HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.700 E Hyman Ave.30A-86
,.,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
<'131-1&]-11- oC0
CASE'NO. ':30~'?(."
STAFF: ,"')
rJ Gm P
DATE RECElVED: f-"l;("
DATE RECElVED COMPLETE:
(j/ 'i1,HI(. <{
APPL lCANT:
Applicant Address/p one: S
REPRESENTA'l'lVE: Sl/A/(~ UaI'/)/VL
Representative Addres#/Phone: J1xJ'I- 'iJi.fy,)
Type of Appli cation:
1. GMP/Subdivision/PUD
(')
c;z.S-C,<jJ n
1. Concept ual Su bmi ssion
2. preliminary plat
3. Final Plat
20
12
6
E~
, U .00
820.00
II. Subdivision/PUD
III. All ''Two Step" Applications
11
$1, 900.00
1,220.00
820.00
$1, 490 .00
1. Conce pt ual Submi ssion
2. preliminary Plat
3. Final plat
14
9
6
IV. All "One Step" Appl ications
5
$ 680 .00
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Offic~
(
1.
Minor Applications
2
$
50.00
125-~
2. Major Applications
Referral Fees-
Engineering
Minor Applications 80.00
Major Applications , l2(lO~ ' .
~"""C""__~;L~J1)I[jl~&~';!!tW"".."""._"._.__.._."".._---r~
<9 CC MEETING DATE: ~ PUBLIC-~l~::" ~ NO
DATE REFERRE=D=:=~1J!!I2!!!:!!!-=0 IN IT IAL_S_:_~
==============================~ ===========~=====-~==================
REFERRALS:
5
C~~
..>
/ Aspen Conso!. S.D. School District
Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks Dept. _ StateHwy Dept (Glenwd)
--r- Holy Cross Electric _ State!lwy Dept (GLJtnl
-L- Fire Marshall -f- Bldg: Z5Ini!lg/Inspectn
Fire Chief \I Other: J(ff'A-
Roaring Fork Transit ~ Roaring Fork Energy Center
;~:~~=;~~;~:~:================~~;~=;~~;~~:=~:~=:~~:=~:;;~~~=
i
I
Ci ty Atty
City Engineer
!lousi ng Di r-
Aspen ~Iater
City Electric
EnviL !11th.
City Atty
City Engineer
Bui! di ng Dept.
Other:
,;~ "O-t,
Oth er:
...- CASE DISPOSITION: "7 ('; 1) f: hY"IJ'''' C",!!",,,,,,
Revi8'~cd by: Q~spen Pl:<V
~--
r. (.;1)
v
Ci ty Counci!
c~). .J,,!!,'!}! -tj, i1v~,-9LliA";', ,ir.-/ Ln.:r;, C1Yffl"l,r" :;.....014. }i1U(,
+I "tYr-Nh ('11V1M,HC') e, ,-(J'{'i-,L;;' a/ J y, b r~"'.t, ~ ,n-~i::. -11- t/t'J.:)~..I / ;; T If
,
r',;j;" {.1fl~t<J"j4 ~ pt''''!J t."kl ;.r.;j~:;J ),-,;~,j.
F..ev i e\.lC (~
n.,.
--J.' -
;~Sp'2 n
P&Z
Ci ty COl.!ncil
#"""
......'~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE:
1986 Commercial GMP Competition in the Office Zone
DATE:
september 11, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review are the planning Office
recommended points allocations for the two applications submitted
on August 1st for the Commercial GMP competition in the Office
Zone Di stri ct.
QUOTA AVAILABLE AND REQUESTED: By Resolution 29, Series of 1985,
Ci ty Council eliminated the quota for commercial development in
the Office Zone unallocated from previous year-s and set the 1986
quota for 4,000 square feet. Quota allotment requested for this
competition is as follows:
l. Wesson 2,487 sq. ft.
~Qc9D
2. 700 E. Hyman 7 ;461) sq. ft.
~ \ 'iji
Total Quota Requested 9,9.f7 sq. ft.
DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND ANCILLARY REVIEWS:
WESSON: The proposed building at 605 W. Main Street would house
a dentist's office, a one-bedroom free market unit for Dr. Wesson
and a one-bedroom employee unit. A cash-in-lieu payment of
$16,625 would also be provided for employee housing.
According to the interpretation of Section 24-3.4 made by the
Ci ty Attorney and Planning Director, the free market unit can be
built within the area and bulk requirements of this zone and
wi thout the need to receive a GMP residential allotment, since
this is a vacant lot.
Ancillary reviews in this application include:
a. Employee Housing GMP exemption to deed-restrict one
unit to moderate income and cash-in-l-ieu payment for
housing of 1.75 moderate income employees.
b. Special review for a reduction in required parking from
9.5 (or ten) on-site spaces to seven spaces for the
whol e pr oj ect.
,tI"h"
'-"
c. Special review for bonus F.A.R. to achieve a .9:1
F.A.R. consisting of .74:1 F.A.R. for commercial and
free market residential space and .16:1 F.A.R. for
employee housing space.
I!
700 E. HYMAN: The proposed building on the northeast corner of.
Hyman and Spring Streets ~Iould contain three floors of office
space and an undetermined number of tenant spaces, to depend upon
market demand. parking would be provided at grade in an unwalled
portion of the building off the alley. Four two-bedroom units at
Park place Condominiums would be deed-restricted as part of this
proj ect.
. ,
The one ancillary review in this application is:
a. Special review for a reduction in required parking from
27 on-site spaces to 25 spaces.
l
The Planning Office requests the Planning Commission to make an
interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the external floor
area calculation concerning the proposed covered parking area in
the 700 E. Hyman project. Approximately 5,640 square feet would
be devoted to at-grade unwalled parking in this project.
Section 24-3.7(e) (1) states in part that "the calculation of
floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall include. ..any
area under a horizontal projection of a roof or balcony even
though those areas are not surrounded by exterior walls, when
such areas are necessary for the function of the building." The
Building Department and Planning Office interpretation, explained
in the October 13, 19B3 letter from Planning Director Sunny Vann
to Wilson Good regarding the Applejack (attached), has been that
covered parking above grade be counted as F.A.R. finding it to
meet this definition since the office zone district requires
parking to be provided, making it necessary to the function of
the building. We note that the parking area of 700 E. Hyman also
is the service access to the building.
Section 24-3.7 (e) (3) states in part: "For the purpose of calcula-
ting floor area ratio and allowable floor area, parking and those
subgrade and subbasement areas not in conformance with the
minimum requirements for natural light, ventilation in any zone
district shall not be included in floor area calculations." This
provision would appear to contradict that quoted above, by
stating that parking whether at surface or below is exempt, while
the above language is that since the pal king at grade is under a
proj ection, it should count.
The Board of Adjustment heard an analogous case to this on
November 7, 1983 for an F.A.R. variance concerning the Applejack
in \'ihich parking would be covered by stilt construction of
employee units. The variance was granted based on the following
2
-
-
>,..:,
reasoning:
a. There is a hardship based on the ambiguous language- in
the code about parking being a neces~ary function.
b. There is a practical difficul ty in that the intent of
the L-3 zone district was to encourage renovation
through increasing F.A.R., providing a reasonable
expectation that additional floor area would be built.
A review of the minutes of the case reveals ,that the Board
reviewed the Applejack case as a unique situation in ~Ihich the
intent of the L-3 zone played an important role. It was not
their desire to create a precedent f or other uncove red par kin g
exempt from F. A. R. Reinforcing the Board's finding, they
requested that a letter be written to the Planning Office about
the problem with language. However, no change has been made to
this section.
If the Planning Commission makes the interpretation that the Code
does exempt parking from floor area calculations, it would be
setting the precedent that the Board of Adjustment wanted to
avoid, and we woulu recommend that~Code amendment be initiated to
clarify these ambiguities. If the interpretation is made that
the 700 E. Hyman parking is included in floor area calculations,
then an amendment to this application would be required. We feel
that the P&Z could go ahead and score the application in this
latter case and if the project met the threshold the applicant
would be required to amend the project to bring it into compli-
ance with its F.A.R. limits.
PROCESS: The PI anning Off ice will summarize these proj ects at
your meeting of September 16, 1986, review procedures with you,
and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scoring of
the applications. The applicants will give brief presentations
of their proposals. Public hearings will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of each hearing,
the Commission members will each be asked to score the appli-
cant I s proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by
the number of members voting, will constitute the total points
awarded to each project. A project must score a minimum of 60
percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, and
3 amounting to 25.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the
points available in each category 1, 2, and 3 to be eligible for
a GMP allotment. The minimum points are as follows:
Category 1 = 5.4 points:
Category 2 = 3
points: and
3
~~ -'""
'''"",r'
Category 3 = 8.75 points.
Should an appl ication score below these thresholds it will no
longer be considered for a development allotment and will be
considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an
application over this minimum threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The planning Office has assigned points
to both applications as a r:ecommendation for you to consider.
The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and
objectively score the proposals. The following table is a
summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the
points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached
score sheets, including rationales for the rating.
Availability
of Public Employee
Quality of Facilities Housing Bonus Total
Design of Services Need Points Points
Wesson 11 6 10 0 27
700 E. Hyman 12 5 10 0 27
ANCILLARY REVIEWS: If you concur with our ratings, both appli-
cations meet the minimum threshold for G~iP allotment. Should
proj ects receive identical point totals, the Code in Section 24-
1l.3(a) gives the discretion to Council to "award the allotment
to neither or to the proj ect proposing development at the lesser
floor area ratio or offering more employee or low income hous-
ing."
The Planning Office has the following comments regarding special
reviews associated with each project.
WESSON APPLICATION:
A. Employee Housing GMP Exemption: The applicant requests a
G~IP exemption pursuant to Section 24-ll.2( f) of the ~Iuni-
cipal Code for one on-site employee unit and a cash-in-lieu
payment for moderate income level employee housing. On
September 11, 1986 the Housing Authority recommended
approval of this request. It should be noted that the on-
site unit would be B58 sq. ft., but in accordance ,,,ith City
Housing Guidelines, the rent would be based on the price per
square foot of a 700 sq. ft. unit.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office concurs with the Housing
Authori ty and recommends P&Z to recommend approval of the
4
/"
....,..~'
""lesson's employee housing program subj ect to the following
condi tions:
1.
The on-si te employee unit shall be deed-restricted to
the moderate income housing guidelInes prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the ""lesson
Building. The five conditions listed in Ann Bowman's
memorandum dated September 8, 1985 shall be met and are
summarized below:
.i
a. Deed-restriction to moderate income.
b. Owner shall have the right to lease the units to
qualified employees of his selection.
c. Six month minimum lease.
d. Copies of leases shall be sent to the Housing
Office.
e. Deed-restriction shall be approved and signed by
the Chairman of the Housing Authority prior to
recordation with the County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. The cash-in-lieu payment of $16,625 to provide housing
for 1.25 employees at the moderate income level, as
adjusted to the moderate income payment schedule at the
time of issuance of a building permit, shall be paid
prior to the issuance of a building p::!rmit.
B. Special Review for Reduction Of Parking: The applicant
requests to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces on
the proj ect pursuant to Section 24-4.5 (c) of the Hunicipal
Code from the required 9.5 (or 10) spaces to seven spaces.
The following rationale is provided in the application:
1. There are B to 10 on-street parking spaces adj acent to
the property. on Main and 5th Streets.
2. Parking along Main and 5th Streets is generally easily
available.
3. The property 'is conveniently located for walking,
bicycle. and bus access.
4. Office parking would only be needed between 8:00 A.M.
and 5: 30 P. ~1.
The Planning Office agrees with the appl icant that this
reduction is reasonable given the likely traffic/parking
generation characteristics and the availability of on-street
5
parking adjacent to this property.
residential units will each have one
the dental office will have five
approval of this request, subject to
two residential parking spaces shall
of those tenants.
The two one-bedroom
space in, the rear while
spaces. We recommend
the condi tion that the
be demarked for the use
c. Special Review for Bonus F.A.R.: The applicant requests
approval of a special review f or bonus F. A. R. to add
approximately 968 sq. ft. of bonus F.A.R. for the employee
apartment and employee stairwell. 0.74:1 F.A.R. is used for
the commercial and free market unit space, and 0.16 F.A.R.
is devoted to employee housing.
Section 24-3.5 (a) of the Municipal Code states the
criteria for P&Z's review (attached).
The Planning Office believes that the Wesson Building
proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses and
zoning. Staff comments in the GMP scoring recommendations
pertain to the review criteria of bulk, height, open space,
and visual impact indicates that this appears to be an
acceptable building design. In addition, it appears that
there are adequate services (water, sewer, storm drainage,
etc.) to serve the proposed development.
The requested total F.A.R." is .9:1, while the maximum is the
Office zone district is 1:1. It should be noted that this
F.A. R. bonus pertains only to the square footage requested
and not any additional square footage that would be subject
to another review.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of this
request for 968 sq. ft. bonus F. A. R. for the employee apartment
and employee stain/ell subject to a commitment to landscape the
western edge of the property.
700 E. HYMAN
A. Special Review for Reduction in Parking: The applicant
requests to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces on
the project pursuant to Section 24-4.5(c) of the Municipal
Code from the required 27 spaces to 25 spaces. The appli-
cant provides rationale for this request summarized as
follows:
1. The number of proposed spaces exceeds the minimum
requirement of 1.5 spaces/IOOO sq. ft. that can be
achieved by special revie\i. The proposed ratio is 2.8
spaces/I,OOO sq. ft.
2. Access is provided via the alley ~/hich reduces the
6
"......
'-.-.1'
number of spaces which can be provided without going to
a sub-grade garage. A sub-grade garage is unrealistic
for this project.
3. The property is without convenient walking distance of
the commercial core and Hunter Creek and !1ountain
Valley bus routes.
4. Precedent exists for reducing parking requirements to
1.5 spaces/IOOO s~. ft.
5. No use proposed on the property would result in
abnormally high traffic generation, such as certain
commercial uses permitted in the zone district liould.
The Planning Office notes that the streets surrounding this
proposed proj ect are currently used to their maximum for
parking. A parking survey conducted last spring by this
off ice reveal ed that there is 97% occupancy rate in this
area, while 90% is considered maximum. Therefore, there is
little possibility that on-street parking will help supple-
ment parking supply for this project.
The Engineering Department supported the reduction in
required parking. Given that the request is for a minor
reduction and the convenient location is in relation to the
Commercial Core, the planning Office agrees with the
Engineering Department.
RECOMMENDATION: The planning Office recommends approval of the
requested parking reduction.
ALLOTMENT ISSUES: The total commercial square footage allotments
requested far exceeds the office quota which has 4,000 sq. ft.
per year. Awarding development rights to both projects would
require future year allocation into 19B7 (4,000 sq. ft.) and 19B8
(1,947 sq. ft.). By action of Resolution 29, Series of 1985,
Ci ty Council did not carryover office square footage which was
unallocated last year.
The following table summarizes the 1986 commercial GMP compe-
ti Hon:
CL and other
1986 COMMERCIAL COMPETITION
GMP Requests Quota
14,269 sq. ft. 10,000 sq.ft. *
\ \ "\ '2>1
9,!l47 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft.
6.992 sq. ft. 3.000 sq. ft....
7
Zone Districts
CC & C-l
Office
.. .'-',
Total
31,208 sq. ft.
17,000 sq. ft.
*There have been demolitions and reconstructions in the CC
district over the past year (Brand Building, Hotel Jerome) which
will affect the quota available this year. We are still in the
process of compil ing this information to present to you on
September 30.
The principal arguments that the applicants are likely to make in
favor of granting the allotment are:
1. No proj ect has received an allotment in the prior 4
years of competi tion in thi s zone (1982-85); and
2. There is a market demand for office space.
Our response to these issues is as follows:
1. During the time that we were not granting commercial
development allotments, we were granting substantial
excess lodging allotments. This action was consistent
with our policy to direct our growth quotas to meet
community priorities. To go back and use the unallo-
cated commercial allotments as a justification for
future gro\~th ~Iill mean that both develof-lnent sectors
will be proceeding at an accelerated rate in the coming
years.
"
2. When we debated the Little Nell Lodge allotment
question, we told you' that by accelerating our lodge
growth rate, there would be "interdependent and
cyclical effects on the other sections, as lodge
development leads to ski area and commercial grO\~th,
which influence residential development and so on. As
we compress the rate at which we create new lodge
units, we wonder how we will respond to the secondary
impacts in our other sectors, and where the accelerated
rate will end". For once, we believe that we can tell
you we told you so, without being accused of acting
like "chicken little". While the growth in the Office
zone has little relationship to lodging development
that in the CC/Cl certainly does. If we all.ocate
office space into the future, this would be an addi-
tional growth generator, and symptomatic of the
atti tude of ignor ing the grO\~th quotas.
3. Since the G~lP is a tool to control a market which is
incapable of regulating itself, ~Ie have felt that the
market argument is not to the point. However, in
response to the statement that .there is no office space
available, we have been told of one office in the ABC
8
which recently moved into town due to the affordable ~
rates. 0.,.... """~ "--<- ".-~.J<".~ .<<-'-<., <;~ .- "- ......... <..L.- ~ \
\Jo\v- ~~ ~.~,_ ~ ~- ~ooo cl..., __.._ .~ -,.\l~..,....
Having already given almost 7,000 sq. ft. to the Little
Nell project, and with in excess of 10,000 sq.ft. being
requested in the CC-Cl zone, an allotment of 4,000 sq.
ft. could be allocated this year. This would be on and
not above our 24,000 sq. ft. per year target.
The Planning Office recommends that you allot 4,000 sq. ft. this
year to the competitors, in the order of their finish.
4.
SB.46
9
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:
700 E HYY~N BUILDING
DATE: September 10. 1986
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximtun 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the
follOldng formula:
0 Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a maj or design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the follOldng features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The proposed building will be three stories. have a
height of approximately 26' from existing ground level to the
mean height of the pitched roof as shown in the application
(exceeding the 25' height restriction) and contain 9000 sq. ft.
(Countable FAR .75:1). The sloved roofs. balconies. alass
elevation shaft and dormers make it a unique building in the
commercial and office zones. and not in keeping with any Aspen
archi tectllral motif. While it may be a pleasing modern desi9Il-
in a modern shopping center ghren the...!lJ,tiU ity of southern
~sure glass. highly viRible roQflines and the unwalled covered
parking (at grade). the massing seems out of character in its
~ghborhood.
In staff's opinion. the major design flaws are
1
the above grade parking (which we believe shonld count in F.A.R ,
calculationsl height(which exceeds the 25' limit in the zonel and
the departure the design takes from mountain.architecture.
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: 2
COM~lENT: The building appears to meet minimum setback require-
ments. Open space was calculated to be 13.6% of the site (there
is no requirement in this zonel.
This small on=Qite open space
and part of the adjacent r.o.~l. 's ,muld be intensively land-
~ed to include deciduous trees. shrub. grass and flowering
plants. The. ~nl:ry plaza ''lilLh?-ve a wide op.llllino. providing for.
easy pedestrian circulation and some seating area. Service
access throt~h th~all~ and parking area shQuld be adequate.
All utilities will be underground. The line of trees along the
alley will help screen the building somewhat from the adjacent
rel'identi1'] building. Minimal useable open space is provided.
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COM~lENT: The Roaring Fork Energy Center noted the following
features as operative energY conservation measures: insulation
~ifications in ~~ess of local stgn~~ssive solar energy
features (excepting north facing third ,floor dec~l. water
2
'.
,
conservation commitment. and an energy efficient heating system.
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways. '
RATING: 2
COHNENT: sidewalks on Hyman and Spring Streets Idll be useful
tor pedestrians. The entry plaza will accommodate a little
seating and bicycle racks, although it is mainly for circulation.
Upper story decks are amenities for tenants. but they do not
pLQvide publicly usable op~~pace.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: -----2-
COM1~NT: The propos~~ilding will block some views of Aspen
MQ\.1;J,t".in from Hopkins Str(!~nd tlliL,715 E. Hop!lins A.pt.
Building given its height and bulk. However. tB~ setback upper
floors will reduce this impact as well as allow for good views
from the upper story balconies. No important public vie~ls will
~..-<2bstructed.
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility acce ss areas.
RATING: 2
COHHENT:The 5' x 10' enclosed dumpster area off the all~ and
location of the electric panels meet the acceptance of the
~ineering Department.
SUBTOTAL : 12
2. , AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). 'l11e Commission shall Gonsider each application wi th
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
3
'.
/,
,-"
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o -- Indicates a proj ect 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 proj ect 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 blo services [Le., \qater 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 capaci ty 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 wi thout the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: 2
COM~lliNT: {{gteI' is ftvailable and can be provided from mains in
either Hyman or Spring StLeets. The applicant commits to locate
a new fire hydrant at the southwest corner of t~ property. Both
the Fire Marshall and Water Department stated this hydrant will
-1~~ fire protecti~n the area.
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
s'ewers to dispose of the \qastes of the proposed development
~Iithout system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facili ty upgrading.
RATING: ]
COM~ffiNT: The Sanitation ltiJLtLlct stated this proje~an be
M~.g!Jately served by an ~isting lint~ in the alley and treatmgnt
plant capaci tv.
4
c. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing Ci ty and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major .streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development wi thout
substantially al tering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road neb/ork.
RATING: I
CO~ffiNT: The Engineering Department stated that this project will
not significantly impact adjacent streets. Accessing the
building from the alley will minimize circulati.Qn conflicts. Bus
routes for Mt. Valle~ and Hunter Creek are within I block. while
Rubey Park is 4 blocks awqy.
d. STORM DRl'.INAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facili ties to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed develo~ent without system extension.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: ~e applicant stated that all roof runoff and the
~ority of the project's surface runoff will be retained on-site
through use of drvwells. Engineering De~ent stated this will
maintain or improve the hist~ric drainaae on the site. It is
likely
_ that there will be more run-off from this property
entering the City's storm drainage system after construction of
this building and paved surfaces. however the Engineering
Department states this runoff can be presently handled. The
SlJWl icant' s otter to install 1In additional catch basin was not
l1.C.~ted by the Engineering Department given the adequate nmnber
Qf catch basins at present.
5
,'- ",
"',.,/
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the conunercial 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 wi th respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 0
COM~mNT:The applicant proposes to ~rovide a 25 space paved garage
at grade accessed off the alley. Parking reduction special
review is beins-Iequested to reduce the number of spaces by 2
from office zone standards. ~ne Engineering Devar.tment
atated the number of spaces is adequillle. There is no excess of
on-street parking spaces on either Hyman or Spring sts. based on
recent parking su~vs. Th~~l be some visual impacts as the
~qg~~ID~all~d at gx~ and the applicant's contention that
~i6_area__is exempt from F.A.R. means that the building as
de.,o;;igl1.cd is much bigger tha,n the~..l{. woulc': inoicate. Cat.1'L-.
will~~trude from the overhang into the side set~s. and eight
:>paces are eith!:ir partiallv cpvered or uncover~il in the back.
SUBTOTAL: 6
3. PROVISION OF EloiPLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to vrovide
low, moderate and middle income housing \1hich complies ~I~th the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
proj ect are prov ided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
6
RATING: 10
COMMENT: The ap~licant has committed to deed-restrict four (4)
two-bedroom units at Park Place Condominiums to t~low income
Bousing Guidelines. The Housing Authority recommends approval
of this program that will house 9 of the 22 employees (40%)
generated by the project.
4. BONUS POUlTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commission members may, ,~hen
anyone determines that a project has not only incorporated and
met the substant0e criteria of those sections, but has also
exceeded the provisions of these sections and achieved an
outstanding overall design meri ting recogni tion, award addi tional
points. Any Commission member a~larding bonus points shall
provide a written justification of that award for the public
hearing record.
BONUS POIN'l'S: 0
COI1MENT: ~~_<mniIlg,..Qffi.~r~QQII'1l.'&lldfLnP bonus points.
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in category 1:
12
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in category 2:
5
Points in category 3:
10
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, and 3
27
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 4 0
TOTAL POINTS: 27
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
PI anni1l.9-QffJ ce
C.700
7
)
," ""
)
. .' .
MEMORANDUM
~~@~O\Yl[g IT
SEP - 4 1986 U
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office ~
FR0I4 : Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department ·
DATE: August 28, 1986
RE: 700 E. Hyman Building Commercial GMP
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Engineering Department has the folllowing comments on the
above referenced application:
DRAINAGE
The proposed on-site drywells will maintain or improve the
,
hist'oric drainage of the site by retaining the run-off from the
roof and parking area. The application offers to install an
additional catch basis if this office deems it necessary. We feel
that there is presently an adequate amount of catch basins in this
area.
TRAFFIC
This proj ect Idll not significantly impact the adj acent streets,
Hyman Avenue and Spring Street. Both could easily handle the
traffic that will be generated. Accessing the building from the
alley will minimize the circulation conflicts.
TRASH
.The 5' x 10' dumpster area will adequately house a two cubic yard
dumpster. The proposed building should generate enough trash to
fill the dumpster in two days. A trash truck could easily access
the dumpster area.
SIDEWALKS
The installation of sidewalks along the Hyman Avenue and Spring
Street frontage will enhance the site and allow safe pedestrian
traffic. If any permanent structures are being placed within the
sidewalk right-of-~Iay such as planter boxes, these must have an
approval for an Encroachment License prior 1:0 their construction.
The plans for the sidewalk treatment, lighting and landscaping
has to be approved by CC~C.
UTILITIES
The location of the electrical panels is acceptable.
The applicant has agreed to underground all utilities.
<)
. )
~.j
(" ,
. ~~
,
Page Two
August 28, 1986
700 E. Hyman Building Commercial GMP
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
,
The Engineering Department must be given a detailed construction
schedule which discusses phasing, barricading, truck access,
staging and storage areas.
PARKING
The applicant is requesting Special Review approval pursuant to
Section 24-4.6 of the Municipal Code in order to reduce the
required number of parking spaces from 27 to 25. The Engineering
Department has no problem with this reduction.
,
EE/co/700HymanGMP
J
""'
-- J
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:
700 E HYMAN BUILDING
DATE: september 10. 1986
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:
o 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. ARCHITECTUR!IL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in tenus of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: 1
COM~ffiNT: The proposed building will be three stories. have a
height of approximately 26' from existing ground level to the
i ,-'vnean heioht of the pitched roof as shown in the appl icati on
, \.<I,;\I,.4i"1
, ,~'\\I' ,,\ ( \ \ .
r~1' .,jlexceedl.ng the 25' height restriction) and contain 9000 sq. ft.
(Countable FAR .75:1). The sloped roofs. balconies. glass
elevation shaft and dormerimake it a uni~ building in the
~QIDIDercjal and office zones. and not in keeping with any Asp~
a,rchitec.t.uU'll motif. While it may be a pleasing modern design.-
in a modern shoppi ng center given tillL-qual ity of southern
~posure glass. hic:hly visible rooflines and thennva:ft~ov~r~,
parking (at qrade1'l. the massing seems out of character in its
neighborbQQ!1.
In staff's opinion.
the major des~~~ fl~ are
,,.,; .'.~ I ",,, 1~'(t.
cL.(.,{U 4~1[~ -;,. ";,1 mA /0" ljhn.l(;.:co'
A:l!..i~ 7"1'.,"',1/; I.o'~'.! ,/.-';1 Jfj~jJ
_ ~A";~J tU" ".,,11 I, if"I"") ,.
(G,lq)l....~;..1 ~hd(JliiH~'.Jl, de;!l,.
_ i I. t~ifi'L II) rf iDsL'.i t p~n ~fj.H. ,:( "4 I
1
J
F'"
~
.
'heiahtCwhich exceeds the 25' limit in the zone} and
the departure the design takes from mountain architecture.
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: 2
coMMENT: The building apnears to m~t minimum setback require-
ments. Open space was calculated to be 13.6% of the site (there
. . . h' , h' 11 .
~ no requ~rement 1n t 1S zone,. T ~s sma on-s~te open space
and part of the adjacent r.o.w.'s would be intensively land
::::::.to
include deciduous trees. shrub. grass and flmtering
The entrv plaza will have a wide opening. providing for
easy pedestrian circulation and some seating area. Ser~
~ss through the all~ and parking area should be adequa~e.
All utilities \-lnl be llndereround. The line of trees alone tlliL
alley will help screen the building somewhat from the adjacent
residential Qyilding. Minimal us~e open space is provided.
c. ENERGY _ Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COM~mNT: The Roaring Fork Energv Center noted-tPe followina
features as o~ive energY conservation m~~ures: insulation
specifications in~~c~ss of local standards. passive soler energv
features (excep!JJ19 north facing- third floor deck). water
2
"
,
..-..
-
~
AMENITIES - Considering the prov~s~on of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 2
CO~lliNT: Sidewalks on Hyman and spring Streets will be useful
for ~estrians. The entry plaza will accommodate a little
seating and bicycle racks. althou9h it is mainly for circulation.
Upper story decks are amenities for tenants. but they ~- ~-~
'1>rov'nr~Dl:Icly;,-nsabl'e oppn ~ce.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: 2
COI"lMENT: :!:lLELWoposed building "lill block some vielm of Aspen
Hountain from Hor::>J>i.m! Street and th.e_ll5 E. nOJ?ki ns Apt.
Building giY...en.it.:L.lteight and bulk. However. the sel-ba ck upper
floors will reduce this im~ as well as allow for aood views
from the upper story balconie'S:--Wo ilUl"nt...:mt -pub1ic views 'will
-l5e--Obstruci-4>i'!
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: ---2--
COHMEN'l':The 5' x 10' enclosed dumpster area off the <alley and
location of the electric panels meet the aCQeptance o~he
f.ngineering Department.
SUBTO'l'AL :
J2
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
3
-
,
J
)
......j
ch development by assigning points according to the following
ormula:
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 proj ect which in and of itself improves the
quali ty of service in a given area.
(In those cases where points were given for the simultaneous'
evaluation of two services [Le., 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. Uso, considering the ability of
the appr opri ate fire protecti on di str ict to pr ov ides se rv ices
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING: 2
COMMENT: Water is available and can be provided from mains in---
either Hyman or Spring Streets. The apnlicant commits to locate
p new fire hydrant at the southwest corner of the property. iO~
:3;lIe"''''iiL!'I..d.aIhl'fn~and WCl~L Dcpa;::LllIeuL ..LaL",a LJ,l.. hydrant will)
improve 'fire protecti on 'in' the~
b. sm'lAGC DISPOSAL - considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the ,~astes of the proposed development
~lithout system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENT: The Sanitation Distri~t ~tated this pr~t can he
adequately $rved bv an existing line in the al~ and treatment
plilllt capacity.
4
) , , ;
,,"....".<"
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 wi thout
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: 1
OO~lliNT: The Engineering Department stated that this project will
not significantly impact adjacent streets. Accessing the
building from the alley will minimize circulqtion conflicts. Bus
routes for. Nt. valley and Hunter Creek are ~ithin 1 block. while
Rubey Park is 4 blocks awqy.
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed c1evelopment without system extension.
RATING: 1
COM~lliNT: The al?PU cant stated that all roof rUIlQf.f~dj:]le
majority of the project's surface rtmoff will he retained on-site
through use of drywells. Engineering nepartment stated this will
maintain or i~ove the historic drainage on the ill~. It is
likely
_ that there will be more run off from th~s property
entering the City's storm drainage System ~~Q~~truction of
~ing antLpaved surfaces. however-1he Eng~ring
Department states this runoff can be pr~tly ~llii~~d. The
applicant'~Qffer to install g~q~~j~l catcb~b~sin was n0~
accept~d by the Er.gineeri~~;~-Siven the adequate-Ll~
of catch basins at present.
5
/'"
J
)
,,---,,,,'
PARKING _ considering the prov1S10n 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 surf ace, convenience and
safety.
RATING: ,off )
COMMENT:The ap~licant oroposes to provide a 25 space paved garage
at grade accessed off the alley. parking reduction special
revic"u is being requested to reduce the nllll!her of spaces by 2
fL.9m :ff::e :one standards.
stilte t.._ n nnber of spaces
on-st:eet parking spaces on
The Engineering Department
is adequate. There is no excess of
either Hvman or Spring Sts. based on
~::cent parking sutyeys. There will be some visual impacts as the
9 ::e i= unwalled at grade. and the ap~licant's c9ntention that
th~:iS "eo " e,empt "om F.,.R. meano 'hst the bU'MHn. as
d _igned is much bigger than the F.A.R. would indicate. Cara---
~~from the overhang into the side set~~nd eight
spaces are either patti~llY covered or uncovered in the baCK.
SUBTOTAL: 6
3. PROVISION OF El1PLOYEE HOUSING (maximum 15 points) - The commis-
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to vrovide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies w1th the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the city
of Aspen and '<lith the provisions of Section 24-11.10. points
shall be assigned according to the fol1o~1ing schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided ,~i th housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the addi tional em pI oyces generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
6
J
)
RATING: 10
COMMENT: The applicant has committed to deed-restrict four (4\
two-bedroom units at park Place Condominiums to the low income
The Housing Authority re~ommends ap~roval
::\1::: :::::::n::~t
will house 9 of the 22 employees (40%\
generated_ by the project..
4. BONUS pOINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points'
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - commission members may, when
anyone 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 meri ting recognition, award addi tional
points. Any Commission member awarding bonuS points shall
provide a written justification of that award for the public
hearing record.
BONUS pOINTS: 0
COMMENT: The Planning Office recom~nds no bonQP. points.
6. TOTAL pOINTS
points in category 1:
12
points in category 2:
r..-fi-
...~.
points in category 3:
10
SUBTOTIlli: points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, and 3
,
,
~')
27.
points in Category 4 0
TOTAL pOINTS: ?7
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 25.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Name of planning and zoninl] 11ember: .--Y...lJlJlni.I1g Office
C.700
7
~~.... .._........;........."......".."'............"'..,,~.._......._-_........_.._--.._...--.--.....
~IJ
...)~.
c. Special review for :l~:"'__ ft~1III.. to achieve a .9:1
F.A.R. consisting of .74:1 F.A.R. for commercial and
free market residential space and .16:1 F.A.R. for
employee housing space.
t,; :J;O',Boil:'IWMJl,~: The proposed building on the northeast corner of
3,t'-j'tr' Hyman and Spring Streets would contain three floors of office
,,1'] .f.'I"< space and an undeterJ?ined number of t:nant spaces, ~o depend upon
-h ~;fl( r'(J' market demand. Par hng would be prov1ded at grade 1n an unwalled
ul"J<,ff,'Uportion of the building off the alley. Four two-bedroom units at
_~""S,,1l..;M par~ place Condominiums would be deed-restricted.as part of this
~'1"'"11"" pr oJ ect .
JI...,I..~.~,H
The one ancillary review in this application is:
a. special review for a reduction in required parking from
27 on-site spaces to 25 spaces.
The Planning Office requests the Planning Commission to make an
fA~- interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the'e"te:iiL....e..,,'
,'/icit ,area calculation concerning the proposed covered parking area '-in
J I ~ the 700 E. Hyman project. Approximately S,64tl::'!l'P'''I'e<''.f.&,et would
"" V" be devoted to at.:::grade unwa11ed parking in this proj ect.
tl~lt_iJ~~\o,)II{J -
J Section 24-3.7(e) (1) states in part that "the calculation of
floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall include...any
area under a horizontal projection of a roof or balcony even
though those areas are not surrounded by exterior walls, when
.T\ such areas are necessary for the function of the building." The
;;,zi Building Department and Planning Office interpretation, explained
'1/ rin the October 13, 1983 letter from planning Director Sunny Vann
,to Wilson Good regarding the Applejack (attached), has been that
-1 II' -v ' covered parking above grade be counted as F.A.R. finding it to
\' ~\' meet this definition since the- office zone district requires
, .parking to be provided, making it necessary to the function of
"the building. We note that the parking area of 700 E. Hyman also
is the service accemt to the building.
Section 24-3.7(e)(3) states in part: "For the purpose of calcula-
ting floor area ratio and allowable floor area, parking and those
subgrade and subbasement areas not in conformance with the
minimum requirements for natural light, ventilation in any zone
district shall not be included in floor area calculations." This
provision would appear to contradict that quoted above, by
stating that parking whether at surface or belovl is exempt, while
the above language is that since the parking at grade is under a
projection, it should count.
The Board of Adj ustment heard an analogous case to this on
November 7, 1983 for an F.A.R. variance concerning the Applejack
in which parking would be covered by' stil t construction of
employee units. The variance was granted based on the following
2
~.....~.,..._,....""'''''''.........",..,..''.;....,...~'''''''..''''~,.,.).''''......,........><~,......"...................-.. ....... -
.
'I
~
-""I
,,~ ~
~
!~
_.~,
reasoning:
a.There is a hardship based on the ambiguous language in
the Code about parking being a necessary function.
b. There is a practical difficul ty in that the intent of
the L-3 zone district was to encourage renovation
through increasing F.A.R., providing a reasonable
expectation that additional floor area would be built.
A review of the minutes of the case reveals ,that the Board
, t:t reviewed the Applejack case as a unique situation in which the
;':\~"/'\'1jintent of the-L-3- z.on.e played an important role. It was not
;;1"1 ~:.:;' their desire to create a precedent for other uncovered par king
"" ,n exempt from F. A. R. Reinforcing the Board's finding, they
1,~,-,1 t L requested that a letter be written to the Planning Office about
I ~.;'t,,~'J the problem with language. However, no change has been made to
Ii this section.
11
, If the planning Commission makes the interpretation that the Code
'Ii does exempt parking from floor area calculations, it would be
il <{' '2"")..,. settiW}.,th.e. precedent that_~ROa.rc1-0fMjUs.t1llent,wanted to
'. 1-1'"'lJ~" ~&~id, and we would recommend thatrc>>~ ,i17--.l'leJl~-be,initiated to
" ~"'" '_1~larify these ambiguities. If the interpretation is made that
i u-""~!",'""1~ the 700 E. Hyman parking is included in floor area calculations,
:Iii -;bil;.,11.t then an amendment to this application ~Iould be required. We feel
i.1 ".';"-NJ~ that the P&Z could go ahead and score the application in this
,,',i lo,j,,,f1, latter case 8;nd if the project me~ the thre~hol~ t~e applica~t
'il "/'''+;'''f'',,~f.would be requ~red to amend the proJect to bung ~t ~nto compl~-
'I ance with its F.A.R. limits.
PROGESS: The planning Office will summarize these projects at
your meeting of September 16, 1986, review procedures with you,
and provide a suggested assignment of points for the scor ing of
the applications. 'I'he applicants will give brief presentations
of their proposals. Public hearings will be held to allow
interested citizens to comment. At the close of each hearing,
the Commission members will each be asked to score the appli-
cant I s proposal.
The total number of points awarded by all the members, divided by
the number of members voting, will constitute the total points
a\qarded to each project. A project must score a minimum of 60
percent of the total points available under categories 1, 2, and
3 amounting to 25.8 points, and a minimum of 30 percent of the
points available in each category 1, 2, and 3 to be eligible for
a GMP allotment. The minimum points are as follows:
Category 1 = 5.4 points:
category 2 = 3
points: and
3
...........-.....,.,.,..,.'..,'"
.............
~
~
Category 3 = 8.75 points.
Should an appl ication score 'below these thresholds it will no
longer be considered for a development allotment and will be
considered denied. Bonus points cannot be used to bring an,
application over this minimum threshold.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The planning Office has assigned points
to both applications as a recommendation for you to consider.
The staff met to assess the ratings of the reviewing planner and
objectively score the proposals. The following table is a
summary of the ratings. A more complete explanation of the
points assignment for each criterion is shown on the attached
score sheets, including rationales for the rating.
Availability
of Public Employee
Quality of Facilities HOusing Bonus Total
Design of Services Need points points '
I
I' Wesson 11 6 10 0 27
'I
!
700 E. Hyman 12 5 10 0 27
ANCILLARY REVIEWS: If you concur with our ratings, both appli-
cations meet the minimUlll threshold for GMP allotment. Should
projects receive identical point totals, the Code in Section 24-
11.3 (a) gives the discretion to Council to "award the allotment
to neither or to the proj ect proposing development at the lesser
floor area ratio or offering more employee or low income houS-
ing."
The planning Office has the following comments regarding special
reviews associated with each project.
WESSON APPLICATION:
A. Employee HOusing GMP Exemption: The applicant requests a
G~IP exemption pursuant to Section 24-ll.2( f) of the Muni-
cipal Code for one on-site employee unit and a cash-in-lieu
payment for moderate income level employee housing. On
September 11, 1986 the Housing Authority recommended
approval of this request. It should be noted that the on-
site unit would be B58 sq. ft., but in accordance with city
Housing Guidelines, the rent would be based on the price per
square foot of a 700 sq. ft. uni t.
RECOMMENDATION: The planning Office concurS with the Housing
Authori ty and '~&eOl\lIllend_~to-'recOlllll\&n.<:L-a.p.p.li-o.y.a--r~~O'f" the
4
__...."'__.."...".....-~.- _.~~__~ _ _ _ .~..._..__._ ___._~.._...._..~.....~ ..~_~.___..__~_"".v__~,..... . ...... ". .."_..,,,.-.
.
.
.,
i
1>
i
.
,
".,' ,)
:) t)
parking adjacent to this property. The two. one-bedroo.m
residential units will each have o.ne space in the rear while
the dental o.ffice will have five spaces. We reco.mmend
appro.val o.f this request subject to. the co.ndi tio.nthat the
two. residential parking spaces shall be demarked fo.r the use
. ,^ ,of tho.se tenants.
oJ~: :,Il\\i11'1IVl
C. Special Review for IHIPlJI1 i'.._1&': The applicant requests
appro.val o.f a special review fo.r bo.nus F.A.R. to add
approximately 968 sq. ft. o.f bo.nus F.A.R. fo.r the emplo.yee
apartment and emplo.yee stairwell. 0.74:1 F.A.R. is used for
the co.mmercial and free market unit space, 'and 0.16 F.A.R.
is devo.ted to. emplo.yee housing.
Sectio.n 24-3.5 (a) o.f the Municipal Co.de states the
criteria fo.r P&Z's review (attached).
The Planning Office believes that the Wesso.n Building
pro.posal is 'eompatible wi th the surrounding land uses and
zo.ning. Staff comments in the GMP sco.ring recommendations
pertain to. the review criteria of ..bul.k, height, open, space..
and. visual impaot indicates that tIlls appears to be an
_e-ptablre-b~ilding""desf'gn. In additio.n, it appears that
there are ~uate se-~_ (water, sewer, storm drainage,
etc.) to. serve the propo.sed develo.pment.
The requested total F.A.R. is .9:1, while the maximum is the
Office zo.ne district is 1:1. It sho.uld be no.ted that this
F.A. R. bonus pertains o.nly to. the square footage requested
and no.t any additional square footage that wo.uld be subject
to. ano.ther review.
P \0'1,
d\!.l"';'
RBceMMBNDNr-I~: The Planning Office recommends approval of this
request fo.r 968 sq. ft. bo.nus F.A.R. for the emplo.yee apartment
and employee stairwell subject ,to. ,a commitment to. landscape the
. '- ~I' \ ~lil1-J " /
western edge of the propertY')li"I~.i'",1'-".',,,(i r"",^""
'700':Ei-'tIiiim"' V~, """
A. Special Review for Reduction in parking: The appl icant
requests to. reduce the number o.f on-site parking spaces o.n
the pro.ject pursuant to. Section 24-4.5(c) of the Municipal
Code from the required 27 spaces to 25 spaces. The appli-
cant provides rationale for this request summarized as
follows:
1. The number of pro.posed spaces exceeds the minimum
requirement of 1.5 spaces/lOOO sq. ft. that can be
achieved by special revie\~. The proposed ratio., is, 2.8
sJ2aces/l,OOO sq_"ft.
2. .A-cces&"'is"proVoided' via-,.thE!""al'lcey which reduces the
6
0,)
~)
number of spaces which can be provided without going to
a sub-grade garage. A sub-grade garage ,is unrealistic
for this project.
~-
3. The property is ~ Cvuv<!l.~ut:1 ".d"'~,~ i:ht'.-"l"""'- of
the commercial core and Hunter Creek and I~ountain
Valley bus routes.
4. Precedent exists for reducing parking requirements to
1.5 spacesjlOOO sq. ft.
5. "'!iT'o "use-- 'propo sed- on tlre--p~~t.y..~"wou]"d--r~su-}"t--in
.'abnormally ,higlL,tr.a:ffi(' 9~neraH&n, such as certain
commercial uses permitted in the zone district would.
The Planning Office notes that the streets surrounding this
proposed project are currently used to their maximum for
parking. A parking survey conducted last spring by this
office revealed that there is 97% occupancy rate in this
area, while 90% is considered maximum. Therefore, there is
little possibility that on-street parking will help supple-
ment parking supply for this project.
The Engineering Department supported the reduction in
required parking. Given that the request is for a minor
reduction and the convenient location..;i;e- in relation to the
Commercial Core, the planning Office agrees with the
Engineering Department.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
requested parking reduction.
ALLOTI.ffiNT ISSUES: The total commercial square footage allotments
requested far exceeds the office quota which has 4,000 sq. ft.
per year. A,,,arding development rights to both projects would
require future year allocation into 1987 (4,000 sq. ft.) and 1988
(1,947 sq. ft.). By action of Resolution 29, Series of 19B5,
Ci ty Council did not carryover office square footage which was
unallocated last year.
The following table summarizes the 1986 commercial GMP compe-
ti tion:
1986 COM}lERCIAL COMPETITION
CL and other
GIll' Requests
14,269 sq.ft.
9,947 sq. ft.
2.-992 sq. ft..
Quota
10,000 sq. ft. *
4,000 sq. ft.
3.000 sq. ft.
Zone Districts
CC & C-l
Offi ce
;~I,~ :', I:
PROJECr NJIloE: 700 E. Qyman
P&Z wrllti IHBERS
A. Quality of ~sign
1. Ardlitectural
~sign
2. Site Design
3. Enerq{
4. lmenities
5. visual ImIBct
6. Trash and Utility
l\coe ss
9lB'lO'mL :
,
CI'l'Y ~ <XIIBRCIAL GMP Al'H.I~
'mLLy lIIEE'1'
rate: 9/16/86
1 2 3 4 5 AVERJlGE
D:IYiJl J"....i".. We], ton -1OJa ..5lJa.. '.lt7.IXa
'ro'mL
...L- ~....ll..5....~~
...L5..... ~ ....ll..5.... ...2....--. ~
~ ...3.- ...2....--. ...2....--. ...3.-
...L5..... ...2....--. ....ll..5.... ...2....--. ...2....--.
...L- ...2....--.....ll..5.... ~ .Jl.-
...2....--. ...2....--. ~ ...2....--. ...3.-
~ ....l.l.- ~ ...JJL ...JJL
9.1
B. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
1. Water Supply/Fire
Protecticn ...2....--. ...2....--. --L- ~ ...2....--.
2. 5etiage Disp:>sal ~ ~ --L- ~ ~
3. Public Transp:>rta-
tion/lbad3 ~ ~ --L- ..l.- ~
4. stOIlD Draimge ...L5..... ~ --L- ~ ...2....--.
5. Parking ~ ~ -"-- ~ .Jl.-
SUl'lUI'AL: --L5- ....6.- ---L- ~ ....6.- 5.5
c. Prwisicn of anpl~ee
Housing llL- ...JJL -.l!L ...JJL ...JJL
'lUI'AL: 2L- -Z1- .J.l...-. ~ ...26...-
D. Bcnus IUints
.Jl.- -"-- --D...... -"-- -"--
'.lt7.IXa IDIR'lS
~A,B,C
andD .A-~ 10
?.. ~
?A I:.
o 0
@~' n"'yJ''?
r.::- ., \v ,:.::0
,1', I:j1 '" LI \ "::'
IU ( -
Cd2'.
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J, MYLER
SANDRA M, STULLER
ALAN E, SCHWARTZ
106 S, MILL STREET, SUITE 202
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(3031920,1018
October 20, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, COB 1611
ATTN: Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
RE: Hodge Capital Company GMP Application
for the 700 East Hyman Project
Dear Alan:
As we have discussed, Hodge Capital Company feels confident
that it has valid and persuasive grounds for appealing the
Planning and Zoning Commission's scoring of the above-referenced
project. In addition, we feel that there is a legitimate basis
for consideration of a revised project at this time as set forth
in my letter of September 29, 19B6.
Nevertheless, in the interest of avoiding a confrontation
over issues which can and should be resolved amicably, Hodge
Capital Company is willing to withdraw both the appeal and the
request for consideration. Such withdrawal is conditioned upon
authorization by the Aspen City Council which will allow the
unallocated square footage quota from the 19B6 GMP competition in
the office zone to be carried over and added to the allocation
available for the 19B7 competition.
It is Hodge's intent to redesign the project in response to
the comments and criticism received in the review of the above
application and to submit a new GMP application on August 1,
1987. We believe that the new application will be well received
by staff and the Commission and, accordingly, we are willing to
wait until next year for consideration of the revised project,
provided that the unallocated square footage for this year's
competition is available.
We urge you to present this matter to the City Council as
soon as possible. In the meantime, our appeal and request for
c
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
October 20, 19B6
Page 2
consideration of a revised application will
Should our appeal not be withdrawn, we
additional documentation in support thereof.
Very truly yours,
By:
Capital Company
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq.
Hodge Capital Co.
Vann Associates
o
remain
do plan
in
to
effect.
submit
'If' \
'"..-.;.-'
October 2, 1986
Mr. Dave Myler
Myler, Stuller & Schwartz
106 S. Mill Street, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Dave:
This letter is in response to your letter dated September 29,
1986 with respect to the 700 E. Hyman GMP application. I have
discussed this matter with the City Attorney, Paul Taddune, and
have the following comments for you.
I am not able to support your request to redesign and resubmit a
project for this site. According to Section 24-11.3(e) of the Code:
"(e) Not more than one application for any development site
shall be entertained in anyone year, provided, however,
that more than one application, each for a residential,
cOllllllercial, office or lodge use (if permitted uses within
the zone district) may be made if the planning Office shall
determine that each is a di stinctly different land use
application. II
This section of the Code means that while you may submit a new
residential application for the site, we can only accept a single
commercial or office application for the site in any year. This
would be consistent with the entire spirit of the growth management
quota system, which sets an annual date for submission of appli-
cations, putting all landowners in the City on notice as to when
development applications can be accepted and reviewed and whether
allotments will be granted this year or available for use in
future years.
In reviewing your letter, I am struck by your comment that the
Commission's scoring penalized you for taking advantage of a
legi timate exemption. I believe that you are in error in this
observation. There is no criterion in the growth management
process which scores the floor area ratio calculation. The
relevant criteria score such items as size and height of the
buil ding, building scale and similar features. It was in this
respect that the Commission found design flaws with your building
@
Mr. Dave Myler
Oct. 2. 1986
page 2
because the provision of above grade parking increased, in their
view, the size, height and scale of the building, and not because
you used a legitimate exemption.
As you indicated, I did suggest that the interpretation of the
floor area ratio issue would be handled in the process. While I
regret not being able to resolve this issue prior to the August 1
deadline, I believe that we endeavored during our project review
to come to a fair resolution of the issue. Unfortunately, it was
not until September 11 that we received a comment from the Zoning
Enforcement Officer suggesting that we look at how the issue was
addressed in the case of the expansion of the Applejack Lodge.
At this point it became clear that the prior office position had
been to count above grade covered parking in floor area calcu-
lations. I believe it is my duty to take into consideration all
relevant facts which come to light in the review process, no
matter when they may be made publ ic, and so our review incl uded
the finding that the project had a problem in terms of FAR.
When you found that we were not supporting your interpretation, I
provided you the opportunity to table the application at that
time and redesign it to bring it into conformance with our
understanding of the Code. You chose to argue the matter wi th
the P&Z, and were successful in overturning our interpretation.
If, however, you felt that the matter was not being properly
resolved at that time, you still had the opportunity to table the
application following the Code interpretation and prior to the
scoring process to discuss how the project could be amended. You
chose instead to go forward wi th the scoring al though you now
seem to feel that at the time the Commission's negative opinion of
the project had been clearly voiced during the interpretation
process.
It is my concl usion that to allow you to withdraw the earlier
design and submit a new one would be contrary to the rules and
spirit of the growth management quota system. Providing you this
opportunity will penalize other landowners in the office zone who
have a right to expect that August 1 is the annual application
date, that applications are reviewed by the P&Z in September and
allotments are granted by Council in October subject to the
right of appeal of scoring, and that once applications are
scored and eligibility for allotments is established, that they
may rely on the size of the allotment available for next year to
start their own project planning. The process you suggest would
set a precedent for reconsideration of any future application
which does not meet the threshold, making the entire process
uncertain and unfair for all participants.
The City Attorney and I believe you have the right to appeal my
findings to the City Council. We believe that you can raise
Me. Dave Myler
Oct. 2, 1986
Page 3
these issues in an appeal of the scoring, pursuant to Section 24-
11.5(e), since your letter of September 29 provided notice of
appeal of the 700 E. Hyman application.
If you intend to pursue the appeal, I would expect you to submit
a letter to me explaining the basis of your challenge so that
staff can evaluate your arguments and present our analysis to
Council. until I have received said letter, I am unable to
confirm an agenda date for you.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further inquiries
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan Ri chman
planning and Development Director
AR : ne c
cc: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
.
c
o
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J. MYLER
SANDRA M, STULLER
ALAN E, SCHWARTZ
106 S, MILL STREET, SUITE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 920,1018
September 29, 19B6
HAND DELIVE
lli@rnDW~ ~
I
OCT 11986 ;"
hJ
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
ATTN: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Hodge Capital Company GMP Application for
the 700 E. Hyman Project
Dear Alan:
At your suggestion, this letter is being written on behalf
of Hodge Capital Company to request consideration by the Planning
and Zoning Commission of a revised application for GMP review and
scoring. In the alternative, this letter will serve as a notice
of appeal from the September 16, 19B6 scoring of the
above-referenced application by the Commission, pursuant to
Section 24-11.5(e) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
As you are aware, the project proposed in Hodge's initial
application included approximately 5,640 square feet of on-grade
covered parking. At the time of submission, Hodge interpreted
Section 24-11.3.7(e) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code to provide an
unqualified exemption for all forms of covered parking from the
calculation of allowable floor area. This interpretation was,
however, subject to some doubt as a result of an indication by
Bill Dreuding that the Aspen Building Department was interpreting
the same provisions to require the inclusion of covered parking
in the floor area calculations. Hodge was obviously concerned
since, if the building department's interpretation was correct,
the project would exceed the allowable floor area.
Because Code interpretations are within the purview of the
Planning Office, Sunny Vann verbally requested an opinion on the
issue in early July and subsequently in a letter dated July 21,
19B6. He was thereafter advised that the Planning Office would
not be able to provide such an opinion prior to the submission
deadline" but that "the matter would be handled in the process."
It was Hodge's understanding, at that time, that such "handling"
would include the ability to amend the project to cure problems
caused by the inclusion of covered parking.
c
o
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
September 29, 1986
Page 2
Hodge submitted its application on August 1. On September
12, Hodge learned for the first time that the Planning Office
would take the position that the proposed covered parking had to
be included in the calculation of allowable floor area. We also
learned at that time that the Planning Office would ask the
Planning and Zoning Conunission for its opinion on the issue,
which if contrary to Hodge, would cause the project to exceed the
allowable floor area. Consistent with our previous
understanding, staff indicated that, should the Conunission so
decide, Hodge would be able to amend its project. Since it was
too late to discuss revisions to the project or to attempt to
debate and hopefully resolve the conflict at the staff level,
Hodge proceeded with the project as initially designed.
Hodge appeared at the public hearing of September 16, 19B6
and sought to convince the Conunission of its interpretation of
the floor area rules. At that hearing, planning staff presented
its argument in favor of including covered parking and Hodge
presented its argument in favor of excluding covered parking.
Al though begrudgingly, the Conunission seemed inclined to agree
with Hodge. It was apparent, however, that everyone of the
Conunission members thought that parking should be included in the
FAR calculation and that the rules should be amended to so
provide. It was also quite apparent that the project was
considered by the Conunission to be too massive and that it would
not score well because of the manner in which parking was
incorporated into the design.
The public hearing was closed and Hodge then had the
opportunity to respond to staff's suggested scoring on a
point-by-point basis. Following the discussion, the Conunission
awarded a score of 24.6, which is 1.2 points below the threshold.
The observation that the Conunission would, in effect, penalize
Hodge for taking advantage of a legitimate exemption, was thus
confirmed. An analysis of each Conunissioner's scoring also
supports that conclusion.
The project received a combined .9 for architectural design.
Any score of less than 1 denotes a totally deficient design,
while a score of 1 denotes a serious "design flaw." The staff
report characterized the incorporation of covered parking into
the building as a design flaw because it increased the size and
bulk of the bulding. It seems clear that the conunission agreed.
The discussion of design flaws in the staff report did not
identify any problems relating to structural integrity, the
o
o
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
September 29, 19B6
Page 3
functioning of the building, safety, access, or any other matter
which would normally be considered in relation to design flaws.
Rather, the design was considered flawed solely because the
manner in which parking was incorporated would cause the building
to be larger than if the parking was totally underground or
uncovered. In addition, the abnormally low scores, when compared
to the Wesson application, for architectural design, visual
impact, parking, and site design are, in Hodge I s opinion, all
related to the Commission's mind set that the exemption for
on-grade covered parking is not appropriate.
Of fundamental importance to the GMP allocation system is
the existence of clear rules and regulations by which an
applicant can determine, in advance of a submission and with
reasonable certainty, how critical issues will be resolved.
Where, as here, an applicant seeks clarification of a critical
issue in advance of submission, and is advised to proceed without
such clarification on the assurance that an adverse decision on
that issue will not be used to disqualify his application, the
door to further consideration should not be closed when, in fact,
such an adverse decision is rendered.
If Hodge had been able to resolve the floor area issue prior
to submission, or if Hodge had had a clear understanding of the
Commission's feelings about covered parking, irrespective of the
floor area rules, a different project would have been submitted.
As it was, however, it would have been impossible for anyone to
know with reasonable certainty how these issues would ultimately
be resolved. Added to the confusion is our understanding that
"the matter would be handled in the process" and the indication
that revisions to cure problems related to the parking design
would be allowed.
Under the circumstances, there is no significant distinction
between having the application rejected because the parking
caused the project to exceed allowable floor area, and failing to
meet the scoring threshold because of the manner in which that
same parking was incorporated into the design. In other words,
whether reiected as a result of an interpretation or scoring
makes little difference since the basis for rejection, in either
case, was the same. It should also be noted that the extent of
redesign which will be involved in a revised application is also
the same whether as a result of interpretation or scoring. The
net effect of the proceedings to date is that Hodge lost the
floor area debate. Accordingly, and in the interest of fairness,
Hodge should be entitled to submit a revised application for
review and scoring as previously contemplated.
o
o
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
September 29, 1986
Page 4
Despite the fact that Hodge believes that it has grounds for
appeal and is prepared to submit argument in addition to that
presented herein, we would prefer to redesign and resubmit the
project in response to the Commission I s obvious preference for
smaller building mass. If Hodge is granted the opportunity to
have its revised project reviewed and scored, we will concede
that the Wesson project has won the scoring competition and we
will withdraw our appeaL Regardless of our ultimate score,
further review and processing of the Wesson application will be
able to proceed as though our revised application were not being
considered. If our request for consideration of a revised
application is denied, Hodge will proceed with the appeal of the
Commission scoring and hereby reserves the right, at your
suggestion, to submit additional argument in support thereof.
The fact that we are requesting a review for which there is
no specific precedent should not deter our attempt to seek a fair
and equitable solution to the dilemma facing Hodge. We are
prepared to meet with staff at any time to discuss the issues in
the hope that staff will support our request.
Very truly yours,
By:
David
DJM:klm
cc: Hodge Capital Company
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
,""'"
........'
.......
...-<./
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
rmrn@rnO\Ylrn n
i~~1 ocr I 7 .. U
October 16, 1986
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Co 81611
Re: Hunter Plaza Commercial GMP Application/Existing
Floor Area Credit
Dear Mr. Burstein:
The purpose of this letter is to clarify Hunter
Plaza Associates' position with respect to the existing
commercial floor area credit attributable to the so-
called Palazzi property. As discussed in the Hunter
Plaza Commercial GMP application (see page 5, Develop-
ment Data), the applicant believes that the existing
building's covered areas should be included in the
property's floor area credit. Inasmuch as the Code does
not specifically address this issue, these areas were
excluded in the original application. Resolution of the
issue, however, was specifically requested by the
applicant, and the possibility of subsequent technical
clarification of the application discussed.
As you may know, both Alan and Bill Drueding have
indicated that they believe such areas should be
excluded from the property's floor area credit. This
position, however, is contradictory to both the Planning
Office's and Building Department's historical treatment
of commercial credits and, to my knowledge, unsupported
by either specific Code language or prior application.
As a result, Hunter Plaza Associates respectfully
request that the Planning Office reevaluate its position
so as to allow inclusion of the areas in question.
Should the Planning Office concur, the applicant will
PO Box 8485' Aspen, Colorado 81612. 303/925,6958
".....,
\./
~
,e
immediately "technically clarify" his application
resulting in a reduction in the requested commercial GMP
allocation. Should the Planning Office adhere to its
initial interpretation, then the applicant requests that
the issues be resolved by the City Council in
conjunction with its allocation of quota to this year's
GMP competitors.
The applicant's rationale for
building's covered areas in the
floor area credit can be summarized
the inclusion of the
property's existing
as follows:
1) Section 24-ll.2(a) of the Code (the applicable
GMP exemption/credit provision) refers to the
"...reconstruction of any existing building,
provided there is no expansion of commercial
floor area..."
2)
The Planning Office has
floor area as a basis
commercial building's GMP
historically used
for determining a
credit.
3) Both the Planning Office and Building Depart-
ment have indicated that they interpret
Section 24-3.7(e) of the Code to include such
covered areas in the building's floor area
calculation.
4) A majority of the existing building's business
is conducted within the area in question.
5) To the best of the applicant's knowledge,
there is no precedent for the exclusion of
such areas from the computation of a
building's GMP credit.
In summary the applicant believes it to be fund-
amentally unfair to require that, on the one hand, such
areas be included in the building's floor area calcu-
lation while, on the other hand, they be excluded from
the calculation of GMP credit. In effect, the Planning
-.
\...,/
........
......."
Office appears to be saying that if a new building were
to be built today, the covered areas would be included
in the calculation of floor area and, therefore, subject
to the receipt of a GMP allocation. However, if the
building was subsequently demolished and a new structure
proposed, the covered areas could not be counted in
calculating the existing credit even though they were
the recipient of a prior GMP allocation. Quite frankly,
the logic of this interpretation escapes both myself and
the applicant.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of
any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter and am
available at your convenience should you wish to discuss
it further.
Very truly yours,
,
(
PROJECT:
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMERCIAL GROIfTB MMANAGEMENT SCORE
r-- Li/ A /
Jz)(} C" /fYM/1YL/ '
SHEET
DATE: ~;:~ j; b
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:
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
bUild~aterialS) with eXisti7 neighboring develo/pments.
,- . RATING:
COMMENT: jd 6 fiM/ul 6vu~ ·
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 priva1;
/ RATING: I 2---
COMMENT: A/a ti!-H1r.-- UN<.'7l T 7lJl l1!ttlt..-C- /lfI' It(j/ll~
1f:n){Lf.D/~
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
"
~"..'"
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
?/Iv-
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways. I;;
J RATING: / 1,-
COMMENT: fJO OpJ sPME rJ,~e-h"( 11) ~; p~l.(c...
e. VISUAL IMPAC'l' - Considering the
buildings to maximize public views
areas.
scale and location of
of surrounding scenic
-
COMMENT:JOD ~cr-
RATING:
,
f.
'l'RASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS -
efficiency of proposed trash and
Considering the quality
utility access areas.
Z-
and
RATING:
COMMENT:
SUB'IDTAL :
I
crUz--
2
,...."\
'.
.' '..,..'
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
~espect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o -- Indicates a proj ect which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a proj ect 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 [Le., 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 provi de f or the nee ds 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:
z.
COMMENT:
b.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
I
COMMENT:
3
\ .
1""
-" 'I>.,
"'''0,.,-....'
,.,~
c.
PUBLIC TRANSPOR~ATION/ROAbS - 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 al tering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to,
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
r
COMMENT:
d.
STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension. /h
I?--
COMMENT:_(<<f/~ rwJ~o+f ,)J Strt' (
RATING:
e.
PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
r
COMMENT:
SUBTO'l'AL:
to 1/2--
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE DOUSING (maximlD\l 15 points) - The Commis-
4
c.......
/,
~.,;
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING:
/(;
COMMENT:
4.
3
a low, moderate n
oposed by applican
d and deed restr~e
5
RATING:
\
COMMENT:
5
"'- '"
.'
';,/
""""
'-<..1
5. BONUS POIN'.rS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Cornrnissionrnernbers may, when any
one determines that a proj ect 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 recogni tion, award addi tional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public he ring
record.
BONU S PO INTS :
COMMENT:
6.
TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1:
Cfl/z- (minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
t/~
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 2:
Points in Category 3:
/0
(minimlDll of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
Zb
(minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
20
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning
Member: ~/tJC w:nlC-
6
;. .."
/',\
,-",
CITY OF ASPEN
COIIMBRCIAL GRONm MMANAGBMBN'r SCORE SHEET
PROJEC'.r: 100 'i- lk-jmOr-"J @Vi /d1..u... cr
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:
DATE:
q/; rb/8"t:.
1.
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. ARCBITEC'rORAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: /
roMMEN~' 7I.u.:;1 is r.-i?,ry foo2J'l ~ {<J~
~k;~~ ~=:t:1 ;;~~'j, F~)I)~IE>,s
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: /
COMMENT:-48~) buJ I~ i-n{) 6<:.6 /~fr <;;,'(;1_
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
"",~....,
,......~
",
or ientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 3
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the prov1s1on of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
2..-
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Consi der i ng the scal e and 1 oca ti on of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
~
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: ;l-
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: / /
2
,.......
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o -- Indicates a proj ect which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 __ Indicates a proj ect 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 proj ect 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 [Le., 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 ~stem 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: 2.-
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
3
.r',
."'.'-""
~
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 wi thout
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
/
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facili ties to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the prov~s~on of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
SUB'l'O'rAL :
-6
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximwn 15 points) - The Commis-
4
,r''>,
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies wi th the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided wi th housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING:
/0
COMMENT:
4 . CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS
shall assign points to those
a portion of their low, mo
purchasing fully constructed
Aspen's housing guidelines a
them in co . cation wi th Se
assigned a or g to the foIl
to be pur
34 to 66% 0
income unit
o be pur cha
3
5
RATING:
COMMENT:
5
.
,,,
."".'io,
;'
5. BONUS POIN'l'S (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a project has not only incorporated and met
the substantive criteria of those sections, but has also exceeded
the provisions of these sections and achieved an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition, award additional points.
Any Commissionmember awarding bonus points shall provide a
written justification of that award for the public hearing
recor d.
BONU S PO INTS :
COMMENT:
6 . TOTAL POIN'l'S
Points in Category 1:
fI
Points in Category 2:
b
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
Points in Category 3:
/0
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
27
(minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
TOTAL POINTS:
2--;
Name of Planning and Zoning
J~ '
Member: ~/'1'~<7
6
fl;ftVtZ--
QUALITY OF DESIGN (exclusive of historic features) (maximwn 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:
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
1/1---'"
,
t-U~
.'"
/"-",
(
CITY OF ASPEN
COIlMERCIAL GROIfTH MMANAGEMERT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:
7(;f)
f3-
1.
o 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.
RATING:
COMMENT:
7--:(
DATE:
~
~J>.' I
b.
SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the
proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of
undergrounding of util ities, and the arrangements of
improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access
for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy.
V~
I
RATING:
..--.
rA'/I^-- ~
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
,,,,",
',,-
or ientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and
use of solar energy sources. ~ ~
RATING: ~
~, tf /li'!,/,;_j ::; .x> , '''-~7 f 7r;> ~ ~
COMMENT: t'~,
d. AMENITIES - Considering the prov~s~on of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
\ RATING: ~ _
COMMENT: hw~..p~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~~
/)., -LA.. {I /
/PV~ ~ A/'~'
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
COMMENT:
sf.'
ide MdL
RATING:
~-
~,
f.
TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS -
efficiency of proposed trash and
Considering the quality
utility access are~. I
RATING: it'tf..-./
and
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL :
fF
2
".,.,
.."L
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:
o -- Indicates a proj ect 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 proj ect 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 f or the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
/
,
COMMENT:
b.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
I
COMMENT:
3
-""""",
c.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of major streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially al tering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING:
I
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:
e.
PARKING - Considering the prov1s10n 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:
~
f4~
RATING: L
.UJ (~-?L-
-$
SUBTOTAL :
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximlDll 15 points) - The eommis-
4
...,
,"""'^'>-,
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type,' income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING:
/0
COMMENT:
4. NVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - The Commission
sha assign points to those applicants who guarantee provide
a por . on of their low, moderate and middle inc e units by
purchasi fully constructed units which are no restricted to
Aspen's ho ing guidelines and placing a de -restriction upon
them in compl ation with Section 24-11. Points shall be
assigned accordi to the following sche
allow, moderate a
oposed by applicant
ed and deed restricted
Points
1 to 33% of all low, m
income units proposed
to be purchased and
1
34 to 66% of
income units
to be purch
3
"
1 % of all low, moderate and middl
units proposed by applicant are
purchased and deed restricted
5
RATING:
COMMENT:
5
"'"
5. BONUS POIN'I'S (maximUIll 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a proj ect 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
recor d.
BONU S pO INTS :
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 3:
l
k
10
(minimUIll of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimUIll of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimUIll of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
Points in Category 1:
points in Category 2:
SUBTOTAL: Points in cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
J!L
(minimUIll of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
-D -
TOTAL POINTS:
A
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
6
, ,\
,~. .......
-"",
-
CITY OF ASPEN
COJUmRCIAL GROIfTB MMANAGBMBNT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT:
/'7 () /J
/
-
;'\
"
DATE:
; /.' .
',.> -;, r'
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (exci'l,usive of historic features) (maximum 18
points). The Commission shall consider each application wi th
respect to the quality of its exterior and site design and shall
rate each development ,by assigning points according to the
following formula:
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING:
I
<XlMMENT:
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:
d.
-
<XlMMENT:
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
/"',,",
,...'"
.......
orientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING:
~,?
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING:
/
COMMENT:
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
RATING: <.
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL:
/(/
2
,
-
......
2. AVAILABILITY OP PUBLIC PACILITIBS AND SBRVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facil:ities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formul a:
o -- 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. WATBR SUPPLY/PIRE PROTECTION - Considering the capacity of the
water supply system to provide for the needs of the proposed
development without system extensions and without treatment plant
or other facility upgrading. Also, considering the ability of
the appropriate fire protection district to provides services
according to established response times without the necessity of
upgrading available facilities.
RATING:
/
.
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGB DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING:
/
COMMENT:
3
p""
,,,.~,
'"'".......
c. PUBLIC TRANSPOR~ATION/ROADS - Considering the ability of the
project to be served by existing City and County bus
routes. Also considering the capacity of maj or streets to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially al tering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facili ties to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: /
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the provision of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING:
/
.
COMMENT:
SUB'l'O'rAL: 5
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE DOUSING (maximwn 15 points) - The Commis-
4
.'
, ,
" '\
....,.,~
sion shall assign points to each applicant 'who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing :size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided wi th housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING:
/tJ
COMMENT:
4. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximlDll 5 points) - The Commission
shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to provide
a portion of their low, moderate and middle income units by
purchasing fully constructed units which are not restricted to
Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a deed-restriction upon
them in complication wi th Section 24-11.10. Points shall be
assigned according to the following schedule:
Points
1 to 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
34 to 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
67 to 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5
income units proposed by applicant are
to be purchased and deed restricted
RATING:
COMMENT:
5
.-
"
'". J
"""I,
-'
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in, Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Cornrnissionrnembers may, when any
one determines that a proj ect 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
recor d.
BONUS POINTS:
;
./
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: /0
.
Points in Category 2: 0
Points in Category 3: 10
.
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
/'5
/,/, Y
(minimum of~points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
~;
C/
TOTAL POINTS:
a
./
,/
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
):/
/'
/
o?___/
/ ,
"
6
",;'..,
",,-,,#
CITY OF ASPEN
COIlMERCIAL GROiiTB MMANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: If')() ~. -iJ1M~ljJ\ t-..10.
DATE: Cj /1 ~ /'to
I '
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:
o Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 Indicates a major design flaw.
2 Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 Indicates an excellent design.
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the
proposed building (in teJ:llls of size, height, location and
building materials) with existing neighboring developments.
RATING: ~
COMMENT: \J.....\~BJli1'Z/ (1lfY ~ ~j K.:.-{v\fU-D ~Ol
I
~d ~ltJC'lIAI.A1LL.V\/~AI In ronr:fe..:, l"-~_
ff'C7t} ~ "I ~7J 8:+&~V O.
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: --l
COMMENT:J('IAOfqlAA-~ 1 AJ)<-L-O-fc/ 1(\-CI\A~t-.X-'i:__
( :Q 000 A;-c.\.-I-\1ld:,,--J-v\.'Z ~ Ol)'79 R -Ab ~ q,LC;:AV~~l0't')
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar
1
or ientation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces
and heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: /,3
COMMENT:
d. AMENITIES - Considering the prov~s~on of usable open space
and pedestrian and bicycles ways.
RATING: 'L-
COMMENT:
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of
buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic
areas.
RATING: ~
COMMENT:-:.f2&.V ~Mb~\ ~Qt~ypt1Ot-0 IS 1}-{~
- --
n("f(~\2-\ O\~? r:ON~"l.Dze.A-t1U~ (}..J.t11+ \..)7:-\ (.,t+ ~~).I)
b Ylktv\~I',r\s .n;::. ~1>Ic;,~~D>~:-r~
i
f=1 CVQL.1(\~~ {~ (JoT 'p.. de{f(0'OA\Jt-e- -X>(U"1\{)v0 (1'\
TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality a~1~etf
efficiency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
f.
RATING: ~
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL: ~
2
/,......
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
o .,.- Indicates a proj ect which requires the provision of new
services at increased public expense.
1 -- Indicates a proj ect 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 proj ect 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: Z-
COMMENT:
b. SEWAGE DISPOSAL - Considering the capacity of sanitary
sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development
without system extensions and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: --l--
COMMENT:
3
, ,
/--,
c. PUBLIC TRANSPOR'l'ATION/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 al tering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network.
RATING: \
COMMENT:
d. STORM DRAINAGE - Considering the capacity of the drainage
facilities to adequately dispose of surface runoff of the
proposed development without system extension.
RATING: 2-
COMMENT:
e. PARKING - Considering the prov~s~on of parking spaces to
meet the commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed
development which are required by Section 24-4.5 of the
Code, and considering the design of said spaces with respect
to visual impact, amount of paved surface, convenience and
safety.
RATING: 0
COMMENT:
SUBTOTAL : t,
3. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (maximmn 15 points) - The Commis-
4
l"""'
.......
1""."
sion shall assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide
low, moderate and middle income housing which complies with the
housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City
of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10. Points
shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
o to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed
41 to 100% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed
RATING: J [)
COMMENT:
4. CONVERSION OF EXISTING UNITS (maximum 5 points) - The Commission
shall assign points to those applicants who guarantee to vide
a portion of their low, moderate and middle income its by
purchasing fully constructed units which are not re ricted to
Aspen I s housing guidelines and placing a deed-r riction upon
them in complication with Section 24-11.10. oints shall be
assigned according to the following schedule:
Points
1
1 to 33% of all low, moderate d middle
income units proposed by a icant are
to be purchased and deed estricted
34 to 66% of all~ow ~derate and middle
income units pro ed by applicant are
to be purchaseg" nd deed restricted
/"
67 to 100% Ai all low, moderate and middle
income u,n(ts proposed by applicant are
to be "pUrchased and deed restricted
3
5
"
/
RATING:
COMMENT:
5
.r
"""
~.
/'~<
5. BONUS POINTS (maximum 8 points) (Note to exceed 20% of the points
awarded in Sections 1, 2 and 3) - Commissionmembers may, when any
one determines that a proj ect 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: 0
COMMENT:
6. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: ...ill..-
Points in Category 2: &
Points in Category 3: JO
(minimum of 5.4 points needed
to remain eligible)
(minimum of 3 points needed to
remain eligible)
(minimum of 8.75 points needed
to remain eligible)
SUBTOTAL: Points in Cate-
gories 1, 2, 3 & 4
~ (minimum of 28.8 points needed
to be eligible)
Points in Category 5
o
~
\.
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
6
-
'-
.....,,,.,.-'
MEMORANDUM
~. r--.
111':,;':;; ~ O'iWrg
~I S(P ISII& m
Dist .
FROM:
Ci ty Attorney
ci ty Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Aspen Water Department
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Transit Authority
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
TO:
RE:
1986 City Commercial G!o\P Competition Application:
700 E. Hyman Bu ilding Commercial G!1P /Concept ual Submi ssion
Wesson Dental BuiJ_ding Commercial G!1P/Conceptual
Submission
DA'TE:
1'.ugust 15, 1986
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------.----------.------
Attached for your review
Submiss ion Appl ications.
Applicant's requests:
are h;o (2) 1986 City G!1P/Conc,,,,ptnal
Follolving is a brief description of the
700 E_ Hyman Building COllunercial Gi.jp
The project is proposed on a vacant 12,000 square foot
parcel of ] Bnd located at the intersection of Spring Street
and Hyman Avenue referred to as the Lucas property. The
property consists of l,ot K, L,~l, and N, B]ock 104, City of
Aspen" The applicant proroses to construct an appwximately
9,000 square foot office builc1ing on tbe Lucas property,
~lith the ground floor containing 1,660 square feeL, the
second and third floors containing 3,830 and 3,510 ~;qUiu:e
feet, respectively. A basement is neither required nor
provided.
Wesson Dental Building Commercial GI'lP
'The project is proposed at 605 llain Street, the southwest
corner of ~lain Street and Fifth Street. '1'h8 p.'operty
is a six thousand (6,000) squc:re foot corner lot. The
applicant proposes a new dental office requesting office G~lP
quota of 2,487 sgual'e feet, an on'-~~ite employee apartment
and a free market residence (the latter is exempt a,s a
residence on an existing vacant lot).
Please revh:'\~ these 2ppli.cations and return your referral comments
to Planning Office no later than Septf:mlJer 1 so we have ad,xluate
tir,'e to prepare for our presccnt2tion before P&Z on September- 16,
1986. Tllan!, you.
7~ E 'H7'~"'" /~...t>~
flil:; I'ItQ.rriJ",r c"".. p.;F- :;;I!e"e~ p.,y 7/'JB. ~~p~~ C....~...,,,.~T",.I'::.
:)AA-,"r'Hfol- f)/S;...,c..1
we',5:) (1_ "e_..~I\""" ,i~~II".l}~.': '-
f'~ n..r1!'\.l"" L:/""Ir_ ^c-,s J I~d S eRr","~""'" ~\; rH~ /1-'ll>()~--
.-1' "
ROARING FORK TRANSIT AG
ASPEN,COLORADO
rn@ rn O\W~ rm
SEP 1 11986 i@
...
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Septe~ber 9, 1986
FROM:
Steve Burstein
City/County Planning Office ~
Bruce A. Abel, General Manager"9 .
Paul S. Hilts, Director of operation~
TO:
RE:
700 East Hyman Building
-Commercial GMP
The Roaring Fork Transit Agency can see no major problems re-
garding the proposed 700 East Hyman Building Submission.
At this time, R.F.T.A. provides bus service along Spring Street
via the Mountain Valley, Snowbunny, and downvalley bus routes.
In addition, the Hunter Creek bus stops one block south of this
site at Cooper and Spring Streets on inbound runs, every twenty
minutes.
Our only concern would involve the issue of angle parking in this
area. Spring Street is one of our major access streets to the
Rubey Park Transit Center. We would request that in order to
maintain easy access to Rubey Park through this area, that no
further angle parking be allowed along Spring Street. Any elim-
ination of existing angle parking would be greatly appreciated.
pak
.~'""
THE CLARK SMYTH CO.
September 10, 1986
Pe ter Rose 11
The Hodge Company
1505 Bridgeway Blvd.
Sausal ito, Ca. 94965
Dear Peter,
This letter is to inform you that we will do a 30 day
extension to our earlier agreement for the purchase of four
condominiums at ParK Place to satisfy your employee housing
requirements. This extension will expire on September 30,
1986.
v.;I~ji';ry YO"'S,
JM~
Box 3665 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 . (3031 925,2450
/
, "
."
--
TABLE A.- VALUES OF c RuNOFF VALuE...
= /lAINI"ALL PR.OPOSED
SURFAC.ES MIN. MAX
ROQI=S, ';:;/09 fo met-oj. O.~o 1,00
Concrete of Asphalr. 0,90 1.00
PAVEM~"'T.s i3ilurninou5 Macoda~, Open ond c/9sed ruoc. 0.70 0.90
Grovel, From clean end /oo$e >'0 clCTC/eq and CO/77jOocr.. 0.25 0.70
R,R" YA/(DS 0.'0 0.;0
SAND. rrorn uni/'orn7 !1rain size, no Fines. Bale 0.15 0.50
/0 well graded, SOn7tZ cloy orsi/f. Liallf Veoda/ion 0,10 0..40
IJense VeQe'lalion 0.05 0.30
LOAM, rrOffJ .5ondy or gravell!! fo Bore 0.20 o.Go
clayey. liobl' Veae/al/on 0.10 0.45
EARTH Dense Veoelalion 0.05 0.35
Si/RFA ces GRAVEL, Tro".., clean grovel and gravel Bore 0,25 D.GS
sand m i xli/res, no silr or cloy 10 high Llald Veoelollonl 0.15 o.SO
cIa,", or .51/;1- Can/enf. Oen"e Veoetaf;"'!' 0.10 0.4.0 )
CLAY, from coor.5C sond,.9' or s;/fj' fo bore 0.30 0.75
pure colloidal cloys. Liabl- VeQelal/on 0.20 o.Go
IJense VeoeJafion O.l~ D.SO
Citll, business areas. 0,60 0.75
CIIlJ. dense residcnt,"ol Dre05# vorJ./ 05 /D 50i/ and vegefalh:u, . o,so o.GS
~o,wPOSITE. Suburban residentialoreo5. .. .. .. O,~5 0.55
AREAS Rural LJJsrricl'5 0.10 0,25
.. .. .
ParkS, oo/r Courses, ere., .. . . O.JO 0.3.5
.JI!OTE: Values 01" C .Tor eor/h sur/aces ore fur/her
compoer/on, surface /rrC9u/ori'f/ and slope, bg
presence or rro5T or S/CTzcdl :JnoH or ice.
vo.ric:d 1J,5' de9ree Dr so/uration#
character or SUDsoil, and b51
..."
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
D &@f<2--,'"
LS, I,! I
All Z 0 I~~'!;I
iil
Ii!)
MEMORANDUM
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFIC-~ t;%~
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS ~
SUBJECT: 700 E. HYMAN BUILDING COMMERCIAL GMP
DATE: AUGUST 20, 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the applicant's submittal and we wish to
reference their comments on pages (3) and (4) pertinent to the
availability of water and their proposal to install a fire
hydrant on the southwest corner of the property. We concur with
the applicant that the installation of the fire hydrant will
improve fire protection for the area.
Water is available in sufficient quantities in this location and
can be provided upon application for the necessary permit.
JM:ab
I""
v
-'""'I
V
V ANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
July 21, 1986
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
l30 South Galena st.
Aspen, Co 8l6l1
Re: 1986 Commercial GMP Competition/Municipal Code Clarifi-
cations
Dear Alan:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm my under-
standing of how the Planning Office will apply certain
zoning regulations of the Municipal Code in reviewing this
year's commercial GMP applications. As we have discussed,
the regulations in question relate to : 1) employee gener-
ation, 2) the reduction of trash and utility access require-
ments, and 3) the calculation of external floor area. My
understanding of the Planning Office's interpretation and
application of each of the regulations is summarized below.
1. Employee Generation
For purposes of calculating the number of fulltime
equivalent employees generated by an office building in the
O-Office zone district, the appropriate generation factor is
three (3) employees per thousand (l,OOO) square feet of net
leasable floor area, as specified in section 24-ll.5(b) (3)
(bb) of the Municipal Code. This regulation supercedes the
"Professional/Office" employee generation factor of 3.9
employees per l,OOO square feet found on page one of the
Housing Authority's 1986 Employee Housing Guidelines. It is
my understanding that the generation factor contained in the
Municipal Code is based on the variety of uses permitted
within the Office zone and will be utilized to determine the
35 percent minimum employee housing threshold.
PO Box 8485, Aspen, Colorado B1612. 303/925,695B
r--..
'-"
o
2. Trash and utility Access Requirements
As you know, the trash and utility access requirements
of section 24-3.7(h) (4) of the Municipal Code may be reduced
by special review pursuant to section 24-3.5(b). However,
section 24-11.5 (b) (1) (ff) requires that such reductions be
obtained prior to submission of an application for a GMP
allocation. It is my understanding that this provision has
been historically waived, and that requests for reductions
are routinely processed concurrently with an applicant's GMP
submission. Failure of a GMP application to comply with the
requirements of Section 24-3.7(h) (4) does not constitute
grounds for rejection pursuant to the general provisions of
Section 24-11.3(c) (3). It is fully understood, however,
that receipt of an allocation is contingent upon obtaining
special review approval pursuant to Section 24-3.5(b) should
such approval be required.
3. External Floor Area
Section 24-3.7(e)(1) provides, in part, that "The
calculation of floor area of a building or portion thereof
shall include ... any area under a horizontal projection of
a roof or balcony, even though those areas are not sur-
rounded by exterior walls, when such areas are necessary for
the function of the building." Section 24-3.7(e) (3)
provides, in part, that "parking areas ... shall be excluded
from floor area calculations in all zone districts." Based
on the above, it is my understanding that a surface level
parking area located partially underneath the second floor
of a building is specifically excluded from floor area
calculations, the provisions of Section 24-3.7 (e) (1) not
withstanding.
Inasmuch as the above interpretations are crucial to
the preparation of my clients' GMP applications, and that
the submission deadline for the 1986 commercial GMP compe-
tition is August 1, confirmation of my understanding of the
Planning Office's position in a timely manner is essential.
Your attention to this matter at your earliest possible
convenience would be sincerely appreciated. It should be
noted that Bill Dreuding of the Building Department views
the interpretation of the Code's floor area regulations in a
somewhat different manner, and has deferred disposition of
the matter to the Planning Office.
,....,
\~
"""I
\,. ;'
-
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to give me a call. I am available at your convenience to
discuss the above regulations in detail.
Very truly yours,
SV:HSJ
, '"
,""~"'\
,
--
'_."
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
City Attorney
Ci ty Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Water Department
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Transit Authority
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Steve Bursteinr Planning Office
TO:
RE:
1986 City Commercial mlP Competi tion Appl ication:
700 E. HymanBuildingCommercialGMP/Conceptual Submission
Wesson Dental Building Commercial GMP/Conceptual
Submission
DATE:
August 15, 1986
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review
Submission Applications.
Applicant's requests:
are two (2) 1986 City GMP/Conceptual
Following is a brief description of the
700 E~ Hyman Building Commercial GMP
The project is proposed on a vacant 12,000 square foot
parcel of land located at the intersection of Spring Street
and Hyman Avenue referred to as the Lucas property., The
property consists of Lot K,L,I1, and N, Block 104, City of
Aspen., 'rhe applicant proposes to construct an approximately
9,000 square foot off ice building on the Lucas property,
with the ground floor containing 1,660 square feet, the
second and third floors containing 3,830 and 3,510 square
feet, respectively.. A basement is neither required nor
prov ided.
Wesson Dental Building Commercial GMP
The project is proposed at 605 ~lain Street, the southwest
corner of /-lain Street and Fifth Street. The property
is a six thousand (6,000) square foot corner lot. The
applicant proposes a new dental office requesting office GMP
quota of 2,487 square feet, an on-site employee apartment
and a free mar ket residence (the latter is exempt as a
residence on an existing vacant lot).
Please reviE'l'1 these applications and return your referral comments
to Planning Office no later thap September 1 so we have adequate
time to prepare for our presentation before P&Z on September 16,
1986 . Than k yo u.
,.....
............
,...."
,-.,/
III :,:,::::~~~"~:~:::,,~:~:":::t"~:."",
August 28, 1986
.to, CA 94965 . (415) 331,1505
@@a~@rm
SEP - 2 1986 ,ni
!i./
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Co 81611
Re: 7000 East Hyman Building GMP Application
Dear Alan,
This letter is to confirm the authorization given to Vann
Associates to represent us and to submit our application
for the Lucas Project.
If you have any questions regarding the authorization please
call me as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Peter C. Rosell
Vice President
cc: Vann Associates
. ..... ~ ,.....~
- - - - --
.-"
..- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - --.....
...
I
,I
b
o
7 DO ~. H'jIloAh
In \-itJ~t~r ,
m HDV~I")
't.
"I :'dh 0 iit.
PI", .t\"IL.'J
'- tle.iM,.,1!)..'iol'
.\. nl'\Llg
'iJ" II n( 10I ~ ~ c,. _ 4'- 4.lo<y ,1 rYf '
o ;? r rA
0:J Eftf'J '/
I~ I-
II L.:."J 'Kif(;")
II
I
II
III .lI......._ ~,"'.
II E. '1" tll,j- or.vw~':
II
'!"O//PbP*, 1tMf~~w..- Yz'l-)j,)lhll")) v,
1.1'/001'1> iI,), b~l~ ,,)
"I )
II i~ (", (lrlll ;"J l< J.A.((, C-4Ic,IA+,Sl'<
I
I ~ "",i.,) \.... 1",,,, - hl)A'~\~,,> I fl. ,
e.\ fi!~e.-"~t,l\.
I-tS)0- L./ ~.lrAAn.,M r.tf.,IOIAI.L- Utl. e,.(~jf~
7J} '.{ ~ ~.j.~ t\{[
g/lj ),4
,q), (
'10'1 \
., ~ 1}l~ if ~ 01(1
~I((, eeJvdIJ'l, ~ 2. Hu""2S'I~ -,in) ,"I~'~~ J~',) r~t1J~
E.~')) - f- L. 'l---z-3 -?tf
I
I
_~ f;f>> ~ ~ f~ 4 ~ ~~A'r
- ~ ~J:' tv/ ~ ,f" rfv...... 7
- ~k~~4~~ w/~ ~'o-e.JiJ~(
.. ~ ~T:;,~1fl-,J ~ ~/ ~ I 'L-~Lib.)
~ ~ 1nJz iA.,
~. A. R . ":: Cl, D 0 0 ~.f.
dh \"2. O&Q/; \ "
LJt, Ie L,~.~ nl~,IO,*
.
,
-{c"./IU\.. P,A t.jA'4...7 '" r4J "'.-,f\. fl~;'~
-
~ ""'.
'''''"
~SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
/r?ft:
iJ-V? /.;:z ,
s~~~,!, v ,,~~
110" 'O~ \: l'
0A-1:u-. u; SI/../
RE: loe 'i,., ~-^"'" ~~\J
Dear S-"'~"'\
This is to inform you that the Plannin;J Office has
preliminary review of your Co _"",,~~_4' c.~ application
ness. We have determined that your application
/
completed its
for complete-
is complete,~~,,,,,,,-
is not compl ete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed).
Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed).
~7
.
Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount of $
is due.
/
A. Since your applica~ion is complete, we have scheduled it
for review by the ."-'l. _on <;,~..\ \..
We will be calling you if we need any additional information
prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review memorandum availabl e to you. Please note that it
(is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
Please feel free to call
assigned to this case, if you
c,,~
have any questions.
Sincerely,
, who is the planner
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
~
Alan Richman, Planning and
Development Director
AR: jl r
->-.-.----
,.
..
,.
..
III
..
III
III
III
III
III
III
""
III
...
ioo
""
III
III
III
III
III
...
..
...
...
...
III
III
..
,.
..
III
..
""
..
..
ill
700 EAST HYMAN BUILDING
COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION
AUGUST 1, 1986
-
-
-
-
-
V ANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
-
-
-
August 1, 1986
-
-
-
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Co 81611
-
-
-
Re: Lucas property Commercial Growth Management Plan
Application
-
Dear Alan:
-
-
Attached for the Planning Office's review are twenty-one
(21) copies of the referenced application and a check in
the amount of $3,180.00 for payment of the application
fee. Please note that in addition to the GMP/conceptual
submission fee, the check provides for the application's
anticipated referral costs. Should additional referrals
be required, please advise and we will gladly provide
the appropriate fee.
-
-
-
-
-
Should you have any questions regarding our application,
or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact myself or the Applicant's represen-
tative, Mr. Peter Rosell. On behalf of Vann Associates
and the project team, thank you and your staff for your
assistance in the preparation of our application.
-
-
-
Very truly yours,
-
VANN ASSOCIATES
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PO Box 8485' Aspen. Colorado B1612' 303/925.6958
-
-
-
-
-
-
A COMMERCIAL
-
-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION
-
FOR THE
-
LUCAS PROPERTY
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prepared for
-
THE HODGE COMPANIES, INC.
Real Estate Development and Management
1505 Bridgeway Blvd., Suite 129
Sausa1ito, California 94965
(415) 331-1505
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prepared by
-
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
210 South Galena st., suite 24
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6958
-
-
-
and
-
-
WALTER & WAGER, ARCHITECTS
3030 Bridgeway Blvd.
Sausa1ito, California 94965
(415) 332-9010
-
-
-
-
-
-
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
,-
- Section Page
-
- I. INTRODUCTION 1
.-
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
- A. Water System 3
- B. sewage System 4
- C. Drainage System 4
D. Development Data 5
E. Traffic and Parking 6
F. Proposed Uses 8
G. Impact on Adjacent Uses 8
H. Construction Schedule 9
- I. Emp10yee Housing Proposal 10
-
- III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 11
.. A. Quality of Design 11
-
1- Architectural Design 12
-
2. site Design 19
-
3. Energy Conservation 22
-
- 4. Amenities 24
- 5. Visual Impact 25
- 6. Trash and Utility Access 25
..
- B. Availability of Public Facilities 26
and Services
..
- 1- Water Supply and Fire 26
Protection
-
-
..
-
-
-
~...
....
-
-
-
-
IV.
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
2. Sewage Disposal
3. Public Transportation and
Roads
4. Storm Drainage
5. Parking
C. Provision of Employee Housing
D. Bonus Points
SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Property Survey
Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy
B. Exhibit 1, Letter from Jim Markalunas,
Director, Aspen Water Department
Exhibit 2, Letter from Heiko Kuhn,
Manager, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District
Exhibit 3, Letter from Robert Synder,
Park Place Condominiums
C. Exhibit 1, Letter from Peter Wirth,
Fire Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department
27
27
28
29
30
30
31
34
"
Ih.jo
I. INTRODUCTION
1'P'1
,~,
The following application, submitted pursuant to
Section 24-11. 5 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requests a
commercial growth management allocation for the development
of a vacant 12,000 square foot parcel of land hereinafter
referred to as the Lucas property (see Appendix A, Exhibit
1). As shown on Figure 1, page 2, the property is located
at the intersection of spring Street and Hyman Avenue and is
zoned O-Office. More specifically, the property consists of
Lots K,L,M and N, Block l04, City of Aspen, Colorado. The
owner of the property and Applicant is the Hodge Capital
Company of Sausalito, California (see Appendix A, Exhibit
2). The Applicant's representative is Peter C. Rosell, Vice
President of The Hodge Companies, Inc.
;~.,.
.~
-
-
-
To facilitate the review of the Applicant's request,
the application has been divided into three areas. The
first area, or Section II of the application, provides a
brief description of the proposed development while Section
III addresses in detail the Code's growth management review
criteria. The third area, or section IV, discusses the
special review approval which will also be required in order
to reduce the proposed building's parking requirements. For
the reviewer's further convenience, all pertinent documents
relating to the project (e.g., title insurance policy,
utility commitments, etc.) are provided in the various
appendices to this application.
-
'.
-
..
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
.
.
-
1
-
-
~ ~.~. aa..1IIIIa,aa .N.....
.. ....In.
aa....a'aa .N.....
..N.,..a .. o.~
..a..N.....'n.Naa aNINN..'.
IINla'ln. NYWAIoI .. CO"-
._Yltla..y NNY^
-
-I,
~
~
)
I
I,
ii'
I
"1
I,
-€
-i-,'T
,
---:--;1\
L..,;
--{.:
) ;: ;1'
"~I
'a. ......11'010
,.1 !
fl
I
i
, I
i'l
,
,
0 !i
'" "
~~ ,
... ,j
'''''
~.
, \ ,
, ;:i,'
- I ~-. -
, cj
'i' ,
~__i,
i ceo,
i) I
'11"
.'
ill
o
01
,U
...
o
:j
'1,,,-
,-\,
'7 -
I. ~
t_ ,.,
,
;~':i t:;~'l'
!~jJ!1
-=-.. 1'1 .,'
-, .
~-::-lbD-o obcocccc
~
d
o
..
,?', i I
""'i [Dr?'
i'I'} ,i:,'
i ;! i .
I' I c
~ ~i----,J
.
. ,.
C I ...
1 8'1.
~
co cccccccc co
-
-
i;
-
-n:
,
,
I
"
"
;;['
-
l~_~:
--------{
-
j
,
~
, ,
-~,lj ,
-~/. 'I
/'
Lir
" 'I
~i-_-tl
..
-
"
,",
)'
..
-
[l
..
2
-
,
...
~
~;'1;
\L-/(
1'--'
C
a.'~~
..
!i-~
oi
, ,
''''''"
"
; !- "----
...1-:
i ('\I
, ,
...
,"
"
fi
7
'-'
l:
_ ~. ! I
..
!,~
"
j'
I
.
;
...
;' i .
.
. .
. ,
. . .
.
g
N
1--
I it
! h
5 III
J: 11!
c !!
~ ~
c
0
0
"
, ,
,
t
,.,....
While the Applicant has attempted to address all
relevant provisions of the Municipal Code, and to provide
sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of
this application, questions may arise which result in the
staff's request for further information and/or clarifi-
cation. To the extent required, the Applicant would be most
happy to provide additional information in the course of the
application's review.
-
-
-
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
..
The Applicant proposes to construct an approximately
9,000 square foot (external floor area) office building on
the Lucas property. The ground floor of the new structure,
to be known as the 700 East Hyman building, will contain
approximately 1,660 square feet of floor area. The build-
ing's second and third floors will contain approximately
3,830 and 3,510 square feet, respectively. ,A basement is
neither required nor provided. The specifics of the
proposed development are outlined below.
..
..
..
..
A. Water System
-
-
Water service to the project will be provided via a
new service line connecting to either the existing eight (8)
inch water main located in Spring Street or to the twelve
(12) inch main in Hyman Avenue. A decision as to which line
to tap will be reached in cooperation with the Aspen Water
...
..
..
-
..
-
3
..
..
-
.-
-
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. To
enhance fire protection, a new hydrant will be installed at
the property's southwest corner. The preliminary fixture
count for the new building is four (4) toilets, four (4)
lavatories, one (1) janitor's sink, and approximately five
(5) hose bibs. The Water Department has indicated that a
connection to either existing main is acceptable and that
the impact of the project on existing facilities will be
minimal (see Appendix B, Exhibit 1).
-
-
-
-
B. Sewage system
The project will be served by the existing eight
(8) inch sanitary sewer located in the alley to the rear of
the property. According to the Aspen Consolidated sani-
tation District, anticipated flows can be accommodated with
no improvements to existing lines or the treatment plant
(see Appendix B, Exhibit 2).
C. Drainage System
-
Roof runoff from the new building, and surface
runoff from the project's impervious parking area, will be
retained on-site utilizing drywells. Surface runoff from
the proposed sidewalks will drain to Spring Street and Hyman
Avenue. This runoff, however, will be intercepted to a
substantial degree by the landscaped planting areas which
will parallel the proj ect' s street frontages. Existing
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
."''';
-
,y\"f,
oJ(I$~
{~.)
-
-
-
,.
-
..
-
'"'
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
catch basins in the immediate site area are believed to be
adequate; however, an additional basin will be provided in
an appropriate location should one be requested by the City
Engineer.
The proj ect' s detailed drainage plan will be
reviewed with the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
D. Development Data
The fOllowing,table summarizes site and development
data for the Lucas property and the proposed 700 East Hyman
building.
Table I
SITE AND DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Lot Area 12,000 sq. ft.
2. Building Footprint1 7,890 sq. ft.
3. Landscaping/Open Space 2,230 sq. ft.
4. External Floor Area 9,000 sq. ft.
5. External Floor Area Ratio 0.75:1
6. Net Leasable Floor Area 7,460 sq. ft
7. 1986 Commercial GMP Request2 9,000 sq. ft.
1Includes the parking area located underneath the building's
second floor.
2Additional information in support of the Applicant's
request for a multi-year allocation will be submitted prior
to the P & Z's disposition of this application.
5
-
-
E. Traffic and parking
~"""
-
The City Engineer has indicated that the proposed
project will have no significant impact upon the existing
street system, as spring street and Hyman Avenue are
currently functioning below allowable capacity levels in the
immediate site area. Twenty-five (25) parking spaces will
be provided on-site and accessed via the alley to the rear
of the property.
-
-
..
-
-
While the provision of alley access results in the
loss of two (2) potential on-site spaces, both the Applicant
and the City Engineer believe this alternative to be far
superior to the provision of curb cuts on either Spring
street or Hyman Avenue. The special review approval of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, however, will be required in
order to reduce the project's parking requirement from
twenty-seven (27) to twenty-five (25) spaces (see section IV
for a detailed discussion of the project's parking require-
ment and the Applicant's special review request).
..
The building's hours of principal daily usage will
generally coincide with the normal business day (i.e. eight
to five) for office uses typically permitted within the 0-
Office zone district. with respect to alternative means of
transportation, the Mountain Valley and Hunter Creek bus
routes currently serve Spring Street. As shown on Figure 2,
page 7, the Rubey Park Transit Center is located approx-
6
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
-
..
-
.. ...... aaYlIIa,aa 'N.IIl....
... .'&'10.
...N.'YD ". a...
a&.Ny.&.,n.Nao DNINN...'"
...LYI~Q..Y NNY^
,.,,11
u..
u.
J'
-
j r r-~BI~ 'r
i
I
.-
aa...wa,a:J .N.......
E1NIQ'ln. NYWAH .. DCJL
I
i
!
, ,
,H
iiJ"" ,
- 3' _ '.
-:'11 '
I.... '''-''', '"
i ,i\. t
',i~,
. ~
. '1
,~r
)'{~
,-- /
\, . C
~ '!-'
,j'~J>
I~~ I
: i..
.:,C!
, ,
! 'c;,:~ j
~II
.~t
~.
eu~d.oo~ 0000000000
, ' r . .
b
'Iio . "n n!" "
30 . Jl" Pi,' ,,:r
!IO, 6. I ' ' ~ I 'I.
,i,~ ~ IL i.~ i".,i \1'1
i ~"" Ii . '
" ..! a . ./ jO ~,'\- -",
o~<oO~OOOOiOOOOQOOOOOOOObOO~? \
I I ",.,''U"IWII ,~-'.' ,~__.~,o ~ i- I
--r:: I \!' _r \;, :.
~ '"., ,,"-,&,
r'!, , ! 1 : V'i., i - '1" 111
'___,j _ '..,' : .J' \. :_-'" If'--,
eooooooOooooooooooao 0 j I'"''''
.--__ <"'~.o.. "1011'''"11'" \~,----------c:-
If' , -.' , , I I \-' r;r
,It' . I'! ,. i,:,'Fi" ii,
" I j ;I,',c~j
I --.-/" ',-,~'J ~
~
i
. ,
!
I~~
00
-
-
,
,
Ii
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
,.
o 0
o
,.
j"~ .
00
';:j'
" .
,
i~1
jlO'
,
,
en' .~
~L' i I~
~ '" i,J
)0. ". '.0
. ~)U
. '.
-i--
i'-
,"'-'-------'-----
~~\"-. , {~~~~2~.
-,-,!
(-,0' I
:'1.., ,j 1-
f::1,~"i !
=-'.-- I
i ,.:::=-=-;
~ r:!_
..\.'--
- .
'.
Ij
, ,
,
"
:"1\'
,Iii
1.1
(,:(",
"
; i ~
'no
j,
!\
1,
/,1.
7
.
. i
. .
1 :
.
N
.
.
.
,
.
j
~' I
I J 1
iiI
imately four (4) blocks southwest of the property.
F. Proposed Uses
The 700 East Hyman building's tenants will be
limited to those professional and business offices permitted
-
within the O-Office zone district.
The project's employee
-
housing requirement will be fulfilled via the conversion of
existing free market units; therefore, no residential use of
the property is required or proposed.
As shown in Table 1, page 5
the total net
leasable floor area of the building
is approximately 7,460
---
1,480 square feet will
square feet, of which approximately
be, located on the ground floor.
An additional 3, 230 and
2,750 square feet will be located on the building's second
and third floors, respectively. The actual number of tenant
spaces will depend primarily upon market demand. For
purposes of illustration; however, a typical tenant layout
might consist of approximately four (4) spaces on the ground
floor,
six (6) spaces on the second floor, and an add-
~
itional four (4) to six (6) spaces on the building's third
floor.
~
""'
-
G. Impact on Adjacent Uses
..
The Lucas property is zoned O-Office as is the
-
-
adjacent area located to the north, south and east.
The
-
area west of the property is zoned C-l, Commercial.
-
8
-
-
-
Existing land uses in the immediate site area include a
single-family residence and a mUlti-family structure located
across the alley to the rear of the property; the Patio
-
commercial building, the Weinerstube restaurant and the
-
Hannah Dustin office
building
located at the northwest,
~!O
~
southwest and southeast corners, respectively, of the Spring
Street and Hyman Avenue intersection; and the so-called
Grainery building located between the property and the Aspen
Athletic Club to the east.
Both the Grainery building and the single-family
residence located across the alley, however, are currently
listed for sale. Given the condition of the structures, and
the value of the property which they occupy, it is reason-
able to assume that it is only a matter of time until these
'""
two properties are redeveloped pursuant to the provisions of
the O-Office zone district.
-
-
-
The proposed use of the new building is consistent
-
with the intent of the O-Office zone district and compatible
with surrounding land uses.
As a result, the functional
-
character of this transitional area of the City will be
-
unaffected by the Applicant's proposal.
-
-
H. Construction Schedule
-
-
The target date for commencement of construction is
-
the Spring of 1987, with completion of the entire project
-
-
9
-
-
-
..
-
anticipated prior to December of 1987. Phased construction
-
of the building will not be required.
..
-
I. Employee Housing Proposal
..
-
As shown on Table 1, page 5, the external floor
area of the project is 9,000 square feet, of which the net
leasable floor area is approximately 7,460 square feet.
-
..
..
-
Based on an employee - generation factor of three (3) em-
ployees per thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable
floor area (the Municipal Code's specified employee gen-
-
-
-
eration factor for the O-Office zone district), the project
':JQ,'"H
will generate approximately twenty two (22) new employees.
The Applicant proposes to satisfy the employee housing
"",.,.
-
requirements of section 24-11. 5 (c) via the conversion of
existing non-restricted units to deed restricted status
-
-
pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-11.l0(i) (2) of the
Municipal Code.
-
..
..
More specifically, the Applicant proposes to house
nine (9) employees, or forty (40) percent of the total em-
ployees generated by the proj ect, in four (4) two bedroom
..
..
..
units to be purchased at the Airport Business Center (see
..
Appendix B, Exhibit 3). These formerly free market, rental
..
units have recently been renovated, condominiumized and
offered for sale as the Park Place Condominiums. The units
..
..
..
in question comply with all applicable employee housing
..
10
..
..
..
~.
standards and will be deed restricted to employee occupancy
and price guidelines in accordance with the Housing Auth-
ori ty' s recommendations prior to the issuance of a Cert-
ificate of Occupancy for the new building. It is anti-
cipated that the units will be restricted to the Authority's
low income rental and sales price guidelines.
-
...
...
-
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
-
-
......
The following section addresses the various review
criteria against which the proposed project will be eval-
uated. The information contained herein represents the
Applicant's best effort at compliance with both the letter
and intent of the criteria. We believe that in every
category the proposed project meets or exceeds the minimum
applicable standard. Based on our understanding of the
various criteria and the project's compliance therewith, we
have taken the liberty of requesting an appropriate score in
each review category. Please reference as necessary the
appropriate headings in section II of this application for
detailed information in support of the Applicant's following
representations and commitments.
-
...
...
...
A. Quality of Design
-
..
The quality of the proposed project's exterior and
site design is discussed below. Please note that the Lucas
property is located outside of the City's commercial core
..
..
...
..
-
11
..
...
-
historic overly district and, therefore, Historic Preser-
vation Commission review and approval of the 700, East Hyman
building's architecture is not required.
-
-
1. Architectural Design. The Applicant's prin-
cipal objectives with respect to the architectural design of
the 700 East Hyman building may be summarized as follows:
-
-
...
~~.<
a. To design a contemporary structure of
exceptional quality that is not only aesthetically pleasing,
functional and energy efficient, but is highly compatible
with adjacent buildings and a positive addition to the
neighborhood.
-
...
b. To provide premium office space for the
small user while maintaining sufficient flexibility to
respond to larger tenant needs.
c. To maintain the exceptional views orig-
inating from the site while minimizing, to the extent
feasible, the building's impact on surrounding land uses.
-
We believe that the proposed 700 East Hyman
building, the schematic floor plans and elevations of which
are presented on the following pages, successfully meets the
above objectives. As the drawings illustrate, the build-
ing's basic form is a rectangular pyramid, which contains a
relatively small ground floor and two substantially larger
-
...
-
..
-
-
-
...
12
...
..
..
"
.
I
I
I
i
I
..I
c.>,
:
I
I
..
r" '
i
~
,
,
.
Ir 1
.
.
. .
.
II' 1
I" '
t ...
.'
8PRINO ST
i
~
..
---,
~
]
"
..
.
'-. /
"" /'
//~~
- - - - - - -- - ~ - --- .
----------
_:\
--------.--.
--.-- -------
.'
I
J
-
~
~
~
>~q:
~'
"
1ft
.
'" ,
I
:: iI iI
it II II
i I I
~ 5 ;
I
i
..
I
I
.'
1m
, .
.
I ~
J
~
~
~
j
I
v
<]1
s
I
\v
~
~
e
, ""'
'1
..
z
~I
.
..
.
-
...
.
.
.
I
.
~
.
1
.'
I
!
'~~
"
"
'"
T
I'
"
I'
"
II II
.--" '.-..''Z" .~. = _,-_~.:~~
'. - , II ':
~ II II
~ I. 11
n II jl
m I. .1
., i~ =: :___'_~] ,I
:;.--"';.:;.":...---- --It
'I
"
"
I, ,
" .II:]
,I '; i r II : ill'~~ +
I i ~: ~
q
"4'
m
f! '
tI:
!i
..
c;
1ft
.
N
Z
C
~
~
I
.'
~
,\v
M
a.
:.
~
it
e
..
~~
18
.
.
-
Ul
...
...
I
I
.
t .
. .
.
.
.
.'
W
:D
C
~
~
~--Q
o
"",
/
$
\v
~ ~-
'1.
\'
I
.'
I'"
:.
~
it
e
~
~
..
..
~~
.
.
...
,
.
.. 4 ~ '.
"
r '
,
, .
,
..
..
..
..
,
.'
. en
0 :e
c: .m
-I en
:t -I
m m
r-
en r- m
0 m
> . :;; ~
r
m -I
<; -I -
- 0
0 Z
~ Z
~!
/
,^"
..
-
0>
~
I t! I 1'1 en x
~ I ;II
.p ;~
U Z
I 1 i' I !" e ~
..
.
.. .
I '"
~ it
. ;
.
I
.'
..
..
-,
..
.
~ . .. 411
"
t '
"" "!
. .
Ii< .,
"
,
r ·
II
",
m
:J>
en
o0oi
m
....
m
~ 1 /
o0oi ..
-
0
z z
. 0
:0
o0oi
%
m
....
m
~
(b o0oi
0 -
> 0
r- Z
m
0_
~
..
....
~
I
-..
.'
I
1'-1
.p
f'
!
.'
.
en
i
e
z
i1~
I
-
-
upper floors which step back from the adjacent streets so as
to reduce perceived bulk and the structure's profile. site
characteristics dictate that the building stand on its own
yet respect its immediate surroundings; therefore, the
structure has been set firmly on the site at the ground
level while the two upper floors are contained within the
building's sloping roof and dormers. In order to further
mitigate the building's bulk, and to maintain the pedestrian
scale of the surrounding neighborhood, the structure has
been recessed approximately two (2) feet below the level of
the Hyman Avenue sidewalk. Secondary benefits arising from
the architectural design concept outline above include:
...
...
-
...
-
-
...
-
-
-
~
a) The ability to locate the project's parking
at the rear of the property and underneath the building's
second floor, thereby significantly offsetting the effects
of inclement weather and reducing its visual impact.
"....
b) The ability to soften the building's
various facades and to introduce outdoor decks and land-
scaping on the upper floors, thereby providing increased
natural light, access to fresh air and enhanced views. of
surrounding scenic areas.
-
-
-
-
c) The ability to provide a variety of office
space configurations which are responsive to specific tenant
needs, in particular those individual tenants with rela-
tively small space requirements.
18
..
-
-
-
-
...
-
...
-
The 700 East Hyman building will be constructed
of familiar materials including a stone base, wood siding
and a standing seam metal roof. The extensive use of glass
will visually tie the building to the outdoor streetscape
and the project's extensive landscaping. Although contem-
porary in concept and design, the building, in respecting
the height and bulk of neighboring structures, should be not
only highly compatible but a positive addition to this area
of the city.
...
...
-
-
-
-
,~
Requested Score: 3 points
...
2. site Design. The basic design concept for the
project site has been to preserve the "streetfront" integ-
ri ty of the immediate site area, minimize the building's
perceived bulk, enhance pedestrian and vehicular cir-
culation, and provide for extensive landscaping so as to
soften the building's facades and screen the on-site parking
area. As Figure 3, page 13 illustrates, the building's
footprint parallels both Spring street and Hyman Avenue,
thereby maintaining the City's traditional street front
design. The entrance to the building and ground floor
office spaces is located off Hyman Avenue, the quieter and
less traveled of the two adjacent streets. Both the ground
floor and the proj ect' s parking area, which is located at
the rear of the property underneath the building's second
story, are recessed into the site so as to minimize per-
19
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
'.
-
-
"
~
ceived bulk and help screen the automobile from view. An
HI"
enclosed trash area has been provided adjacent to the alley
which may be conveniently accessed by collection vehicles.
,.
-
-
-
Although no open space is required within the
O-Office zone district, approximately 2,230 square feet have
been provided. As Figure 3 illustrates, the project's open
space consists of the building's entry plaza and those
landscaped areas located within the building's setbacks.
Although technically not counted for purposes of open space
-
-
calculations, the building's landscaped second floor roof
terraces, and the landscaped sidewalk areas located within
the public right-of-way, significantly contribute to the
character and quality of the project's site design.
In order to enhance vehicular circulation in
the immediate site area, access to the parking area is
,---
provided via the alley, thus eliminating the need for curb
cuts in either Spring street or Hyman Avenue.
Similarly,
the Applicant proposes to install sidewalks along both
street frontages so as to provide convenient pedestrian
access and enhance pedestrian safety.
Service vehicle
-.._"------
-
...
access to the building is provided via the alley and paved
parking area, which directly abuts the building's elevator
and mechanical areas located at the rear of the ground
...
..
-
floor.
...
-
-
20
-
-
-
-
-
As Figure 3, page 13, further illustrates, the
project's open space, parking area, and the Spring Street
and Hyman Avenue right-of-ways will be extensively land-
-
-
-
scaped with specimen size deciduous trees, shrubbery and
, _.__.__.,....__._.u..,.. ---'~-_u_.._-p--"~"---__
..
seasonal flowering plants.
Actual specimens will be
...
--------.- ,.".'--.'---
selected depending upon availability; however, all trees
will be a minimum three (3) inch caliper and will be chosen
from such species as Cleveland maple, Marshall seedless ash,
-
-
narrow leaf cottonwood, etc.
Low growing shrubs and ground cover such as
potentilla, horizontal juniper, ajuja, etc. will be used to
soften the buildings facades, screen the parking area, and
---------- .---.....-:
to further enhance the-appearance of the project. The areas
located between the proposed sidewalks and the streets will
be planted with sod such as Kentuckx.... blue grass. The
....---
proj ect' s extensive landscaping will further help to
\
o'\minimize the buildings perceived bulk, provide shade during
the summer months, and constitute a significant amenity for
-'.-.--.------
/
the pedestrian enjoyment of the sidewalk and plaza areas.
-
-
The building's entry plaza will be surfaced
---
..
with exposed aggregate and brick pavers.
Snowmelt will be
.-.------------
-
used where appropriate to prevent unsightly snow buildup and
..
-
to increase pedestrian safety.
The entry plaza will be
..
attractively lighted and all utilities will be placed
underground. The Applicant will work with the City Engineer
..
..
21
-
-
-
'-001II
...
-
r ~
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
..
-
...
..
...
..
...
-
to coordinate the location and installation of sidewalk
street lights which the City currently plans to erect in the
immediate site area. Benches will be provided in the entry
plaza and street furniture, tree grates with cages, and
bicycle racks will be provided along the Spring Street and
Hyman Avenue sidewalks.
Curb and gutter will be replaced
where required and a handicap ramp provided at the Spring
._------.'~...---
Street and Hyman Avenue intersection.
Requested Score: 3 points
3.
Energy Conservation.
The 700 East Hyman
building has been designed to maximize the conservation of
energy and the use of solar energy sources.
Specific
features to be incorporated in the building include the
following:
a) Building Orientation and Solar Utilization.
The building has been oriented to take full advantage of the
property's solar potential.
As the archi tectural floor
plans illustrate, a majority of the building's leasable area
has either a southern or western exposure, in order to
maximize passive solar gain.
b) Insulation. Insulation specifications will
exceed minimum standards. Exterior walls will utilize R-19
batt insulation and one (1) inch of insulated sheathing for
a total insulation value of R-26. Roofs will have an insul-
22
'"
ation value of R-38. One (1) inch, low E insulated glass
will be used throughout the building to reduce overheating
during the spring, summer and fall, and heat loss during the
winter.
~~..
-
'"'
c) Mechanical Systems. Heating of the
building will be accomplished utilizing a high efficiency,
two pipe water based system with a central, segmented
modular boiler and remote fan coil units. The central
boiler will use natural gas and have electronic ignition and
staged firing so as to provide maximum efficiency at all
heat loads. Although the system described above will result
in a higher initial cost to the Applicant, it is more
efficient and will produce better heating modulation and
response time than a conventional air system.
...
-
-
-
The building has been designed to require
minimum mechanical cooling. In order to further reduce
energy consumption, operable window will be provided at the
buildings perimeter, thereby enhancing cross-ventilation and
natural cooling. Should tenant needs dictate, however, the
heating plan can be easily modified so as to incorporate a
high efficiency, low consumption mechanical cooling system.
...
..
...
The building's plumbing fixtures will be
limited to four (4) toilets, four (4) lavatories, a jan-
itor's sink and approximately five (5) hose bibs. Low
consumption fixtures will be specified throughout. Domestic
23
...
-
...
...
-
-
-
-
..
hot water requirements will be limited to the lavatories and
sink, thereby further enhancing energy conservation. point-
of-source electrical hot water heaters will be utilized in
order to reduce the standby heat loss inherent in conven-
tional hot water heating systems.
''iI''ll
,-
'"'
-
4. Amenities. The applicant's development
objective with respect to the Lucas property has been to
design a highly marketable office building of exceptional
quality, which incorporates the most functional and inviting
open space and pedestrian experience possible given develop-
ment parameters and site limitations. We believe that this
objective has been achieved through careful attention to
site design and the provision of extensive landscaping, both
on the property itself and within the public right-of-way.
This extensive landscaping constitutes a maj or amenity for
the project, surrounding land uses, and the city of Aspen.
Additional specific features and/or commitments of the
project which can be considered amenities include:
'~'-.J
a) The building's landscaped second floor
roof terraces.
-
-
b) Improved pedestrian circulation along
Spring Street and Cooper Avenue.
-
..
..
c) The building's landscaped entry plaza.
-
-
d) Sidewalk and plaza benches and bicycle
racks.
-
...
24
...
-
-
e) The project's on-grade, covered parking
lot.
...
-
,~
Requested Score: 3 points
...
...
5. Visual Impact. The Applicant has made consid-
erable effort to integrate the proposed 700 East Hyman
building into the surrounding neighborhood. The building's
setback upper floor, the Hyman Avenue entry plaza, and the
extensive use of glass and above grade decks all signif-
icantly contribute to the maximization of public views of
the surrounding scenic areas, both from within the project
as well as from neighboring properties. In virtually no
instance is the view from the immediate site area signif-
icantly impacted by the proposed building.
..
...
-
-
Requested Score: 3 points
-
6. Trash and utility Access. Although no trash or
utility access areas are required by either Section's 24-3.4
or 24-3.7(h) (4) in the O-Office zone district, the Applicant
proposes to provide an approximately five (5) foot by ten
(10) foot enclosed trash area adjacent to the alley at the
rear of the property. This area can be conveniently
accessed by collection vehicles and has been sized to
accommodate a single two (2) cubic yard dumpster (the
largest dumpster that can be conveniently handled during the
winter months) .
-
..
-
-
-
..
-
..
25
...
-
...
-
-
-
Based on BFI Waste Systems' national standard
of one (1) cubic yard of trash per 10,000 square feet of
office floor area per day, the proposed building would
generate approximately 0.9 cubic yards of trash each day. A
two (2) cubic foot yard dumpster, therefore, would be more
than adequate to handle the trash needs of the project.
-
..
-
-
-
with respect to the building's utility access
area requirements, the existing electrical transformer
located at the rear of the property should be adequate to
serve the project. The building's electrical panels will be
located adj acent to the ground floor mechanical area so as
to provide convenient access for meter reading and emergency
shut-off. A utility area abutting the alley, therefore,
will not be required.
-
-
Requested Score: 3 points
B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services
..
The proposed project's impact upon public facil-
ities and services is described below.
-
..
1. Water Supply and Fire Protection. The project
in and of itself improves the quality of service in the
immediate site area. The Water Department has indicated
that the existing water mains in the area are adequate to
supply the proj ect and that system upgrades will not be
-
-
-
-
-
..
26
...
..
-
required. In order to minimize consumption, water-saving
fixtures will be specified throughout the project.
-
with respect to fire protection, the site is
located approximately four (4) blocks from the Aspen
Volunteer Fire Department, resulting in a response time of
approximately three (3) to five (5) minutes (see Appendix C,
Exhibit 1). While an existing fire hydrant is located at
the northwest corner of Original street and Hyman Avenue, an
additional hydrant will nonetheless be provided by the
Applicant at the southwest corner of the property. The
provision of an additional fire hydrant will significantly
improve fire protection in the surrounding neighborhood.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
Requested Score: 2 points
-
2. Sewage Disposal. The project may be handled by
the existing level of service in the area. The Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated that the
existing eight (8) inch line located in the alley to the
rear of the property is adequate to serve the project and
that system upgrades will not be required.
-
-
Requested Score: 1 point
-
..
3. Public Transportation and Roads. The project
may be handled by the existing level of service in the area.
The City Engineer has indicated that the project will have
no negative impacts upon the existing street system as
27
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,.
Spring Street and Hyman Avenue are currently functioning
below allowable capacity levels in the vicinity of the
property. Although vehicle ingress and egress to the
property will obviously increase as a result of development,
potential circulation conflicts will be minimized as a
result of the provision of direct alley access to the
proj ect' s on-site parking area. No curb cuts on Spring
Street or Hyman Avenue will be required or provided, thereby
eliminating a potential hazard to both pedestrians and
through traffic.
'..-4
'....
,..
-
-
..
-
As Figure 2, page 7 illustrates, Rubey Park is
located approximately four (4) blocks southwest of the
property. The Mountain Valley bus route directly serves the
property via Spring Street while the Hunter Creek route
passes a block to the south on Cooper Avenue.
Requested Score: 1 point
-'''''
4. storm Drainage. The project in and of itself
improves the quality of service in the immediate site area.
No expansion of the existing storm drainage system will be
required. All roof runoff and the majority of the project's
surface runoff will be retained via the installation of on-
site drywells. While the vacant property's existing storm
water retention has not been calculated, historical runoff
levels will, at a minimum, be maintained and, in all
probability, will decrease as a result of drywell instal-
28
-
..
-
-
,-
..
-
..
..
-
.M
lation. Existing catch basins in the area are believed to
be adequate; however, the Applicant will install an addi-
tional basin in an appropriate location should one be
requested by the City Engineer.
.-
-
Requested Score: 2 points
-
5. parking. As discussed in Section II, the
Applicant proposes to provide twenty-five (25) on-site
parking spaces which will be accessed via the alley to the
rear of the property. While the numb.er of proposed spaces
is two (2) spaces less than the twenty seven (27) spaces
required pursuant to section 24 -4 . 5 (c) of the Municipal
Code, both the Applicant and the city Engineer believe the
proj ect' s parking area to be sufficient for a proj ect of
this scope (see Section II for a detailed discussion of the
project's parking requirement).
-
...
...
-
,...",
-
As Figure 3, page 13 illustrates, the project's
individual parking spaces comply with all applicable design
standards and are conveniently accessed off the alley,
thereby minimizing traffic congestion and safety hazards.
The parking area will be paved, drained and shielded from
both the alley and Spring Street by the project's extensive
landscaping. with the exception of approximately four (4)
spaces, all parking will be located under the building's
second floor.
-
...
...
...
...
...
...
Requested Score: 1 point
...
29
...
-
-
..
..
C. Provision of Employee Housing
"..
..
The Applicant proposes to house off-site nine (9)
full-time equivalent employees, or forty (40) percent of the
total employees generated by the project (see Section II for
,'"'
..
-
a detailed discussion of the proj ect' s employee generation
-
...
and housing proposal).
Based on the Appl icant 's proposal,
-
and the provisions of Section 24-11.5(b) (3) of the Municipal
Code, the project is entitled to ten (10) points, calculated
-
as follows:
40 percent employees housed x 1 point = 10 points
4 percent housing factor
-
-
Requested Score: 10 points
..
..
D. Bonus Points
...
-
We believe that this project has exceeded the
-
minimum review cri teria of the city's commercial growth
management regulations in numerous categories and, as a
result, has achieved an outstanding overall design meriting
..
-
the award of additional bonus points.
Specific areas in
..
which we believe the project excels include building and
-
site design, energy conservation, amenities, visual impact,
..
storm drainage, and parking.
Detailed discussions of the
-
project's merits in each of these areas are provided under
.
the appropriate headings in Section III of this application.
-
-
30
-
-
-
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL
...."
-
In addition to a commercial growth management allo-
cation, the proposed project will require special review
approval pursuant to section 24-4.6 of the Municipal Code in
order to reduce the proj ect' s off-street parking require-
ment. Pursuant to section 24-4.5(c), three (3) parking
spaces are required per thousand (1,000) square feet of
gross building floor area. This requirement may be reduced
by special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission
provided, however, that no fewer than 1.5 spaces per 1,000
square feet are approved.
..
-
I"."
-
As Table 1, page 5 indicates, the proposed external
floor area of the 700 East Hyman building is 9,000 square
feet. Based on the above standard, the maximum and minimum
number of required off-street parking spaces are twenty-
seven (27) and fourteen (14) spaces, respectively. While
the Applicant could physically provide twenty-seven (27)
spaces on-site, it would necessitate either accessing the
proj ect 's parking area from Spring Street, as opposed to
from the alley, or placing the parking subgrade. Inasmuch
as sub grade parking is unrealistic for a project of this
scale, and accessing Spring Street would result in increased
traffic congestion and safety hazards, the project's parking
has been provided on-grade and accessed from the alley.
This design decision, however, results in the loss of two
31
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
..
-
(2) parking spaces, thus necessitating the Applicant's
request for special review approval.
with respect to the specific review requirements of
Section 24-4.6 of the Municipal Code, the following comments
are provided in support of the Applicant's request for a
parking reduction:
a) The number of proposed spaces exceeds the
minimum requirement for the zone district by eleven (11)
spaces, or approximately 79 percent (i. e. the Applicant's
proposed ratio of 2.8 spaces per thousand square feet versus
the minimum requirement of 1.5 spaces per thousand).
b) Given the property's corner location, access
should be provided via the alley in order to reduce con-
gestion and enhance safety. This objective, however,
effectively reduces the number of spaces which can be
provided on-site without reverting to a subgrade parking
garage, an unrealistic alternative given the property's
development limitations and the project's scale.
'..
c) The property is located within convenient
walking distance of the City's commercial core. Both the
Hunter Creek and Mountain Valley bus routes are conveniently
accessible from the property.
-
WI
-
-
d) Considerable precedence exists to substantiate
a reduction to 1.5 spaces per thousand square feet of floor
32
'.
-
-
-
-
-011'*.
area for office space such as that proposed. The Applicant,
however, proposes to provide approximately 2.8 spaces per
thousand square feet.
-
e) No uses are proposed for the property which
would result in abnormally high traffic generation levels.
Inasmuch as office uses are typically lower traffic gen-
erators than commercial uses, and given the fact that
commercial uses may be permitted within the office zone
district, a parking requirement of less than three (3)
spaces per thousand square feet would appear appropriate for
a project such as the one proposed.
-
Based on the above factors, a reduction in the Appli-
cant's required parking would appear to be appropriate and
is, hereby, respectfully requested.
"."...
...
..
..
-
..
-
-
-
- 33
..
-
..
~,"',
-
-
...
-
-
-
..
APPENDIX A
..
-
..
-
-
-
~..~
~1
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
...
[
J
fl
i,
I
I
I
I
I
~
. j
I
~
.
,
1- ~
j l,
,
i.
.,
-
JI
"
.., ~o
;
o
I~
I
+:
!
] ,
1
1'1 i
~f~~
1 ~1 t
~.W J
WJ~
:1'11 "
I
J
"1
<
t
l
. ~
J ~
- !
~
t
,
EXHIBIT 1
)
~
/ .
L/ I
.
'~'-l
00. 0\
o ...., So
';(
..
j
~
-:
~
,
!
-'
,
,
ii
~
j
"
~
o
~
~
... ., ~..a,
Q .001
:I.bt-.QS.I'o'
't"~"S ~.Js
f
--
jo
1
,
;i
I
~
~j
.i
'.
I
t
I
1
I
,
I
I
I
1 i I
JI
~
.' ,
,.
"
~'"
"
';\
I
~
i
i
~
,
I
I
American Land Title ASlOciation COmmitment. MOdifIed 10/13
f
I
-
- . I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
..
~.
EXHIBIT 2
~\A.I'
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
nll:;.";'__ . .......
STEWART TITLE
MAY 0 3 1985
TNI HODQI CO.
GUARANTY COMPANY
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A Texas ation, herein called the Company, for
valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or po' ies of title insurance, as identified in
Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, s owner or mortgagee of the estate
or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the
premiums and charges therefor; all subject to t provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions
and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when ttl 'dentity of the proposed Insured and the amount
of the policy or policies committed for /;Jave been I rted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,
either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary
liability and obligations hereunder
or when the policy or policies com
failure to issue such policy or policies is
valid or binding until countersigned by an au
e issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all
and terminate sil< months after the effective date hereof
r shall issue. whichever first occurs, provided that the
e fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be
orized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHER~ the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to
become val id when cou rsigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance
with its 8y,Laws. This Com me is effective as otthe date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date."
EWART TITLE
~~ '"h(~,
Chairman of the Board
WAuu/' l17~
PI eSldent
...
.'
.
;
'.
.'
,~
Serl"NoC.1601. 37490
165 25M 2 84
'..
-
-
...
-
-
i -
-
!
. -
f:
r
i ......,
-
~
r
...l
...
,
I~
.~.-
r
RW/kk
SCHEIJUL!: A
Order Number:
13103
Commitment Number:
1 Effective date:
April 22, 1985 At 8100 A.M.
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
A. "'L.TA Own.(s Policy
Proposed Insured:
Amount of Insurance
Premium
s
B. AlTA LOIn Policy
Proposed Insured:
s
Tax Cert.
200,000.00
$ 5.00
$31S.50
c.
First National Bank in Aspen
and/or Assiqns
s
3. The estate or interest in the land described Of referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is al lhe effective date hereof
vested m:
Hodge Capital Company
4. The land refelTed 10 in this commItment is described as follows:
Lots ~, L, M, and
Block 104
CITY AND TOWNSITE
County
\:'.'
f Colorado
-
-
.1 ..
..
.
..
WI /: jJ!/~d
-
,
,
I;
1 - Authorll.a CounlerSl9Nluftl P_2
.. 11121101I "...,
STEWART TITLK
....AHA:'lfT'. (.....PAl"f".
.u
-
-
...
-
... 1.
-
,-
-
,-
...
-
..
..
-
..
..
..
-
-
-
..
SCHEDULE B - Section 1
Order Number: 131 0 3
Commitment Number:
Requirements
The following are the requiraments to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or tor the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the tull cons'deration for the estate or interest
to be 'nsured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and du'y filed for record,
to wit:
DP~d of Trust from the Borrower to the Public Trustee for the
use of the proposed lender to secure the loan.
NOTE: Trade Name Affidavit recorded March 26, 1995 in Book 483
at Page 461 names Thomas H. Wilson as the Bole representative of
Hodge Capital Company.
Da__ ~
STE'WART TITI.E
GUARANTY COMPANY
-
.-
~-
SCHEDULE B - Section 2
Exceptions
-
-
Order Number: 13103
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the
satIsfaction of the Company:
Commitment Number:
(...
-
-
1. Rights or claims of parties In possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the pubhc records
3. Discrepancies. conflIcts In boundary lmes, shortage In area, encroachments. and any facts which a correct
survey and Inspection of the premIses would disclose and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for serVices, labor or ma',erlal heretofore or hereafter furnIshed, Imposed by law
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, it any, created, tirst appearing In the publiC
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquIres
of record for value the estate or Interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
-
-
-
...
-
6. Any an~ all unpai~ taxes an~ as~~ssments and any unreneemerl
tax sales.
-
7. The effpct of inclusions in any general or specific water
conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other
district or inclusion in any water serviCE or str p
improvement area.
8.
n".'.
,....
Y.
Fxceptions and Mineral Reservations as
Aspen Townsite recorded March 1, lA97
as Reception ~o. 60156.
t..nt to
ge 2H>
-
.-
Easement for electrical and c mmunication .tility appurtenances
eln, IIpC\n, over, und..r, and a 5S the Nort erly 5.5 fept of the
Fasterly 8.0 feet of Lot N, (') ~ 104 as taken by the City of
Aspen, Co. ann t Mountain S s Telephone and Telegraph
Company pursuant. 0 Decre" in il Action No. 6019, District
Court, Pitkin Coun y. Colorado record~ct ~anuary 26, 1977 in
BC\Gk 323 at Page 8 as Reception No. 191532.
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
-
Exceptions numbered
are hereby omitted
..
p.... 4
STE"'ART TITLE
--~_..._. ...........y
-
.-....;0
-
-
-
-
-
..,
..
...
..
-
..
APPENDIX B
-
..
..
-
-
-
-
...
EXHIBIT 1
PEN
130
asp
-
...
...
July 21, 1986
-
'.....'
,....~
Vann A..ociate.
Sunny Vann, AICP
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, Co 81612
...
...
Re: Lucas Property
,.,."",
In regards to your inquiry concerning-the Luca. property, per our
discussion of July 21, 1986, water would be available to the
property fro. either the 12" .ain in By.an or the 8" .ain in
Spring Street, upon application for the necessary permits.
Should your client elect to in.tall a fire line to .ervice the
proposed three story building, it is our reco..endation that e
fire hydrant be installed on the .outhwest corner of the block.
This would improve fire protection for the neighborhood, as there
is not a fire hydrant located at this intersection.
We cannot co..ent as to the actual line size needed for the
do.e.tic service without detailed ~lans, but water is available
in aufficient quantity to service the property.
-
Sincerely,
I r..... ' , ~ ,
~. ,. ~---~. -\\\,\
,,-.. ..... . "-
Ji. M rkaluna~~irector
Aspen Water Depart.ent
-
-
..
cc: Planning Depart.ent
-
-
-
..
-
-
..
EXHIBIT 2
..'''1
.Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation ~ist1f'ict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Tele. 13031 925-2537
.,.,""
-
...
-
July 22, 1986
-
... Sunny Vann
% Vann Associates
- P. O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: Lucas Property
...
Dear Mr. Vann:
This letter is to indicate that upon preliminary examination the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District can service a proposed commercial buili'."g
on the Lucas property next to the 5ealth ?ood Grainery.
-
Sincerely
N- 41 t:::-.?
Heiko K'lhn, VE.c,anger
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
-
...
-
..
-
..
-
..
..
-
..
-
-
-
PARK PLACE
EXHIBIT 3
-
NDOMiNiUMS
-
JULY 30, 1 986
-
...
-
Peter C. Rosell
The Hodge Companies
1505 Bridgeway Blvd.
Sausal ita, CA. 94965
-
RE: Lucas Property
Dear Peter,
Please be advised that we will reserve four (4), two
bedroom units in our Park Place Condominium project for your
purchase. It is our understanding that yOU intend to use
these units to meet the employee housing requirement for
your 1986 commercial growth management appl ication for the
Lucas Property. We will hold these units for you for a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of this letter,
which should allow ample time to complete our contractual
negotiations.
The units we have reserved for yOU are 6-4 (711 sq.
ft.), 6-6 (808 sq. ft.), F-5 (795 sq. ft.) and F-6 (808 sq.
ft.). should yOU have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assitance, please do not hesitate to call.
"""l!
Very truly yours,
~ff~~~
Clark P. Smyth
J
..
-
...
...
-
...
...
-
-
413H PaCific Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925,2450
-
-
,-
..
..
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
APPENDIX C
..
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
-
...
-
...
...
-
~.
,"..
...
'.
-
...
-
..
...
-
...
-
...
EXHIBIT 1
w~~~~~!PlF~
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925.5532
July 22, 1986
Vann Associates
Planning Consultants
Box 8485
Aspen. Colorado 81612
RE: The Lucas Property
Dear Sunny:
Based on our very brief discussion, the Aspen Volunteer
Fire Department should have no problem in providing fire
protection to the proposed commercial project on the corner
of Hyman & Spring Streets. It is my understanding that you
intend to install a fire hydrant on the south/west corner of
the property. This hydrant would benifit the adjacent build-
ings in the area. The Aspen fire station is located three and
one half (3-1/2) blocks from the proposed project. and our re-
sponse time is three (3) to five (5) minutes regardless of the
time of day. If you have any Questions please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely
~v~'4
Peter Wirth
Fire Chief
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE .J131- to- / I -
130 South Galena Street ('tfo
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
00125
00123
00115
- 63721 - 47331
- 63722 . 47332
.63723 - 47333
-63724 -47341
- 63725 - 47342
.63726 - 47343
- 63727 - 47350
- 63728 - 47360
REFERRAL FEES:
- 63730 - 47380
- 63730 - 47380
- 63730 - 47380
County
00113 -63711 -47331
- 63712 - 47332
- 63713 - 47333
- 63714 - 47341
- 63715 - 47342
- 63716 - 47343
- 63717 - 47350
- 63718 - 47360
REFERRAL FEES:
- 63730 - 47380
- 63730 - 47380
- 63731 - 09000
- 63732 - 09000
00125
00123
00"3
00"3
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200
- 63063 - 09000 - 52200
- 63062 - 09000 - 0??oo
- 63066 - 09000 - 0??oo
- 63069 - 09000
/; I,'
II Name: J.~I II
Address: r/ ",t:. I
) 1,-+-/1
~. J
L I'
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
GMP/PRELIMINARY
GMP/FINAL
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
SUB/PRELIMINARY
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL '.STEP APPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
SUB.TOTAl
GMP/GENERAL
GMP/DET AILED
GMP/F1NAL
SUB/GENERAL
SUB/DETAILED
SU,B/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
ENGINEERING
SUB.TOTAL
COUNTY CODE
ALMANAC
COMPo PLAN
COPY FEES
OTHER
SUB.TOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project: I it
,
"
Check #
Additional Billing:
Date:
# of Hours:
~Ct-l tic
~)), 1q;,CD
t';(',",
~ (.(), ~
-V';;, Lf '?( , v
L
.f-
~( rr-.
, .
...{,,../"'" :/
L,
,
, {,
,
..