existing structure. The previous structure was demolished in July of this year and was reconstructed with replacement square footage. The replacement square footage as well as the current proposal were both reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. (We have requested that the applicants bring a model of the proposal to the meeting.) The following is a breakdown of the square footage of the proposed structure: Replacement sq. ft. 2,533.4 square feet Proposed additional commercial sq. ft. 1,571.0 square feet Proposed employee unit sq. ft. 400.0 square feet Total Building Square Footage: 4,504.4 square feet The Commercial Core allows a 1.5:1 FAR. The site is 3,101 square feet which means the total building size of 4,504.4 is almost exactly what is allowed on the site. The proposed height of the building is 3518" which is 412" under the 40' height limit in the Commercial Core zone district. The proposed open space on site is 15%. This is less than the required 25% in the Commercial Core zone district. However, since a portion of the structure is a replacement structure which only had (3%) open space, the applicants are actually increasing the open space on site by 12%. The Code does not require this application to provide the required 25% open space since the new proposal does not increase the degree of non -conformity (less open space) of the previous structure. The proposal is to utilize the basement for storage (to be used solely by tenants on the site) the first floor is proposed to be utilized as retail space and the- second floor will_ be_.off� space with the exception of 400 square feet to be used as an emp-loyee unit. In addition to the request for commercial square footage, the applicants are requesting an exemption from the Residential Growth Management Quota System in order to construct an on site 400 square foot employee unit (studio). In summary, the application is for the following actions: - GMQS Allotment (1571 square feet of commercial space) GMQS Exemption (400 square foot employee unit) REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral comments have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. The applicant's have agreed to all conditions therefore, we have deleted the lengthy, specific referral comments from this memorandum. STAFF COMMENTS: The following staff comments are divided into 2 sections. These are the GMQS allotment and the GMQS exemption for the employee unit. COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT The proposal is in the CC zone district. There is one other application which is competing for the commercial square footage allotment for the CC and the C-1 zone district. This is 309 East Hopkins, the Berko Building. The combined square footage requests do not exceed the total 1988 available allotment for square footage. At this time, it is the understanding of the Planning Office that the Berko application will be scored at a 2 later date. The 516 East Hyman application was scored by the Planning Commission pursuant to section 8-106.F. of the Land Use Code. In summary, the Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend approval of the Growth Management allotment. After scoring by the Planning Commission the application was found to exceed the threshold in each scoring category with an overall score of 32.5 (threshold 26). GMQS EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR THE 400 SQUARE FOOT STUDIO EMPLOYEE UNIT The applicants are requesting an exemption from the City Council for a 400 square foot employee unit. This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission who recommended approval to the City Council. This request is made pursuant to section 8-104 C.l.c which directs the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the exemption. The applicants propose to construct an on site employee unit in order to supply a portion of the required employee housing commitment associated with their Growth Management application. The applicants are requesting an exemption from the residential Growth Management Quota System since the unit is to be deed restricted as a moderate income rental unit. The Housing Authority is in favor of the unit if the following restrictions are met. 1. The payment -in -lieu for 2.09 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. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site Studio 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. The criteria for exemption states that there must be a need in the community and that the unit is compliance with the Housing Authority guidelines. The Planning Office feels strongly that there is a need in the community for a moderate income unit such as the one which is being proposed. If the above conditions are met, the Planning Office feels that it is appropriate for the City Council to grant a GMQS exemption for the unit. Additionally, the Planning Office would like to commend the applicants for placing an employee unit on this site without requesting the additional square footage allowed by the code. The site is one of the more limited sites in town and the 3 applicants have proven that the addition of an employee unit on site can work without maximizing the site with regard to square footage. Consequently, the project is in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and does not jeopardize the integrity of the historic district. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to grant approval of the Growth Management allotment for 1571 sq. ft. for the 516 East Hyman 1988 Growth Management application. In addition the City Council grants approval of the Growth Management exception for a 400 sq. ft. employee unit on site pursuant to the attached resolution." CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: T Z, CMH ch. 516.2 4 Iu1LMuC6i�161ihi TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: 516 East Hyman GMQS Allotment, Special Review and GMQS Exemption (for an employee unit) DATE: November 22, 1988 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Growth Management approval for 1,571 square feet of commercial space; GMQS Exemption for one 400 square foot employee unit; a special review for a waiver of the parking requirement for the employee unit; and a special review for cash in lieu payment for the other 2 parking spaces required for the additional commercial square footage. APPLICANT: SJA Associates APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Weil, Bill Poss & Associates LOCATION: 516 East Hyman Avenue; Lot 1 Pitkin Center Subdivision (See Attachment 1, Location Map.) ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting an additional 1,571 square feet (1,125 sq. ft. of net leasable space) of commercial space to be constructed as a second level to an existing structure. The previous structure was demolished in July of this year and was reconstructed with replacement square footage. The replacement square footage as well as the current proposal were both reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. (We have requested that the applicants bring a model of the proposal to the meeting.) The following is a breakdown of the square footage of the proposed structure: Replacement sq. ft. 2,533.4 square feet Proposed additional commercial sq. ft. 1,571.0 square feet Proposed employee unit sq. ft. 400.0 square feet Total Building Square Footage: 4,504.4 square feet The Commercial Core allows a 1:1.5 FAR. The site is 3,101 square feet which means the total building size of 4,504.4 is almost exactly what is allowed on the site. The proposed height of the building is 3518" which is 412" under the 40' height limit in the Commercial Core zone district. The proposed open space on site is 15%. This is less than the required 25% in the Commercial Core zone district. However, since a portion of the structure is a replacement structure which only had (3%) open space, the applicants are actually increasing the open space on site by 12%. We are not requiring this application to provide the required 25% open space since the new proposal does not increase the degree of non -conformity (less open space) of the previous structure. The proposal is to utilize the basement for storage (retail and residential); the first floor is proposed to be utilized as retail space and the second floor will be office space with the exception of 400 square feet to be used as an employee unit. In addition to the request for commercial square footage, the applicants are requesting an exemption from the Residential Growth Management Quota System in order to construct an on site 400 square foot employee unit (studio). The applicants are also requesting Special Review in order to waive the requirement for the employee unit parking space and in order to be allowed to make a cash in lieu payment for the required parking spaces associated with the additional commercial space. In summary, the application is for the following actions: GMQS Allotment (1571 square feet of commercial space) GMQS Exemption (400 square foot employee unit) Special Review (waiver of employee unit parking space and cash in lieu for commercial parking spaces) REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. ENGINEERING: Jay Hammond of the Engineering Department made the following comments in his memorandum dated November 8, 1988. (See Attachment 2.) 1. Site Design - The design is generally excellent. However, the proposed bench should be moved onto private property, the bike rack should not interfere with the 8 foot sidewalk and the trees and plantings should conform to the CCLC Streetscape Guidelines. 2. Storm Drainage - The dry well design raises the possibility of aggravating groundwater conditions on and off site. 3. Parking/Special Review - The cash in lieu payment is acceptable. Mr. Hammond notes a fractional payment whereas the Planning Office has traditionally rounded off the spaces to the nearest actual number of spaces. Therefore, an addition of 1,125 square feet of net leasable area equals to 2 spaces. (See Section 5-301(E).) wo s 4. Bonus Points - The Engineering Department feels that the exceptional design of the service area deserves a bonus point. The Engineering Department also offers suggested scoring for the engineering related issues. These recommendations appear in Attachment 2. 2. HOUSING AUTHORITY: In a memorandum dated October 20,1988, the Housing Authority made the following recommendation (See Attachment 3): 1. The payment -in -lieu for 2.09 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. A deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority shall be recorded for the on site Studio 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. 3. WATER DEPARTMENT: In a note from Jim Markalunas of the Water Department he mentions that the existing service lines should be abandoned at the main. Service is available to the site. The applicants propose a 4" connection line and the abandonment of the existing service line. (See Attachment 4.) 4. ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT: In a memorandum dated November 2, 1988 from Don Gilbert of the Electric Department, it is noted that there is no mention of electric service to the site. At the time service is required the applicants must submit plans to the Electric Department. Any upgrading of services required to service the project will be at the applicants expense. (See Attachment 5.) 5. ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT: In a letter dated August 23, 1988, Bruce Matherly of the sanitation district notes that service is available to the project. However, the system is in need of upgrading in the area. The applicant commits to paying their fair share of this upgrade. (See Attachment 6.) 6. FIRE MARSHALL: In a memorandum dated September 26, 1988, Wayne Vandemark of the Fire District notes that the project is within a 3 minute response time. In addition, the applicants have contributed additional protection for the adjacent buildings by providing a sprinklering system for the entire structure. (See Attachment 7.) 7. HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION: In a memorandum dated November 15, 1988, Roxanne Eflin made the following remarks: 3 "On February 9, 1988, HPC reviewed the project at 516 E. Hyman, granting Demolition and Conceptual Development approval to both Phase 1 and Phase 2, with conditions. On June 14, 1988, the applicant returned to HPC for Final Development approval. The Committee granted approval for demolition and final development for Phase 1, and recommended approval of final development for Phase 2, subject to GMP allocation. Staff and the HPC found the general development application consistent with the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. The infill design, setback, fenestration, materials and details were felt to be very compatible with the adjacent structures, and well suited to the site. HPC's only concerns during Final Development review focused on the "plaza" entry in its coordination with the next door Mason and Morse plaza reconstruction. This situation has apparently been addressed satisfactorily. Staff is very pleased with the project. By incorporating historic scale and massing with modern materials, the project presents a good design solution to a challenging, narrow site." (See Attachment 8.) 8. ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER: In a memorandum from Steve Standiford of the Roaring Fork Energy Center dated November 15, 1988, Mr. Standiford makes the following summary: "Overall, this building will use energy efficiently. We would like to see more insulation for the roof. It is also assumed that the basement walls will be insulated to R-19. With these minor changes and attention to construction details to prevent air infiltration problems, this project could match the stated claim of an "extremely" energy efficient building." (See Attachment 9.) STAFF COMMENTS: The following staff comments are divided into 3 sections. These are the GMQS allotment, the GMQS exemption and the special review for parking. COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT The proposal is in the CC zone district. There is one other application which is competing for the commercial square footage allotment for the CC and the C-1 zone district. This is 309 East Hopkins, the Berko Building. The combined square footage requests do not exceed the total 1988 available allotment for square footage. At this time, it is the understanding of the Planning Office that the Berko application will be scored at a later date. 4 W W This application shall be scored pursuant to section 8-106.F. of the Land Use Code. This score shall be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation by the Planning Commission for a Growth Management Allocation. Please refer to the attached score sheet for the Planning Office comments and recommended scoring. (See Attachment 9.) In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the Growth Management allotment. After scoring by the Planning Office, the application was found to exceed the threshold in each scoring category. GMQS EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR THE 400 SQUARE FOOT STUDIO EMPLOYEE UNIT The applicants are requesting a recommendation for exemption from the Planning Commission for a 400 square foot employee unit. This request is made pursuant to section 8-104 C.l.c which directs the Planning Office to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the exemption. The applicants propose to construct an on site employee unit in order to supply a portion of the required employee housing commitment associated with their Growth Management application. The applicants are requesting an exemption from the residential Growth Management Quota System since the unit is to be deed restricted as a moderate income rental unit. The Housing Authority is in favor of the unit if the following restrictions are met. 1. The payment -in -lieu for 2.09 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. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site Studio 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. The criteria for exemption states that there must be a need in the community and that the unit is compliance with the Housing Authority guidelines. The Planning Office feels strongly that there is a need in the community for a moderate income unit such as the one which is being proposed. If the above conditions are met, the Planning Office feels that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend a GMQS exemption for the unit. Additionally, the Planning Office would like to commend the applicants for placing an employee unit on this site without requesting the additional square footage allowed by the code. 9 • The site is one of the more limited sites in town and the applicants have proven that the addition of an employee unit on site can work without maximizing the site with regard to square footage. Consequently, the project is in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and does not jeopardize the integrity of the historic district. SPECIAL REVIEW The applicants are requesting two items under special review. First, they are requesting that the parking space for the employee unit be waived. The code requires one parking space per bedroom. The applicants argue that the addition of a parking space will require that the building be moved forward which is impossible since the first floor of the building has already been constructed. In addition, the building presently offers a rear service area which is superior to most of the designs seen in the commercial core. Ample trash and delivery area for the building are provided. The proposal offers other stores along the alley, in need of additional dumpster space, the opportunity to utilize the extra space provided at 516 East Hyman. The trade off, of having an employee unit on site and having an adequate service area for the commercial portion of the building for less parking is supported by the Planning Office. The second special review request is to allow the commercial parking requirement to be paid through the cash in lieu provision. Section 7-404(B)(1) of the Code gives the City Council the option of allowing cash in lieu in the Commercial Core zone district if the determination is made that it is not practical for the applicant to provide on site, off street parking spaces. The requested net leasable space is 1,125 square feet which requires two parking spaces. The Planning Office supports the proposed method of payment since the Rio Grande parking structure is in the approval process at this time. In addition we feel that given the type of infill design required by this site there was little opportunity, if any, to supply on site parking. In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the growth management allotment of 1,571 square feet. In addition, the Planning Office supports the cash in lieu payment for the required number of parking spaces for the commercial portion of the proposal. The Planning Office feels that it is important to provide a parking space for any residential unit, however, it appears that the requirement of a parking space is impossible given the site and the design of the structure. We have made the determination that the opportunity to have an intown employee unit outweighs the need for the parking space. We feel that the applicants responded to a community need by adding an on site employee unit to the project. Therefore, the Planning Office 31 • supports the waiver of the parking requirement for the employee unit. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the GMQS allocation of 1,571 square feet and that the applicants receive special review approval to pay cash in lieu for the required commercial parking spaces. In addition, we recommend the applicant receive approval for exemption from Growth Management for the employee unit as well as special review approval to waive the required parking space for that unit. We recommend the following conditions as conditions of approval: 1. The applicants shall move the bench onto the site. It shall not be located within the public right-of-way. The site design shall be revised to reflect this change and shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to review by the City Council. 2. The applicants shall provide a storm drainage system which is approved by the City Engineering Department. This system shall be approved in writing by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. 3. The applicants shall commit to allowing the additional dumpster space to be utilized by other occupants of the alley with first priority given to pre-existing structures which do not have the ability to provide on -site dumpster space. 4. The following Housing Authority conditions shall apply: a. The payment -in -lieu for 2.09 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. b. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site Studio 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. 5. The applicants shall be responsible for a cash in lieu payment for 2 parking spaces, to be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. ch.516 rA ►_ ►= l_= 1_ t— F L= L:!:� t= L: I l LLB ,I L _ ` C 0 *Courthouse Main I l U I J M I I I M F I L_.., u u —. • r • V • •ram--rworm. �— • • • • rt m rt H y m a .t Pedestrian • F_Mall w. • Wagner Park I LP , CL Coop r .�5 .!!,, }---� • P Y Rubey Park Durant �� • ...�1��. • ..�..��. •�� • N / LOCATION/ZONING I • attachment 2 NOV 1 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: November 8, 1988 RE: 516 E. Hyman Commercial GMP Attached for your use is a Commercial Growth Management scoring sheet including recommended scores for areas pertinent to Engineering review. The following comments are intended to highlight specific concerns related to the GMP criteria. Site Design - We would generally view the site design as excellent. The proposed bench should be moved onto the private property, any bike rack location should not interfere with the 8 foot sidewalk width and trees or plantings should conform to the CCLC Streetscape Guidelines. Storm Drainage - This criteria continues to create some confusion. It is not necessarily an improvement to put 100% of anticipated storm runoff into an on -site drywell. The design raises the possibility of aggravating groundwater conditions, effecting the building foundation or putting water into adjacent basements. Acknowledge that the historic condition was less than ideal, we would suggest discussing this matter with the applicant and viewing a modified design as a technical clarification. - Parking. We have no trouble with the cash in lieu proposal though we would note that a net increase of 1,125 square feet would request 2.25 parking spaces. - Bonus Points. Engineering would recommend 1 bonus point for the exceptional service area already in place. Special Review We are a little unclear as to the actual number of parking spaces for which the applicant's propose a cash -in -lieu payment (commercial requirement only or commercial and employee unit). We have no particular problem with the cash -in -lieu proposal, however, given the adjacent neighborhood conditions and the pending creation of a parking structure. GMQS Exemption Engineering has no particular concern in exempting the employee unit. JH/co/Memo137.88 Enclosure 1 g-16(o F, CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: SrU E--- DATE: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following, formula: 0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design. 1 -- Indicates a major design flaw. 2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design. 3 -- Indicates an excellent design. Rate the following features accordingly: a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibi of the proposed building (in terms of size, hei ocation and building materials) with existing ne' oring developments. RATING CO MME N T : b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. RATING: 3 C. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar 1 mr orientation, solar energy devices an icient fireplaces and heating and cooling devices iaximize conservation of energy and use of solar ene _ sources. RATING: COMMENT: d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycles ways. RATING: --- COMMENT: Q-�� P,rt e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. COMMENT: f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas. RATING: 3 COMMENT: 7 SUBTOTAL : • 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) . The Commission shall consider each application with respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate each development by assigning points according to the following, formul a: 0 -- Indicates a project which requires the provision of new services at increased public expense. 1 -- Indicates a project which may be handled by existing level of service in the area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits the project only and not the area in the general. 2 -- Indicates a project which in and of itself improves the quality of service in a given area. (In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous evaluation of two services [i.e., water supply and fire protec- tion] the determination of points shall be made by averaging the scores for each feature. 3. WATER SUPPLY/FIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provides services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities. RATING: COMMENT: 17�I r b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading. COMMENT: 3 RATING: I c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the project to be served by existing City and County bus routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. j RATING: COMMENT • d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the proposed development without system extension. RATING: I COMMENT: NQQ � �� t1b� `�evt� 0-r1- CAM . Q A iv'� % s 9 i I I V` iS T� ( (_&3 b ZZ 4 IMP Gk, e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and safety. COMMENT • CQl � \ "_ �'W RATING: I SUBTOTAL: 3. PROVISION OF EMPL Th�--Commis- sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to px-vide low, moderate and middle income housing which complie ith the housing size, type, income and occupancy guideline of the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24 1.10. Points shall be assigned according to the following s edule: 0 to 40% of the additional empl ees generated by the project are provided with housin 1 point for each 4% ho.r ed 41 to 100% of the a' itional employees generated by the project are provide' with housing: 1 point fgr' each 12% housed RATING: COMMENT: 4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 200 of the points awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition, award additional points. Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENT: ��, �• 5 5. TOTAL POINTS Points in Category 1: Points in Category 2: Points in Category 3: SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate- gories 1, 2, & 3 Points in Catego 4 TOTAL POINTS: Name of Plan yrfng and Zoning Member: 0 ( minimum of 5.4 poi needed to remain eligib (minimum o points needed to remain igible) (m' mum of 8.75 points needed remain eligible) (minimum of 25.8 points needed to be eligible) *Attachment 3 0 MEMORANDUM TO: CINDY HOUBEN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JAMES L. ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1988 RE: 516 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATION APPLICATION: The application submitted by Bill Poss and Associates on behalf of the SJA Associates and is requesting GMQS Allotment, Special Review Approval to reduce off-street Parking Requirements and GMQS Exemption for a 400 sq. ft. moderate income, deed restricted employee dwelling unit. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is located at 516 East Hyman Avenue. The property is in the CC Zone and was the past location of Cheap Shots. The applicant proposes to construct a building, two stories above grade and a full basement. The uses within the building will be retail, office and employee housing. The basement will be used for tenant storage and mechanical space. The plaza level will be retail space, and the upper level will be used for office space and an employee housing unit (refer to attachment). EMPLOYEE HOUSING: The applicant is requesting a GMQS Allotment of 1571 sq. ft. All of this allotment would be used as office space on the upper level. According to the Employee Guidelines this would generate 3.9 employees for 1000 sq. ft. of net leasable square footage. The applicant states that the net leasable square footage is 71.6% of the total square footage. Therefore, the employee generation would be 4.3875 employees (1571 x's 71.6%/1000 x's 3.9). The applicant proposes to house 76% of the 4.3875 or 3.34 through a combination of onsite housing and a payment -in -lieu contribution. The onsite housing would be a studio indexed to the Employee Housing Guidelines moderate income category. The application does not state the income category for the payment -in -lieu. In a phone conversation with Kim Weil of Bill Poss and Associates, he stated that the payment -in -lieu contribution would be indexed to the moderate income category of the Employee Housing Guidelines. 0 HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: following conditions: Approve application with the 1. The payment -in -lieu for 2.09 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. That a deed restriction approved by the Housing Authority be recorded for the on site Studio 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. • Attachment 4 t, CIT 13 August 8, 1988 PEN e e t 611 Kim Weil Bill Poss and Associates 605 E. Main Suite #1 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 516 E. Hyman As you requested, this letter is to verify that water is avail- able and can be provided to the above referenced sight upon payment of the required fees. We also require that the existing service be abandoned at the main. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, } Jim Markalunas, Director Aspen Water Department JM:ab • Attachment 5 0 1W,ID1y1e)VIA k,161i1�1 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. �� Cvivb y �ou�Eti/ IJ�gr�rrJ/��. �xo Jul i L�- 6 N r 6& r, I C=L EcT9 rC 51( E H YM ati '�4— 3ci9 1�)4 /--,z. AJO U a 1/ 9 9 s 6f166 E /qw/</ KJ E . �LccTR See viC E s �9oeE ,u� T VC-VT10W6 n / ti T/ft 19/0P),(C 171- d4'-S ):�)R GMQS , 1-7-1(C-- ic�NTs RL)sT 6_4 I�L�'912E r¢Nf9 VIOX090/tuG k &QO 1960 7'p SER o f A 05 T/ Sr- /�?—/%fC/R G�l�l�E�tJSE. TES W/LC /66 06ri-f QM/lU�l� Cl1ffLLft1 / eL/$iU IS S o ►3�t,1TEo Tv �t f Off /'C C , �a� 9-1 h A5 �'_ Attachment 6 .{aspen Consolidated (Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. t303) 925-2537 August 23, 1988 Bill Poss & Associates 605 E. Main St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn:Kim Weil RE: 516 E. Hyman Building Dear Mr. Weil: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient capacity at the treatment plant for the additional demand. However, the collection ■ system will need some minor upgrading to accomodate the relatively minor additional demand. It is the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's understanding that the owners at this project are willing to contribute their share of the anticipated upgrading. 1 Sincerely ' Bruce Matherly District Manager BM/ld RECEIVED AUG 2 ' 1988 F :ILL PO'.S AND ASSOCIATES . - . r.,...vn 0 Attachment 7 is WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2690 TO: Cindy Houben, Planning FROM: Wayne Vandemark(1 RE: 516 E. Hyman Avenue DATE: September 26, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- We have reviewed the application submitted by Bill Poss and Associates. The project is well within a three minute response time. There is an adequate water supply for firefighting in the area. Sprinklering the structure will certainly enhance fire protection for the building and give added fire protection for the building and give added protection to the surrounding structures. sf_P 2 619s8 • Attachment 8 is MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Roxanne Eflin, Planning Office Re: 516 East Hyman Ave. - GMQS scoring Historic Preservation Committee referral comments Date: November 15, 1988 On February 9, 1988, HPC reviewed the project at 516 E. Hyman, granting Demolition and Conceptual Development approval to both Phase 1 and Phase 2, with conditions. On June 14, 1988, the applicant returned to HPC for Final Development approval. The Committee granted approval for demolition and final development for Phase 1, and recommended approval of final development for Phase 2, subject to GMP allocation. Staff and the HPC found the general development application consistent with the Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines. The infill design, setback, fenestration, materials and details were felt to be very compatible with the adjacent structures, and well suited to the site. HPC's only concerns during Final Development review focused on the "plaza" entry in its coordination with the next door Mason and Morse plaza reconstruction. This situation has apparently been addressed satisfactorily. Staff is very pleased with the project. By incorporating historic scale and massing with modern materials, the project presents a good design solution to a challenging, narrow site. memo.cindy.516eh Attachment 9 ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 November 15, 1988 TO: Cindy Houben - Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford - Director RE: Comments on GMQS Application - 516 E. Hyman Ave. Enerav Conservation The level of insulation specified for the walls is very adequate. But, the R-30 recommended for the roof is below the accepted standard of R-38, as stated by Public Service Company and the State of Colorado weatherization programs. By todays energy standards the project could benefit from increasing the roof insulation levels. The small amount of glass will certainly help with the overall energy efficiency of the building. The mechanical system is also a very efficient one but the specified rating of 96% efficiency may be hard to achieve in actual performance and may vary by 5 to 10%. The hydronic heating system will be the most efficient heating system for the building, as the proposal states. Having a high percentage (i.e., 77%) of the glass facing south will provide passive solar heat for the structure at no cost. There is no mention of any thermal mass to store this energy during the day for re -radiation to the space. There is no mention of water conservation in the application and we would recommend that attention is paid to this detail. Overall, this building will use energy efficiently. We would like to see more insulation for the roof. It is also assumed that the basement walls will be insulated to R-19. With these minor changes and attention to construction details to prevent air infiltration problems, this project could match the stated claim of an "extremely" energy efficient building. CITY OF ASPEN COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET PROJECT: 516 East Hyman Avenue DATE: 11/22/88 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the quality of the exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design. 1 -- A major design flaw 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- An excellent design The following features shall be rated accordingly. a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials) with existing neighboring developments. RATING: 3 COMMENTS: The proposed infill design was said by the Historic Preservation Committee to be well suited to the site with regard to set backs, fenestration, materials and detail. All these elements are compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. The scale is appropriate and is less massive with regard to height, than what is allowed in the zone district. The Plannina Office feels this is an excellent design. b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum 3 points) Considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of • 0 circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The proposed landscaping is generally in keeping with the streetscape guidelines. The open space is less than required by code (25%) but more than existed with the previous building (3%). The building meets the zone district standard of 1.5:1 FAR, all utilities will be underground, the service area in the alley provides ample room for trash and service deliveries. The front walks are proposed to be snowmelted. The Planning Office fees this is an acceptable design. C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - (maximum 3 points) Considering the use of passive and/or active construction of the proposed development, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed development's location, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The Roaring Fork Energy Center referral comments note that the proposed installation is adequate but additional insulation is recommended for the roof. This recommendation is based on todays energy standards as reflected by the State of Colorado Weatherization Program and the Public Service Company. The small amount of glass on the structure helps with overall energy efficiency. The 0 0 application does not address water conservation measures. The Planning Office feels that this is an acceptable but standard design. d. AMENITIES - (maximum 3 points) Considering the provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways, benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users of the proposed development. RATING: 2.5 COMMENTS: The extension of the snowmelted Dlaza area from adjacent structures provides wide sidewalk areas for the pedestrian; a bench is provided on the public R.O.W. and a bike rack is provided at the rear of the building. The bike rack appears to encourage the worker and resident of the employee unit to bike but does not offer the general public a place to park their bike outside of the commercial storefront. The Planning Office feels that this is an acceptable design. e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum 3 points) Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic viewplanes. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: The building is not within anv viewDlane and is lower in elevation than surrounding buildings. The structure is also below the height that is allowed in the zone district (3518" vs. 401). The Planning Office feels that this is an acceptable design. f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - (maximum 3 points) 0 0 Considering the extent to which required trash and utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for public utility placement; can be easily accessed, allow trash bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash bins, trash compaction or other unique measures. RATING: 3 COMMENT: The service area in the alley is more than adequate with regard to trash service. The applicants saw a need in the surrounding neighborhood and have provided space for an additional dumpster to be used by another alley resident. The trash area will also be protected by an automatic sprinkler system. This is an excellent design since the service area (alley) is out of the public view. 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10 points) Each Development Application shall be rated on the basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility or service improvements made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire protection) the determination of points shall be made be averaging the scores for each feature. a. WATER SUPPLY/ FIRE PROTECTION: (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's 4 • 0 commitment to install any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed, considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection district to provide services according to established response times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the proposed development. RATING: 2 COMMENT: The proposal can be serviced by the existing water system. The old line will be abandoned and a new 4" service line will be installed at the applicant's expense. The proposal is in close proximity (3 minute response time) to the Fire Department. The applicants have committed to installing a sprinkler system throughout the building. This will benefit the surrounding buildings in case of a fire. This improves the fire safety in the area. b. SANITARY SEWER - (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposal requires upgrading the system of which the applicants have committed to paying their fair share. This will only benefit the proposal since they are only contributing to a percentage of the entire upgrade. 5 C. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - (maximum 2 points) Considering the ability of the proposed development to be served by existing public transit routes. The review shall also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network and consider the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed development. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The proposal can be served by the existing roadways and is within 2 blocks of the Ruby Park Transportation Center. The proposal uses existing roads and services and does not provide benefits to the area. d. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum 2 points) Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the development requires use of the City's drainage system, the review shall consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long- term. RATING: 1 COMMENT: The Engineering Department is concerned that the application proposes 100 % of storm runoff to be handled by an on -site drywell. This may create problems with the groundwater conditions in the area. This issue must be resolved to the Engineering Departments satisfaction. The Planninq Office feels that the resulting design will onlv serve to benefit the site. 0 • 0 e. PARKING - (maximum 2 points) Considering the provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required by Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and convenience and safety. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The applicants have committed to paving a cash in lieu payment for the required commercial spaces but have requested a waiver of the residential parking space for the employee unit. Given the infill type of design, the applicants have generally dealt with the parking situation in an acceptable manner which only benefits the project. 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the provision of housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8-109. Points shall be awarded as follows: Zero (0%) to Sixty (60%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each six (6%) percent housed; Sixty-one (61%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional employees generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each eight (8%) percent housed. The following standard shall be used in calculating the number of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development: Commercial Core 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,000 sq.ft. (CC) and (net leasable), based on review of the Commercial (C-1): City Council's housing designee: Neighborhood 2.30 employees/1,000 sq. ft. Commercial (NC) (net leasable); and Service Commer. Industrial (S/C/I): 7 0 • Office (0): Commercial Lodge (CL) and other: 3.00 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable); 3.50 employees/1,000 sq. ft. (net leasable). If it is determined that the proposed development generates no new employees, it shall be awarded the full fifteen (15) points available within this section. In order to determine the percentage of employees generated by the proposed development who are provided with housing, the Commission shall use the following criteria: Studio: One -bedroom: Two -bedroom: Three -bedroom or larger: Dormitory: 1.25 residents; 1.75 residents; 2.25 residents; 3.00 residents; 1.00 resident per 150 per square feet of unit space. RATING: 12 COMMENT: The applicants have committed to supplying one on site unit (400 square foot studio) and supplying cash in lieu for the remaining 2.09 employees at a moderate income level. This provides (76%) of the employee housing of the proiect. The staff stronaly supports the on -site emplovee unit. 4. BONUS POINTS - (maximum 4 points) Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Secs. 8- 106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of the total points awarded under Sec. 8-106(F)(1) through (3). Any Commission member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that award for the public hearing record. BONUS POINTS: COMMENTS: As a rule the Planning Office never gives bonus 8 0 0 points. 5. TOTAL POINTS SCORING CATEGORIES POINTS: 1. QUALITY OF DESIGN 14.5 2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES & 6. SERVICES 3. PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 12. (LOW, MODERATE & MIDDLE) 4. BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: 32.5 Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office 516.score 9 PZM11.22.88 516 EAST HYMAN COMMERCIAL GNP CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION AND GMP SCORING Cindy made presentation. (Attached in records) Mari: Allowing them to get increased FAR for employee housing -- does it specify a certain percentage of employee housing that they are generating? Cindy: If they did take the additional square footage that is allowed with employee housing, 60% of that additional square footage would have to be dedicated to employee housing. Mari: What I am saying is that they get the same FAR bonus whether they are housing 100% of their generation or 30% of their generation or whatever. Cindy: Right. It is just whether or not they have a unit on site. Welton: It is a ratio of the number of square feet of the employee unit. For every 6 square feet of additional of employee units, you get 4 extra square feet of additional commercial space if you take a bonus. Mari: Whenever we waive, we always seem to waive parking spaces for employee housing. As far as I know, the price the buyer has to pay for the unit is the same with a parking space or without parking. That is not quite right. The price is set by square footage. I think we should discuss this with Housing Authority. Bill Poss: We have no problem with Planning Office recommendations. We need to know how we are going to control the additional trash area which Planning has requested with regard to who uses our trash area. Cindy: The owner of that space can lease it however they prefer. Priority should be given to pre-existing buildings in the area that don't have the ability to put their trash on -site. Bill: We don't plan to lease it. We don't want a problem later on if some change happens in the building as a condition of our getting approval for growth management. Michael: Just add after the word "allowing" put in "unreasonable conditions imposed by the building owner". - we L %101011.41rl we. .14�111 A � In WF.1k!F-.T&,D I DUMUFNE41J., � = N 1►Iti � Y, M_ • V• `1 ICI Project: P&Z VOT914G Welton Jasmine Rover Ramona David Mari Jim Mickey AY . 1. Quality of Design (18 pts) a. Architectural Design — b. Site Design — c. Energy Conserv. — d. Amenities — e. Visual Impact f . Trash & Util . — SUBTOTAL — 2. Avail. of Public Facil. & Services (10 pts) a. Water Supply/Fire Protection b. Sanitary Sewer c. Public Trans/Roads — d. Storm Drainage e. Parking SUBTOTAL — 3. Provision of Afford. Housing (15 pts) a. Low Income b. Moderate Income — c. Middle income SUBTOTAL — SUBTOTAL CATDGCF= — 1-3 4. BONUS POINTS — TOTAL POINTS: — 1-4 i j MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer. Housing Director f 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 than October 26, 1988 so that I have time to the P&Z. Thank you. comments no later prepare a memo for WATER DEPT. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date:9/23/88 Kim Weil Bill Poss & Associates 605 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 516 E. Hyman Avenue Commercial GMP Application Dear Kim, 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: Oo Letter of authorization from owner for Bill Poss & Associates to submit application on his behalf. We have scheduled your application for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November',S, 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, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant PZM11.22.88 MOTION Michael: I make a motion that we adopt the Planning office's recommendation. Welton: We can adopt the Planning office's scoring and we can also approve the other review criteria such as special review, approval to pay cash -in -lieu for the required parking spaces and the applicant receive approval for exemption from Growth Management for the employee unit as well as special review for approval to waive the required parking space for that unit and that the conditions be as listed in the Planning Office memo dated November 22, 1988 1 and 2 being the same, 3 being modified as per Michael's suggested change and #6 to read: The applicant shall install the additional insulation in the roof and basement insulation shall be R-19 both as indicated in RFEC memo dated November 15, 1988. Michael so moved. Roger seconded the motion. Bill: The basement is already installed. It is already there. We have insulation all the way down to the footings as the Building Department requested that we do. It is 2" of rigid insulation. Roger: OK. And also I will be willing to modify that condition because you are surrounded by buildings on both sides so you have the insulation of other buildings. Then --applicant shall install the additional insulation in the roof as indicated in RFEC memo daed November 15, 1988. Michael modified his second. All -voted -in favor of the motion 2ZS� Z j;i fir. Ao p k--r n q�G!1 � Q--s 15 71 3 o 23? 06 lue -�- 44-,— r