HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.615 E Hopkins Ave.1982DL,) Ai —Garden Office Building
1982 GMP
OCT 191981 I�
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT ASVu,4 i 0 KIN GO
PI ,If
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN RICHMAN-PLANNING
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: A GARDEN OFFICE BUILDING-1982 GNP -COMMERCIAL --CITY OF ASPEN
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1981
As stated on Page lAa: Water Systems, water is available to the Garden Office
Building from a 6" main located in Hyman Street and as stated in the paragraph,
is of adequate pressure and quantity for the proposed use.
Aspen/Pitk,h Officc
130 south galena street:
aspen, colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Jim Markalunas, City Water
Stogie Maddalone, City Electric
Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation
Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal/Building Department
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: A Garden Office Building - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Commercial -
City of Aspen
DATE: October 5, 1981
The attached application is one of three competing in 'this year's Commercial
Growth Management competition. These applications are scheduled to be reviewed
and scored by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 3, 1981;
therefore, may I please have your written comments concerning this proposal
no later than Friday, October 16, 1981? Please include sufficient information
in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of
expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competi-
tion. Thank you for your assistance.
ee0,/Z'GT
I -A S 4
P!'Ro
for- YAo--,rA1.10 ci_
Tie
rA1i
S T .# #
Aspen/Pitkhni Pla n.hig Office
130 south syalena street
aspen, eolora cl0 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Jim Markalunas, City Water
Stogie Maddalone, City Electric
Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro Sanitation
Herb Paddock, Fire Marshal/Building Department
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: A Garden Office Building - 1982 Growth Management Competition - Commercial -
City of Aspen
DATE: October 5, 1981
The attached application is one of three competing in this year's Commercial
Growth Management competition. These applications, are scheduled to be reviewed
and scored by the Asper. Planning and Zoning Commission on November 3, 1981;
therefore, may I please have your written comi;ients concerning this proposal
no later than Friday, October 16, 1981? Please include sufficent information
in your comments to allow me to address those points relating to your area of
expertise and to allow the Planning Office to score them for the GMP competi-
tion. Thank you for your assistance.
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
Box 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
October 1, 1981
Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Office Partnership GMP Application
Dear Alan,
This letter shall serve to confirm the legal
for the Aspen Office Partnership to seek a growth
quota for the property located at 615 East Hopkins
also known as Lots C, D, and E, Block 99, Aspen.
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
right
management
Street,
The Aspen Office Partnership's legal right stems from
a fully executed contract with the owners of the property,
Gerald and Leslie Troyer. This contract gives the Aspen
Office Partnership the right to seek a growth management
allotment and upon the securing of said allotment, the
closing for legal as well as equitable title will take place.
If you have any additional questions on this matter
I would be happy to talk with you about them. Also, enclosed
please find a check in the amount of one hundred twenty
dollars ($120.00), to cover the filing fee for the conceptual
part of subdivision as well as the GMP application.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By
i eon Kaufman
GK kw
enclosure
Growth.Management Review Checklist
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Revised January 31, 1980
Project Name
Address (Q
Owner T
Attorney/Age t/Representative
Address
Reviewed by
Date ILA — (S- cS
I. Residential applicatioJeficiencies
tion 24-10.4)
A. Public Facilities ices
0 - Infeasible to e
1 - Major deficien
2 - Acceptable (st)
3 - No forseeable
* Water (. 3 pts. )
Capacity of sys em for proposed needs without facility
upgrade at. pub is expense.
* Sewer ('3 pt� . )
• Capacity ur�thout system upgrade.
Storm D ainage (3 pts.)
Adequa e disposal of surface runoff.
-
Par ing resign (3 pts . )
Of street parking, visual, paving, safety, and convenience.
Roads (3 pts. )
Capacity of road .system to handle needs without altering
traffic patterns or overloading streets or requiring more
maintenance.
Page 2
Growth Managemen- eview Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Servic
O - Requires new service public expense
1 - Existing service ade uate
2 - Project improves q lity of service
Public TransportatZon (2 pts.)
2 - On existin route.
1 - Within 52A feet of route.
0 - Not near/ service area.
Bike P4.hs Linked to Trail System (2 pts.)
DqZign Features for Handicapped (2. pts.)
II. Commercial and Office Development Application (section 24-10.5)
A. Quality of Design
0 - Totally deficient
1 - Major flaw
2 - Acceptable
3 - Excellent
_ Site Design (3 pts.)
Quality and character oflandscaping, extend of under -
grounding of utilities, and efficiency, safety, and privacy
of circulation.
Amenities (3 pts.)
Usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle wa S.
Trash and utility acc ss areas (3 ts.)
l d� a �;� sue( �da�J�
III.Lodg e en
vel,pment Applicatio( ion 24-10.6)
A. Public Facilities -�. Services (same as residential)
• Page 3
Growth Management !view Checklist
B. Social Facilities and Services
0 - Requires new service at publi expense.
1 - Existing service adequate.
2 - Project improves quality of service.
Public Transportation (6 pt .)
6 - Abuts transit, within 520 feet of lift.
4 - Within 520 feet of b s route and lift.
2 - Within 520 feet of us route or lift.
C. Quality of Design
Site Design (3 11As. )
Amenities (3 pts.)
Visual I pact (3 pts.)
Sale an location as it affects public views of scenic areas.
Con rmance to Policy Goals (3 pts.)
Re ction of parking in coordination with limosine service
( pt.).
imo with regular service per 25 guests (1 pt.).
rohibition of employee parking on site (1 pt.).
IV. Zoning (All applications)
Zone C -
NS - Not Sufficient NA - Not Applicable NR - No Requirement
Required Actual
Lot Area -�_
Lot Area/Unit K
Lot Width
Front Setback_
Side Setbacks_
CC
Rear Setback
..Page 4
Growth Dianagemen review Checklist
Required Actual
Maximum Freight
Building Dist. I fF
Bldg. Sq. Footage
Open Space
External F.A.R. !,J t,S: �•I�'. l
Internal F.A.R. ✓
V. Possible further review of proposed project (All applications)
Subdivision
Exemption I,�A
Exception
Stream Margin
View Plane
* Areas to be checked by this department and potential deficiencies
pointed out to the appropriate authority. Otherwise no comment
to be made in the Engineering Department memo.
GJwnL&I'lo�
Aspen/ itkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado . 81611
May 16, 1983
Mr. Gideon Kaufman
611 hest Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Gideon,
This is to advise you that your 1981 Growth Management allocation for 9656
square feet of commercial space for the Garden Office Building is due to expire
on November 1, 1983. As per Section 24-11.7 (a) of the Code, you have two years
from the date of submission of your application to file plans with the Building
Department sufficient for the issuance of a building permit or your allocation
will expire. For you to be eligible to submit said plans, you must first com-
plete all procedural requirements of the zoning and subdivision regulations. In
your case, you would need to obtain a GMP exception for your employee units, as
per Section 24-11.2 (f), and an FAR bonus for your commercial development as per
Section 24-3.5 (a). You have also indicated your intent to condominiumize this
structure, which could also be accomplished at this time.
If you need any assistance in completing these requirements in a timely
fashion, please let me know how I may be of help. If, however, you intend to
let your allocation expire, please let me know as to your plans at the earliest
possible date so that this information can be taken into account in the calcula-
tion of quota availability for the competition scheduled to take place on August
1, 1983.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Assistan Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: 1982 Office - Commercial GMP Applications
DATE: October 29, 1981
Introduction: Attached for your review are project profiles for three
office - commercial GMP applications submitted on October 1
of this year and the Planning Office's recommended points
allocation for each application. The three applications
under consideration are as follows:
1. The Red Onion Addition (414 E. Cooper Avenue)
2. A Garden Office Building (615 E. Hopkins Avenue)
3. The City Plaza Building (517 E. Hopkins Avenue)
A copy of each application has also been provided to you
for your review purposes.
Quota
Available: The available quota for this year is based on the provisions
of Section 24-11.8 (Building Inspector reports to Planning
Office on commercial -office construction during previous
year), 24-11.5(e) (unallocated allotments may be distributed
during later years), and 24-11.7(a) (expired allotments shall
be added to available allotments). The Planning Office has
done a careful survey of previous years' allocations and the
rate at which they have been built. We find that based on the
five previous competitions, there is a total of 24,324 square
feet of space which was unallocated or expired from previous
years. Of course, this year an additional 24,000 square feet
is available, for a total of 48,324 square feet available in
this year's competition. However last year, you did award a
bonus of 6,000 square feet which we would strongly recommend
that you offset this year by a corresponding reduction in
available space.
Summarizing then, the total quota for this year is as follows:
Quota unallocated or expired from previous years 24,324
Quota available for 1982 24,000
Bonus to be offset this year - 6,000
Total available for 1982 42,324
We believe that based on the extraordinary amount of office and
commercial development we have recently been witnessing that
you should not even consider using the 6,000 square feet bonus
for this year. Should you find it necessary to award in excess
of 24,000 square feet this year, it should be awarded from the
previously unallocated or expired quota.
The total quota request for this year is as follows:
1. The Red Onion Addition - 2,565.5 square feet
2. A Garden Office Building - 9,656 square feet
3. The City Plaza Building - 15,300 square feet
Total 27,521.5 square feet
Memo: 1982 Office - Commercial GMP Applications
Page Two
October 29, 1981
Process: The Planning Office will make a brief presentation to you on
November 3 to explain the GMP procedures and to provide you
with a suggested assignment of points to each application.
Next, each of the applicants should be given 15 minutes to
present their proposal to you. A public hearing will be held
to allow interested citizens to comment. At the close of the
hearing each commission member will be asked to score the
applicants' proposals. To ensure a reasonable comparison of
the relative merits of each application, the Planning Office
suggests that .all applications be scored at once on a
category -by -category basis.
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by
the number of members voting, will constitute the total
points awarded to the project. Please note that a project
must score a minimum of 60 percent of the total points in
categories 1 and 2, amounting to 14.4_points,and a minimum of
30 percent of the points available in eacn category 1 and 2 to
meet the basic competitive requirements. Applications which
score below these thresholds will no longer be considered for
a development allotment and the application will be considered
denied. Remember that bonus points cannot be used to bring
an application over this minimum threshold, but can affect
the final ranking of the applications for the purposes of
awarding the allotments.
All of the projects, should they receive a development allotment,
will require additional review procedures. Employee housing
units constructed as part of a Commercial GMP project are
subject to the approval of the City Council upon the recommenda-
tion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as are employee
parking requirements. Similarly, requests to utilize the FAR
bonus available in the Commercial zone district must also be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Finally, two
of the projects will require condominiumization review and
approval by P & Z and City Council and one will require a
view plane special review. All of these procedures will be
accomplished subsequent to an applicant's receipt of a develop-
ment allotment.
Planning
Office Ratings: The Planning Office has assigned points to each of the applica-
tions as a recommendation for you to consider. We have rated
the applications both objectively, on their own merits in
comparison to each criteria, and relatively, by comparing the
positive and negative features of each proposal to the other.
The following table is a summary of the Planning Office analysis
and ratings for the three projects. A more complete explana-
tion of the points assignment for each criterion is shown on
the attached score sheets, including rationales for the ratings.
1 2 3 4
Community
Quality Commercial Previous Bonus Total
Applications of Design Uses Performance Points Points
1. The Red Onion Addition 11 3 0 0 14
2. A Garden Office Building 15 5 0 0 20
3. The City Plaza Building 18 5 0 0 23
Memo: 1982 Office - Commercial GMP Applications
Page Three
October 29, 1981
As can be seen, two projects, A Garden Office Building and
the City Plaza Building, s.ibstantially exceed the minimum
competitive threshold of 14.4points while one project, The
Red Onion Addition, falls just below the minimum points
total. The two applications which qualify for allocations
are requesting a total of 24,956 square feet of commercial
space this year. While this total slightly exceeds the
24,000 square feet which are available, it would appear
reasonable to obtain the small excess of space by using
previously unallocated quota, particularly since these two
projects both score so highly (83% and 96% of the available
points in categories 1 and 2).
Planning Office
Recommendation: Based on the analysis contained within the attached score
sheets, the Planning Office recommends that P & Z concur
with our recommended point assignments and effectively approve
the Garden Office Building and City Plaza Building projects
while denying The Red Onion Addition. The Planning Office
further recommends that P & Z recommend to City Council that
a quota of 24,956 square feet be awarded this year by using
this year's 24,000 square foot quota and by carrying over only
956 square feet unallocated or expired from previous years,
thereby awarding 15,300 square feet to the City Plaza Building
and 9656 square feet to the Garden Office Building. Finally,
the Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend to City
Council that the remaining 23,368 square feet which was
unallocated or has expired not be carried over to next year.
We believe that it is appropriate at this time to "wipe the
slate clean" on the commercial quota, since we will be formu-
lating new quotas for new zones next year, and particularly
since we have recently been experiencing exceptionally high
office and commercial growth rates, both due to projects in
the CC and C-1 zones which have competed under the GMP and
because of those in the 0 and NC zones which have previously
been exempt from competition.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
RE: 1982 Growth Management Competition
DATE: October 20, 1981
Having reviewed the three submissions competing for 1982 Commercial allocations
and visited the proposed sites, the Engineering Department has a number of
comments. The application for a Garden Office Building, the City Plaza Buil-
ding, and the Red Onion Addition were reviewed with particular attention to
those areas under Municipal Code Section 24-11.5, b., pertinent to this depart-
ment as well as areas identified as warranting comment at this, the first step
in the development process. What follows is an outline of concerns relative
to each application along with attached copies of our G.M.P. checklist.
1. The Red Onion Addition - 420 E. Cooper (mall)
a. This application is for an addition to an existing structure currently
undergoing remodel. As a result of the "existing" status of the lower
level, the proposal does little to provide additional amenities com-
plimentary to the mall. It should further be noted that the proposed
trash/utility area does not comply with current code within the zone
and in fact has been further reduced in size during the course of the
remodel by the architect and the contractor.
b. The applicant should be required to relocate all utility pedestals
and meters to the protected trash and service area.
c. The proposal creates no new open space.
d. The Wheeler Opera House View Plane would appear to be encroached by
the proposed sun scoop.
2. The City Plaza Building - 517 E. Hopkins
a. This application probably represents the best of the three in terms of
pedestrian accommodation and compliance with trash and utility area needs.
b. The applicant should be required to relocate the existing phone pedestal
to the protected trash and service area.
c. Credit should be given for the design's compliance with the north/south
pedestrian route in the Gage Davis' Streetscape Guidelines.
3. A Garden Office Building - 615 E. Hopkins
a. This application is also excellent in terms of open space, amenities,
1982 Growth Management Competition
October 20, 1981
PAGE TWO
pedestrian and bicycle access.
b. The submission is confusing, however, with respect to the proposed
trash and utility area. The application on the one hand claims an
area in excess of the code requirement to accommodate its own trash
and utilities as well as the trash of the adjacent Grasthof Eberli.
On the other it shows a sketch of an undersized (10' x 19') area
and roughly 1300 square feet of landscaped open space for which credit
is taken elsewhere in the application.
c. The applicant should be required to relocate the phone pedestal
currently in the alley into the protected trash and service area.
d. Credit should be given for the extensive (and expensive) underground
parking proposed by the design.
Confirmation should be obtained regarding availability of service from both
the City Water Department and the Aspen Sanitation District for all three
projects since letters are not included in the applications.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
1982 COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
PROJECT: A Garden Office Building DATE: October 28, 1981
1. Quality of Design (exclusive of historic features) (maximum 18 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality
of its exterior and site design and shall rate each development by assigning
points according to the following formula:
0 - Indicates a totally deficient design
1 - Indicates a major design flaw
2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design
3 - Indicates an excellent design
Rate the following features accordingly:
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - Considering the compatibility of the proposed
building (in terms of size, height, location and building materials)
with existing neighboring developments.
Rating 2
Comment: Neighboring buildings (KSNO Building, Inside Job, Gasthof
Eberli)are of varying sizes, heights and building materials. Proposed
buildinq with wood, two story, sloping metal roof design should be
generally compatible with its neighbors.
b. SITE DESIGN - Considering the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of
utilities, and the arrangements of improvements for efficiency of
circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased
safety and privacy.
Rating 3
Comment: Landscaping and open space proposals are extensive at
both front and rear of building (46% of site). Proposed garden
extends that existing at neighboring Gasthof-Eberli Building
c. ENERGY - Considering the use of insulation, passive solar orienta-
tion, 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: Insulation to exceed code standards, use of insulatin
glass, overhang to protect windows from excess heating, natural
lighting, levelor blinds, "point -of -use" hot water heaters
d. AMENITIES - Considering the provision of usable open space and pedes-
trian and bicycle ways.
Rating 3
Comments: Alley is to be upgraded, garden to provide walks, benches
and bicycle parking, roof garden for building residents, underground
parking spaces.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - Considering the scale and location of buildings to
maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas.
Rating 3
Comments: The building w ill only be two stories high, whereas four
stories are permitted in the C-1 zone district.
f. TRASH AND UTILITY ACCESS AREAS - Considering the quality and effi-
ciency of proposed trash and utility access areas.
Rating 1
Comments: Applicant proposes to relocate adjacent trash receptacle
and enclose it along with their own. However, the Engineer states
that the application "shows a sketch of an undersized (10' x 19')
area . . ."
Subtotal 15
2. Community commercial uses (maximum 6 poi'nts). The Commission shall consider,
with respect to construction and office space within the CC and C-1 zone
districts, the uses which are to occupy the development and the extent to
which the development will house its employees on site. The Commission shall
evaluate the probability of its supplying commercial and office uses and
housing to satisfy the needs of the residents of the community as opposed to
being designed to accommodate the area's tourist needs and shall assign points
according to the following formula:
0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed
to supplying needs of local residents
1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist
services with little or no on -site housing
2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by
both the tourist and residential populations
3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy
the needs of the community's residential population with only inci-
dental tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated
Rate the following features accordingly:
(2)
a. EMPLOYEE HOUSING - Considering the extent to which the project supplies
housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses.
Rating_ 2
Comment: Proposed office occupants of building either already
provide housing for employees or will 4e.n_e_r-ate_a.mip7i»al number
of employees. Retail may generate several employees. A tw
bedroom, 985 square foot employee unit is proposed in the buildin
b. MEDICAL AND OTHER SERVICE NEEDS - Considering the extent to which the
project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office
space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery,
hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended
to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community.
Rating 3
Comment: The offices proposed to occupy the bui-ding at the_ Psent
time are all local servicing professionals including lawyers,,- a
business consultant, a banker and a builder-realtor, The retail
uses on the first floor have not vet been defined
Subtotal 5
3. Applicant's Previous Performance - Any applicant who has been awarded a
development allotment during a previous commercial competition and who,
within two years from the date of submission of that application, has
not submitted plans to the Building Department sufficient for the
issuance of a building permit, shall receive up to minus five (-5)
points unless the applicant demonstrates that for reasons of unusual
hardship, such submission has not been possible.
Rating 0
4. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the points awarded above, maximum
5 points) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding
quality. (Note: Explanatory comment must be provided if bonus points
are awarded.)
BONUS POINTS 0
Comment', Possible basis for you to award bonus incLude_Lrov_is on
tin
of parking underground, exceptional open space and landscaping
proposals and the minimal height (two stories) as compared to
that allowed (four stories).
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Categories 1 and 2 20
Points in Categories 3 and 40
TOTAL POINTS 20
Name of P & Z Member Planning Office
(3)
(minir:�um of 14.4 poi nts needed
to be eligible in competition)
PROJECT PROFILE
1982 COMMERCIAL GROIWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
1. Applicant: Aspen Office Partnership
2. Project Name: A Garden Office Buildin
3. Location:
4. Parcel Size:
615 East Hopkins Street
9,000 square feet
5. Current Zoning: C-1 Commercial One
6. Maximum Allowable Buildout: 13,500 square feet, at an FAR of 1.5:1
7. Existing Structures: Undeveloped - now in use as contract parking
8. Development Program: 10,641 square feet. includin9 gF56 square feet
of office -commercial and 985 square feet of employee housing. The Bonus
of 656 square feet of office -commercial is achieved by a 0.2:0.3 ratio
between the office -commercial and employee housing space.
9. Additional Review Requirements: Condoiiiiniumization, exception of employee
unit from the GMP, special review for commercial FAR bonus.
10. Miscellaneous: The proposed employee housing unit is a two -bedroom
unit, with no income category proposed for it. The applicant proposes
to build 16 parking spaces underground for the offices and commercial
users of the building. This building is outside of the HPC overla
district..
Z
0
H
N
N
H
m
V)
Z
Q
J Z
0- O
H
F- F-
Z Q
W U
O F-
W J W
C7 J W
S
Z (/•)
Cn
E F- >-
Z J
S r•+ J
3 a F¢-
O
tY N
t3
ca
J
Q d
H
U
W
O
U
N
00
(T
CD
CU
U
•r
4-
4-
O
C
d)
"D
S_
ro
CD
F-
L.)
W
7
O
a
Cl-
v
i
CU
h
M
M
M
cn
co
M
co
(\i
co
Ln
M
Q
r
(V
O
4-)
M
M
M
M
M
co
00
M
co
r-
N
N
3
S_
CU
LC)
Ln
MMMcn
I�
N
co
LC)
N
O
N
N
r
CV
DJ
C •
•r
E
M
M
M
M
M
N
n
N
co
LC)
N
Ln
CV
7
4--
t6
M
M
M
M
M
N
n
M
M
M
N
O
N
O
M
M
M
M
M
N
I�
r
M
CY
r
J
N
i
N
M
M
(n
M
Il-
N
M
Ln
N
O
r
N
L1
e
� U
Q
•r
to >)
Cl 4j
0 •r
N C r
S_ r- 4-3 •r
CU r t0 U 4J
a) CT 0-
a) 0 4J V) E -0
u Ln
4- O a) r H
M O 4-) m
C •r � •r � L
Sr O of
d-) d•) U 4-> CU N to r0
O •r S.. •r- C •� i
> r Q In W F-
N
Cr r- N C" ••) d Ll) lO
ca
��'
J
Q
F-
O
F-
00
V)
Wl
J
4
F—
O
F-
m
N
Ln
t
Q
N
W
H
ac
O
C'3
W
F-
Q
C.3
N
F-
Z
H
O
d
J
Fes-•
C)
F-
Do
O
NI
r
O
d
Q
C
O
O
r--
3
L
O
cr
CK
a)
O
r�
EE
N
N
m
'7
h
4-
CD
N
ro
O
N
O
O
c1
J
N
N
S-.
CDc
LO
N
0-
ro
d
W
�
W
2
Q
V)
N
}
W
J
�
J
O
O
CD
U
W
~
C
F--
ro
Q
LZ
E
L
W
O
N
U
L
Z
r
d
O
d
U
N
_
:
J
-
r
4_
O
Q
3
4_
Ln
r
F—
O
O
L
>
O
F--
C3
J
Op
Q
L
2
(A�
3
U
Ur
ry
C
O
W
r
rp
CL
+-)
U
S
O
r
V)
U
U
d
C
W
N
a
O
N
7
Q
m
0o
O
oz3
rn
nG
r
Cl.
d
U
I
GARDEN
OFFICE
BUILDING
APPLICANT
Aspen Office Partnership
ARCHITECT
Thomas Wells & Associates
330 East Main Street
Aspen.'Colorado
ENERGY CONSULTANT
Solar Pathways Associates
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
CONTENTS
INDEX TO DRAWINGS
BASIC INFORMATION
Drawing
#
Page #
Al
Adjacent Zoning
Historic Districts
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A2
Bus Routes
as Water System
Existing Parking
bb Sewage
Pedestrian Malls
2
cc Storm Drainage
Street Map
dd Development
A3
Site Location with Existing Utilities
3
ee Automotive, Transit, Pedestrian
A4
Site Plan
ff Proposed Uses
A5
Parking Level
4
gg Adjacent Uses
A6
First Floor Plan
5
hh Construction Schedule
A7
Second Floor Plan
ii Employee Housing
A8
North (Hopkins Street) Elevation
A9
East Elevation
REVIEW CRITERIA
A10
South (Alley) Elevation
All
West Elevation
5
QUALITY DESIGN
as Architectural Design
6
bb Site Design
7
cc Energy
(1) Exterior Wall Construction
(2) Floor
(3) Roof Construction
(4) Glass
8
(5) Other Solar and Energy Considerations
9
dd Amenities
ee Visual Impact
10
ff Trash and Utility Access Areas
10
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL USE
as Employee Housing
11
bb Service Needs
11
BONUS POINTS
ASPEN OFFICE PARTNERSHIP
GMP Application
A. BASIC INFORMATION
1. Project Description.
This application for GMP allotment under §24-11.5 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
pertains to the proposed development of an office building
with limited commercial space at 615 East Hopkins
Street, Aspen, Colorado. This project is located within
the C-1 zone on three (3) lots containing a total of
nine thousand (9,000) square feet. These lots are
presently undeveloped. The proposed development consists
of nine thousand three hundred ninety-one (9,391) square
feet of office -commercial space and nine hundred eighty-
five (985) square feet of employee housing and sixteen
(16) basement level parking stalls.
This project is being built by the Aspen Office
Partnership. The partners are Michael Conviser, Richard
Rudolph, Gideon Kaufman and Jerome Meister, longtime
local residents who plan to own and occupy nearly all
the space in the building. Approximately two thousand
five hundred (2,500) square feet of the building will be
used for professional law offices, approximately one
thousand (1,000) square feet will be used for an
office for a local business consultant, approximately
eight hundred (800) square feet will be used for an
office for a local banker and approximately one
thousand (1,000) square feet will be used as an office
for a local builder. The remaining amount of space will
be leased or sold. This application is for ten thousand
six hundred forty-one (10,641) square feet, although the
present design totals ten thousand three hundred seventy-
six (10,376) square feet. This allows a small cushion for
final adjustments to the plan.
On completion of construction, applicant plans to
condominiumize the building.
aa. Water System
The proposed office building will be served by a one
inch (1") line connected to the existing six inch (6")
water line in Hyman Street. The fixtures shown will
require 19.6 G.P.M. flow. Water pressure in the main is
between 80 and 90 p.s.i. Both the pressure and the size
of the water line are more than adequate to serve the
anticipated demand. This project will have negligible
impact on the City water supply.
bb. Sewage.
The site will be served by a new four inch (4")
sanitary line which has been sized to accommodate the
demand from the building. It will be connected to the
existing eight inch (8") sanitary sewer located in the
alley between Hopkins Street and Hyman Avenue. According
to Aspen Sanitation District Manager, the existing treat-
ment plant can accommodate the anticipated flow with no
adverse impacts.
1
CC. Storm Drainage.
Although there is an eighteen inch (18") storm
sewer located in Hopkins Street, the City Engineering
Department has instructed the applicant to contain all
storm water on the site. Therefore, all roof water and
site drainage will be collected and stored in a drywell
located within the site.
dd. Development Area.
The proposed office building is located in the C-1
zone on three (3) lots. These lots are each 30'x100'
for a total of nine thousand (9,000) square feet. The
street address is 615 East Hopkins Street.
The Aspen City Code provides for an external floor
area ratio of 1:1 in the C-1 zone with an additional .5:1
by special review that allows for .2:1 additional
commercial space if .3:1 of the additional space is
approved for residential space in accordance with adopted
Housing Price Guidelines.
By utilizing the bonus provisions provided by the
City Code, the applicant is entitled to an additional
six hundred fifty-six (656) square feet of commercial
space since applicant is providing nine hundred eighty-
five (985) square feet of employee housing.
The quota being requested is a total of ten
thousand six hundred forty-one (10,641) square feet,
consisting of nine hundred eighty-five (985) square feet
of employee housing and nine thousand six hundred fifty-
six (9,656) square feet of office -commercial. The gross
square footage of the project as drawn is ten thousand
three hundred seventy-six (10,376) square feet, which breaks
down as follows:
Basement 338
Second Floor 4,644
Third Floor 5,394
The applicant requests as part of its quota an additional
two hundred sixty-five (265) square feet from the plans
as drawn to allow a small cushion for final adjustment to
the plans.
The proposed first floor will cover four thousand
eight hundred thirty (4,830) square feet. The site plan
provides for the required twenty-five percent (25%)
open space facing Hopkins Street. In addition, a garden
has been provided on the southwest corner of the building
containing one thousand three hundred twenty-nine (1,329)
square feet. This means the total open space for the
project will be forty-six percent (46%) of the land area.
Both areas of open space are integral to the applicant's
plan for development. The front open space sets back the
building with a yard and landscaped front entry and the
rear alley facing portion of the building will also have
the benefit of greenery open space and garden to enhance the
scenic quality of the building. This garden will be
contiguous and continuous with the garden behind the
Gasthof-Eberli building and thus give the area off the
alley behind the buildings an airy, green and pastoral
quality which will benefit building occupants and the
neighborhood in general. As the site plan indicates,
all the open space is landscaped except for walks and a
driveway on the front.
The internal square footage , called net usable
space, totals approximately seven thousand three hundred
(7,300) square feet, as is indicated on the
architectural drawings herein.
ee. Automotive. Transit. Pedestrian.
Even though the C-1 and CC zones do not require
parking, because the City has been unable to provide
a parking structure on the Rio Grande property, a key
element to its automobile disincentive plan, applicant
has provided for automobile parking on the site under-
neath the building. This will negate any impact on
parking on the adjacent city streets. Should the
business owners and employees of the business for the
building need to -drive to work, parking will be available
on the site. There are sixteen (16) parking spaces
provided on the site. The estimated traffic count
increase on adjacent streets resulting from the proposed
development is expected to be zero to sixteen vehicles.
This is because the applicants, who will own and occupy
most of the building, all already work locally and will
be moving their offices to this new building when it is
completed. The space in the building that is occupied by
persons other than applicants, should generate a negligible
traffic increase. The total number of vehicles expected
to use or to be stationed in the proposed building is not
more than sixteen. The hours of principal daily usage will
be the normal business hours of nine to five.
This site is served by both the County and City bus
lines within one (1) block, at the corner of Hyman and
Spring Streets where buses will stop for any passenger.
There will be bicycle racks installed at the building
and available for cyclists who prefer to ride their bikes
to work in the summer. Since more and more people are
cycling today and since many of the owner -occupants are
avid cyclists, we anticipate there will be many owners and
tenants who will take advantage of this central location
and ride their bicycles or walk to work. Furthermore, the
applicants who will be occupying the building presently
work in outlying areas of the City necessitating the use
of automobiles to get back and forth to appointments and
business away from their offices. This new office location
will allow the occupants to walk to the courthouse, city
hall, title companies, other professional offices, banks
and local businesses which are all centrally located for
pedestrian travel near the proposed project.
ff. Proposed Uses.
Uses for the proposed development are service commer-
cial and professional offices for the first floor and
professional offices for the second floor. A parking
garage is located below the first floor serving the
tenants of the building.
3
The owners of the proposed building will occupy
most of the building with professional offices. The law
offices of Gideon Kaufman, David Eisenstein, Brooke
Peterson and Richard Cummins, will occupy a major portion
of the second floor. These attorneys have lived and
practiced law in Aspen for the past seven (7) years.
Michael Conviser, the chairman of Aspen Savings and
Loan Association, has lived and been a banker in the area
for the past eleven (11) years. Michael will occupy a
portion of the second floor for his personal office.
Richard Rudolph is a local business consultant and has
lived and worked in the Aspen area for the past ten (10)
years. Richard will use and occupy a portion of the
second floor for his office. Jerome Meister, a local
builder and real estate salesman, has lived and worked in
Aspen for the past seven (7) years. His offices will
occupy a portion of the first floor of the project.
Any additional tenants for the building will be
limited to those permitted uses allowed by §24-3.2 of the
City Code. All tenants will be selected to emphasize
service to the local community rather than the tourist.
The condominium documents governing the project will
prohibit full -service restaurants in the building despite
there being an allowed use in the C-1 zone.
Since greater than seventy percent (70%) of the
building will be used and occupied by long time resident
local businessmen as their permanent offices, with
office layouts designed to serve their particular needs,
there will be little or no change to the building interior
over the course of time and definitely no changes to the
building exterior. The arrangement of the building floor
plan on the first floor more or less dictates fixed size
spaces for tenants. It is anticipated that any leases for
the additional space on the first floor will be minimum
five (5) year leases and thus this space will remain
unchanged for long periods of time.
The applicants intend that the building will remain a
professional building with significant emphasis on local
uses and services to the local community. Thus, this
building will be quiet, of low intensity, generating very
small amounts of automobile or pedestrian traffic unlike
other high intensity tourist related uses in other parts
of the City.
gg. Adjacent Uses.
The proposed building is in the C-1 zone and is
located adjacent to the Gasthof-Eberli building. This
area already contains numerous commercial buildings from
the one story house to the east to the larger buildings to
the west, including: the Gastof-Eberlie, the Aspen Plaza
Building, KSNO building and the Professional Building.
Across the alley is Patricia Moores, Carol Ann Jacobson
Realty and other retail -office uses.
These adjacent uses are forming the character of this
transitional zone. The proposed garden styled building,
which is small in scale and size, is compatible with
51
the existing buildings and uses and will serve as an
anchor for the integrity of the C-1 zone.
All commercial development under the Growth Manage -
went Plan has been in the CC zone for high intensity
tourist usage. It has become apparent that additional
commercial space of lower intensity in the C-1 zone is
now necessary, space which would emphasize service to
local residents and enrich the local business community.
hh. Construction Schedule.
Once a Growth Management Plan allotment has been
awarded, the owners will start construction during spring
of 1982, with anticipated completion during the winter of
1982 or early 1983. No phasing of this project is anti-
cipated.
ii. Employee Housing.
There should be very few new employees generated by
this project. The applicants who will own and occupy
over seventy percent (70%) of the space in the building
will be moving their existing offices to this new
building. Michael Conviser's personal office is presently
located in his home. He will be moving his office to this
building and it will continue to be a one man office
occupied solely by him. Richard Rudolph's office is also
presently in his home and he employs one (1) secretary.
Mr. Rudolph will move his office to the new building and
will not increase his staff, continuing to employ one (1)
secretary. The attorneys, Gideon Kaufman, David Eisenstein,
the professional law office space in the building, will not
be expanding their staff on moving into the building and will
therefore have the same number of employees as they
presently have. These attorneys presently have available
to them four (4) bedrooms of employee housing which fulfills
all of their employee housing needs. Jerome Meister will
also continue with the same size staff he presently has
and thus will not generate any new employees. There will
be nine hundred eighty-five (985) square feet of employee
housing space constructed with the building that will off-
set any new employees generated by the building.
B. REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Quality of Design
aa. Architectural Design. From an architectural
character standpoint as well as types of uses, mass and
scale, and density, the C-1 zone surrounding the CC core
area is an area of transition. Although still pedestrian
by nature it is one step removed from the tourist oriented
core and mall areas. The architectural design of this
project expresses this transition and blends with the
adjoining residential areas by the dominant use of wood
and the quiet, low scale profile. The strong horizontal
forms of the building will be broken by dominant groups
of aspen and spruce trees. One of the most interesting
details of the design is the use of a new material known
as "transparent insulating panels" in most of the glass
area between the horizontal wood bands. By having the
additional setbacks on all sides of the building and using
Brooke Peterson and Richard Cummins, who will be occupying G
the transparent insulating panels, the offices will be able
to take advantage of the views in all directions from the
site without suffering the energy losses normally associated
with that amount of window space.
Another important design element intended to maintain
compatibility with the adjoining residential area is the
addition of the sloping metal roof. The material will
be either weathered copper or painted a similar color
and will also be repeated in the horizontal recess in the
wood spandrel between the first and second floors. The
same material will be used on any exposed metal flashing
or exterior siding.
bb. Site Design.
The existing site has several characteristics that
had a strong influence on the design. First is the
Gasthof-Eberli building on the west, which has a thirty
(30) foot high wall extending sixty (60) feet from the
Hopkins Street property line. On the south, or alley side
of this existing wall, is a large garden area extending
over to Hunter Street. Though this wall blocks views to
the west, the site enjoys unobstructed views to the
south, east and north. The alley behind the building
has the additional benefit of the only architectural
facades and open space with landscaping of any aesthetic
quality in Aspen alleyways.
The siting of the project took advantage of these
characteristics by nestling the building directly against
the large blank wall of the Gasthof-Eberli building with
a recessed entry area and a major stand of tall trees to
soften the connection between the buildings and remaining
wall area of the Gastof-Eberli building. By setting back
from the east and south as well as the street on the north,
the building orients in these three directions, providing
major landscaped facades as well as view orientations
for the inside spaces.
Another major site element is the alley orientation.
The south, or alley facade, is as major to this project
as the facade which fronts the street. By incorporating
the new building's garden with the existing garden of the
Gasthof-Eberli building, a major additional open space
toward Hunter Street is provided which enhances the views
from Hunter Street toward the site area. This garden is
an addition to the required twenty-five percent (25%) of
open space and serves as a major site amenity and ped-
estrian access to the development. In addition to the
added open space and garden it is proposed that a walkway
of mall -type paving bricks will connect the project along
the alley to Hunter Street. It is hoped by the owners
of the project that this will serve as and encourage a
trend to make the alleys of the center of town people or
pedestrian oriented rather than for trucks and trash
alone. To amplify this, the alley side of the project
will be heavily landscaped like the street frontage
and all trash containers, meters and utility connections
will be enclosed or landscaped out of sight. Utilities
will be underground.
Applicant's site design provides for extensive land-
scaping. This elaborate plan is more fully described on
the site utilization maps.
The project has been designed to maximize efficiency
of circulation and access for service vehicles and to
promote safety and privacy. Pedestrians can enter the
building from Hopkins Street in the front or from the alley
in the back. Service vehicles will be able to serve the
property via the front and rear street level entrances
and also through the driveway going underground into the
parking area. These three (3) different entrance points
avoid congestion and thereby maximize efficient circulation,
access and safety. Also, the nature of the C-1 zone and
the applicant's proposed uses must be taken into account,
as it is anticipated this project will generate minimal
service vehicle traffic. By having underground parking
and the building set back and heavily landscaped, privacy
is promoted.
cc. Energy
(1) Exterior Wall Construction. An overall R-28
exterior -wall insulation value will be achieved as follows:
R-Value
Air Film Coefficient
(Exterior; still air) 0.2
Wood (Exposed 8" Glue Lams) 8.0
Batt Insulation 19.0
Sheet Rock and Interior
Finishing 0.5
Air Film Coefficient (Inner
Surface; still air) 0.7
TOTAL EXTERIOR WALL SECTION
R-VALUE 28.4
The Code value of R-25 is therefore conservatively
exceeded.
(2) Floor. The R-12.5 Code requirement will be
surpassed with a floor construction between the unheated
building garage and first floor as detailed below:
R-VALUE
Air Film Coefficient (Garage;
still air) 0.7
Concrete Slab (6") 0.6
Batt Insulation with 2"x4" Joists 11.0
Air Film Coefficient (Interior;
still air) 0.7
TOTAL FLOOR -SECTION R-VALUE 13.8
(3) Roof Construction. All roof sections will
include insulation to raise the overall R-value to or
above R-28, exceeding the Code value of R-25. Wherever
the standard roof section is perforated to provide sky-
lights or "lightwells", automatic insulated louver assem-
blies are specified to protect against nighttime and
weekend thermal losses.
(4) Glass. A significant square footage of glass
is utilized on all faces of the building to enhance
natural lighting and create pleasant offices. In con-
sideration of the heat loss characteristic of standard
double glazing, several energy -conserving and solar -gain
principles have been applied.
All windows on the north side of the building will
be equipped with Heat Mirrortm transparent insulation.
7
This product, which is mounted midway between the two
panes of insulated glass by the manufacturer, more than
doubles the R-value of each window. The R-4 windows
specified on the north side of the building with Heat
Mirror will also significantly reduce the air temperature
modification required by each occupant for "comfort".
Heat Mirror's ability to reflect infra -red radiation back
into the room results in higher inner -surface glass
temperatures, lower thermostatic settings and significantly
lower backup heating requirements. The R-4 glazing
will furthermore assist building cooling in the summer,
since the infra -red heat from the warmer outside environ-
ment will be reflected outward. Heat Mirror is totally
transparent and is not to be confused with bronze and
gold -colored "solar control films" often seen on high-rise
buildings.
Glass on the south side of the building will be
single pane, low -iron units with solar transmission of
approximately ninety percent (90%). Automatic, insulated
curtains will be fitted to each opening to bring the
overall nighttime R-value to eleven (11).
East -facing glazing will be standard double panes
with nighttime insulation.
West -facing glass will be double pane, with sun -
control blinds providing approximately an additional R-2
nighttime insulation value. Sun -control and daylighting
aspects of the building's glazing system are discussed
further in "Other Solar and Energy Considerations".
No wood burning devices are anticipated in the
design of the building.
NOTE: Although the proposed glass area somewhat
exceeds the percentage guidelines of the Code, the building
will qualify under Code Section 5312, "Design Flexibility",
which sets a commercial heat loss maximum of 24 Btu's
per square foot per hour under 85 degree load conditions.
Special attention to high R-value glazing, nighttime insul-
ation and heavily -insulated wall, floor and ceiling
constructions make this compliance possible.
(5) Other Solar and Energy Considerations. As an
aid to summer cooling, a four (4) foot overhang protects
all first story windows from high -angled summer sun.
Energy planning for the building extends beyond
consideration of "shell" heat losses, which on the average
account for less than ten percent (10%) of commercial
energy consumption. A primary concern is natural lighting,
as artificial lights account for approximately fifty-five
percent (55%) of the energy consumed in American offices.
Each building window will be equipped with a new model
Levelor blind which provides a highly reflectorized outer
surface to assist daylighting. Incoming light rays are
reflected and directed at the ceiling and are scattered to
provide an ideal diffuse natural light. Careful attention
will be paid to color and texture of each interior surface
to the building to further scatter natural light. The
metal surfaced blinds furthermore provide a "low
emissivity" surface which inhibits the transmission of
E:?
infra -red radiation when the blinds are closed during
the nighttime or weekend hours. If necessary, a computer -
based lighting -control system will be provided to control
"backup" lighting as needed. In such a system, rooftop
and interior sensors would enable the dimming or brightening
of fluorescent fixtures in response to natural lighting
levels.
Solar access to the building is ideal, virtually
unobstructed. The permanent housing units to the immediate
south of the building cast no shadows of solar heating
significance throughout the year.
Every attempt will be made in the design of mechanical
systems to minimize the building's demands for auxiliary
heat. Control systems will balance zones within the
building before calling on either air conditioning or
heating systems to condition a given space. Special
ducting will accelerate the distribution of solar heated
air in southern spaces to colder northern spaces. Backup
heating will be provided by fan -coil exchangers fed from
a central boiler.
To minimize interior temperature swings and store
"excess" solar energy, thermal mass will be provided
as determined by computer simulation of each "direct
gain" solar space. Since most tenants are presumed to
desire carpeting, this thermal mass will most likely
be incorporated in wall and ceiling surfaces.
"Point -of -use" hot water heaters will be used, in
contrast to the inefficient central -heater systems which
waste energy both in storage and distribution.
dd. Amenities.
The amenities of this project fall into two (2)
categories: those which are oriented to the public and
those for the benefit and enjoyment of the building
occupants. Forty-six percent (46%) of the land area of
the project is heavily landscaped open space. Other than
the aesthetic enjoyment of a quiet building heavily land-
scaped on all four (4) sides, the major public amenity is
the upgrading of the alley and creation of the large garden
area with its walks, benches and bicycle parking. This
will not only benefit the users of this project but also
any pedestrians or bicyclists headed to or from the center
of town from this direction. For the users of the project,
there is not only the large garden and landscaping on all
sides, but also a roof garden for lunches or outdoor
meetings. Within the enclosed roof well area created by
the sloping roof all mechanical equipment will be screened
and the remaining space finished with wood duct boards,
planters, and outdoor furniture. Occupants and users of
the building will also have available to them the under-
ground parking spaces.
ee. Visual Impact.
The dominant visual impact of the project is the
low silhouette of its form augmented by the groupings of
tall trees on all sides. These qualities give the building
itself a quiet character, and allow existing views across
the property from Hopkins Street toward Ajax and from the
alley windows on the Hyman Street buildings toward Red
Mountain to remain unspoiled. Even though the C-1 zone
would allow the construction of a four (4) story building,
forty (40) feet in height, this building is only two (2)
stories and considerably lower than the forty (40) feet
allowed.
ff. Trash and Utility Access Areas.
There will be a trash and utility area created
adjacent to the alley as is indicated on the site
utilization maps. The owners of the building, in order
to create an uncluttered landscaped garden atmosphere
for the alley entry to the building, have agreed to
relocate the Gasthof-Eberli's trash on the applicant's
property. This will allow efficient trash removal for
both properties and permit the development of an
uncluttered landscaped area and walking surface, free
of an unsightly trash area presently on the Gasthof-
Eberli property. The trash and utility access area
shall meet the requirements set forth in §24-3.7(h)(4).
The trash area will be enclosed and visually screened.
A11 utilities will be underground.
2. Community Commercial Uses.
aa. Employee Housing.
The development will house all its employees either
on or off site. This project is designed exclusively
to satisfy the needs of the community's residential pop-
ulation with only incidental tourist use, no tourist
housing anticipated, and shall supply housing for employees
generated by the project.
There should be very few new employees generated by
this project. The applicants who will own and occupy over
seventy percent (70%) of the space in the building will be
moving their existing offices to this new building.
Michael Conviser's personal office is presently located in
his home. He will be moving his office to this building and
it will continue to be a one man office occupied solely by
him. Richard Rudolph's office is also presently in his
home and he employs one (1) secretary. Mr. Rudolph will
move his office to the new building and will not increase
his staff, continuing to employ one (1) secretary. The
attorneys, Gideon Kaufman, David Eisenstein, Brooke
Peterson and Richard Cummins, who will be occupying the
professional law office space in the building, will not
be expanding their staff on moving into the building and
will therefore have the same number of employees as they
presently have. These attorneys presently have available
to them four (4) bedrooms of employee housing which fulfills
all of their employee housing needs. Jerome Meister will
also continue with the same size staff he presently has
and thus will not generate any new employees. There will
be nine hundred eighty-five (985) square feet of employee
housing space constructed with the building that will
offset any new employees generated by the building.
10
bb. Service Needs.
The uses which will occupy the development are
professional law offices, local business consultant's
office, local banker's office and local builder-realtor's
office and some additional local service related uses.
The owners anticipate there will be a doctor's office
in the building although a lease has not yet been signed.
All occupants of the building presently have active
practices or businesses that supply important services
to residents of the community and this building will
allow these occupants, residents of the community, to
have permanent office space.
This is a project which is designed exclusively to
satisfy the needs of the community's residential population
with no tourist use and no tourist housing anticipated.
The project supplies needed professional law and
business office space as is demonstrated by the fact that
the ower-applicants feel the need to build their own
office building so they can have permanent office space.
The additional commercial space on the first floor will
be designed and intended to serve the routine trade and
service needs of the community. The location of the project
is very desirable to serve the residential community, being
adjacent to the downtown area and the east side residential
community, very close to architects, accountants, attorneys,
mortgage bankers and other professional uses. The second
floor offices will be occupied by owners -tenants and will
provide professional offices for businesses that have
been in Aspen for the past seven to ten years. These
services are directly utilized by local residents. Any
retail uses on the first floor level will be community oriented
to serve local residents rather than tourist oriented, due
to the location on the perimeter of the commercial core
and as required by the C-1 permitted uses. By being in
the C-1 zone, this project is better able to gear itself
toward and emphasize service to the local residental
community than if it were in the CC zone which is
primarily oriented toward tourist use.
3. Bonus Points.
This project has incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of §24-11.5(b)(1), (2) and (3). It exceeds the
provisions of these sections and achieves an outstanding
overall design meriting recognition and thus is entitled
to be awarded additional points.
This project, by being oriented to the local service
needs of the C-1 zone, fills a much needed gap in develop-
ment which has not been provided by previous GMP commercial
allotments which have been exclusively in the CC zone
with that zone's heavy emphasis on high intensity tourist
and tourist related activity. Even though the C-1 and
CC zones do not require parking, because the City has
been unable to provide a parking structure on the Rio
Grande property, and the applicant desires to negate any
impact on the offstreet parking in the surrounding neighbor-
hood, the project supplies onsite parking for any automobile
uses for the project. The project encourages bicycle
11
and pedestrian travel by being located near the center
of town and bike racks and benches will be placed on the
property. The project will have pleasing visual impact
on the area. The plan exceeds by nearly one hundred
percent (100%) the open space requirements for the area.
The building has only two (2) stories, is of modest
height and will be tastefully and thoroughly landscaped
and have a garden off of the alley. This project will
not only provide for, enclose and visually screen its
own trash, but will clean up the trash of its neighbors
and thereby improve the alley for the neighborhood.
Because of the treatment of the alley, the applicant
is encouraging a trend toward making the alleys in the
center of town people or pedestrian oriented rather than
only for trucks or trash. The building utilizes the
most efficient and advanced energy saving technology.
Because of the outstanding overall design of the project
and the fact the applicant has sincerely endeavored to
plan a project that meets the needs and desires of the
community as well as its owners, the applicant requests
it be awarded the maximum additional bonus points permitted
under the Code.
12
HALLAM
BLEEKER
MAIN IST 41STORIC �D, L
AAGIN ,
r
I
R6
J,E:
I
HYMANJ F
I
I I
RMFC='
CooPFH ; L2
DURANT
mmmmm
� I
H
� I
5-------}------�
CL 71 1 NC � C
C
C1f�C
JFI �
F—
U
w
_H
_
U
cc
w
Q
U
O
cn
Q
da
J
J
w
3
U)
Q
O
A -1
UPPER ELEMENTARY
HALLAM
BLEEKER
RIO GRANDE PARKING
SILVERKING
COURT HOUSE
MTN. VALLEY
1
MAINSNOW BUNNY ............ «».......... «.............................................................................
' J'PAEPCICE i
PARME. � I
IF i
•••••• -iOPKINS I BASS PARK FIRE STATION J CITY HALL/POLICEOF
'
I •PROJECT L ATION
: 1
E
0 HYMAN i i � �� �' -- PARKING LOTS
• I I MALL
1 �•
--m E:::E 11
1: I
: F_ COOPER C_
• ' '�"
- I 1 :1'PARKIm i —Joe::L LK
z
• _ J Z
a • DU R A N T .. _�
..«................. .. ... ...........
Z ...............................
W
cn
ROARING
FORK
RIVER
HEIRRQN . , /
• — BUS STOP
ASPEN MOUNTAIN
O
cc
Z J
Y Q
w a Q
Z U) Lu
N occ
�W�U)
—2
CATCH
■
■
■
HOPKINS AVE i 18 STORM
............................................................ 6" WATER
■
■
•
SEWER NONE ■////■■■■■S■SON ■///■•■■■■■■■■/■/■■■■/■/■////■SOME
. ■
LINE...............................................................................................•.........:..f............................•...............
;s
■
IN
INSIDE RES. /
I ■
GASTHOF EBERLI i JOB
PROJECT LOCATION
■
■
— • ---•— u / ALLEY � ■
— 8" SANITARY SEWER
— — — — — — — — �— — — — — IELEC,GAS, PHONE, T.V--- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
U)
cr
W
H
Z
HYMAN AVE
■
w
w 3
Z w
J C/)
I-
cr
Z_
IY
a
cr
U
O
In
Q
ad
In
W
Z
Q �
U U
O Z
F-
LU cn
I-- X
to w
A-3
H:)PKINS ME
LU
z
F-7
UJ c
<
LLJ
<
05
4-
GASTHOF EBERLI r
00
EXISTING GARDEN
NEW WALK
93-
GARDEN
ALLEY
N
MECH
PARKING
BATH r" BDRM
MECH
N
01
5
10
20
40
to
w
Q
ca
J
J
W
3
a
0 n
J
W
W
J
c�
Z
Y
a
a
A-5
W.
CC
w
cc
O
TRASH
DN
KIT
RETAIL /
OFFICE
LIVING
DINING
BDRM
STOR.
DN
UP
4
RETAIL /
0 OFFICE
0
1 MEN
• RETAIL /
OFFICE
A's
cc
0
LL
cc
01 5 10 20 ao
UJ c
20
A-6
OFFICE
DN ' J t-
JAN
OFFICE I III.---. --� --
�J G OFFICE ; I
qa
\ TEL. 8
ELEC. O
STEAM4'
SHOW ERN
OFFICE
i
OFFICE
I Y Y %
N
01 5 10 20 40
w
Q
U
O
V)
Q
05
z
a
J
a
cc
O
O
w
0
z
O
U
w
N
I a-7 I
Cka
V)
J
J
W
3
Oa
WOOD.
Mel
C
i
it - ` �•-_��'I_�•� _r "
.i
N
W
Q
U
O
N
N
Q
Mai
z
O
Q
w
J
w
N
Q
w
A-9 I
ca
Z
O
a
w
J
w
}
w
J
J
Q
O
N
A-10
OFFICE j
„
RETAIL / OFFICE
!I
PARKING
L_ lL
z
O
a
w
J
w
F-
w
3
A-11