Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.iz.Stevens Ginn aka Durant Mall.1975
LAW OFFICES GATES, AUSTIN 8c MCGRATH BOO E43T HOPNINS STREET BOX 3]O] LEONARD M. OATE3 ASPEN, COLORADO 51611 WILLIAM E. GLARN Oi LOANS EI RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS McG RAT H~ JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN ID March 18, 1975 PREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 ANDREW V HECHT HAND DELIVERED City of Aspen Planning Department P. 0. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mr. Yank Mojo Re: Request of Block 106 Associates for Subdivision Exemption Dear Yank: Subsequent to my having filed an application for exemption from the application of the Aspen City Code respecting subdivision, I determined from a tele- phone conversation with you that in the approval given to what was formerly known as the Stevens-Ginn Building at the conceptual stage thereof, it was stipulated by the proposed developers at that time that there would be no condominiumization of the eight proposed residen- tial units to be situate in the building. In my applica- tion for exemption, I did indicate that we would like, if at all possible, to subdivide those but, in light of the earlier arrangements made, I am withdrawing the request from the standpoint of those eight units. Therefore, I would indicate to you that it would be our intention to incorporate those into the project as a single condominium unit, subject of course to adequate restriction which will protect the integrity of these units. Very truly yours, GATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH _~,~ - By eonard M. Oates LMO:dlw LEONARD M. GATES RONALD D, AU STIN J. NICHOLAS McG RAT H, JR. WILLIAM q,JORDAN IQ ArvDREw v. HEC HT LAW OFFICES GATES, AUSTIN &. MCGRATH 600 EAST HOPttINS STREET BOx 3~0~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 March 12, 1975 City of Aspen c/o Planning Department P. O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mr. Yank Mojo Re: Condominiumization of The Durant Mall (formerly called the Stevens- Ginn Building) E 1/2 of Lot L, and Lots M, N, O, P and Q, in Block 106, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Gentlemen: WILLI4M E. CLARK Oi COUNSEL AREA CODE 303 TELEPIiO rvE 925-2600 I am submitting this letter on behalf of Block 106 Associates, a partnership, pursuant to the provi- sions of Section 20-10 of the Code of the City of Aspen, requesting an exemption from the provisions of Chapter 20 under Section 20-10(c) of the Code. Enclosed please find: 1. Two copies of survey of subject property, and 2. Copies of deeds vesting title in Block 106 Associates. The property is currently unimproved and owned by Block 106 Associates, a partnership consisting of Countryside Associates, a partnership, and John Loren Yaw. Robert G. Stevens, formerly a co-owner of the property, has sold his entire interest in and to the property. The proposed project has been submitted and shall be allowed under Ordinance No. SO of 1974 (City of Aspen). A building permit has been applied for and, according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, the GATES, AUSTIN ~. MCGRATH City of Aspen Page Two March 11, 1975 permit will be issued on approximately April 1, 1975. The condominiumization would in no way increase density of the proposed building or alter its proposed use as a commercial-office building providing eight units of resident housing. If the exemption shall be granted by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Block 106 Associates would divide the property into not more than twenty-one separate commercial-office condominium units, such units ranging in size from 800 square feet to 1,550 square feet, and eight residential condominium units with adequate restriction contained in the Condo- minium Declaration to preserve the integrity thereof as resident employee housing, the effect of which would be to enable purchasers to obtain separate financing for each unit. The effect and use of the property would be no different than that which has been proposed since the project was first designed and presented. Respecting the pertinent design requirements referred to in Section 20-7 relative to an exemption under Section 20-10, I submit the following: 1. The property fronts on Durant Street, which complies with the minimum classification of the City respecting widths and grades; 2. Durant Street is a public road within the original platted Townsite of Aspen which is surfaced, improved and maintained by the City at regular intervals; 3. The property is serviced by and connected to the Aspen Sanitation District; 4. The property is serviced by and connected to the City of Aspen Water System. GATES, AUSTIN B. MCGRATH City of Aspen Page Three March 11, 1975 The lot size is 16,500 square feet, with approximately 60 foot front and rear width fronting on Durant Street; and the property is or will be made (when completed) fully in compliance with the provisions of sub- paragraph 5 of Section 20-7. The proposed project shall have underground~/`~ U covered off-street parking she for_at least_thirty- automobiles. There shall be a sidewalk along the entire - frontage of the lot. You should have, by virtue of the Ordinance No. 50 review, sufficient information on file to act on this application. Please let me know if there is any addi- tional information or documentation respecting this application which you would like at this time. I would request that the exemption application be processed and that I be advised of the date of a hearing for the requested exemption. Very truly yours, GATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH BY •_ (' Leonard-M. Oa et s LMO:dlw Enclosures I r S</.L3 ~i ~/js"/o~ ~'XL-mot / ~1T~~,v ~ ,. '~^ c'am' ,~1/,_..~' t <.~ J / - R ,:, /~.~`7C ri'' f / / ` ~ ~ /~_ ~~ .," ^f^, i, i'. ~ 'rte' r C~ ,:, ~ ~ ~ _. ~. ~,~ ,. . r ,- /,/~-/r 'J' ' / ~ /' ! C' / ' M Y l r 1Y ( .- ._ r ,~--- ,~' ` s S /V ~C..'~ ~~~ ,_5~ r ~,l/ ~ ~~`'~ ~~~ ~-/,/,!1 i'.)Ji ~/~/ LEI` /~' ~~ C"~Gti , o ~ ~/ d~' ~ ~ , _. _ _.. f ~ ~' ~- ~'cxf~C°`~'~; /~-~°'~.~ ~ ,J` `_~, /~ { x;°1/1 / ;,~ / /~ UDC,.' ~~ ~w_ lei ~.l .m«+ V ~t/~„~ r r .. + C~ ~~~_ r J _ , r rc b. Gt _ :,:, err ti„ :-_.b:., -, ~. ... ' ~ ---- - ----_-... Deception No_......__1.2::3.48._......---. _...._...._Jnlie...l-i;;.ne .._Pecorder. PHIS DEED, IIlade this 29~ft day of De CPJ176eK 19 74, between Robeht ~. S.tevens, ffwband, and Canak F: S.tevelas, ftlt~e ~' -. 1 _ i of the County of P.i,thcla and State o£-0olorado, of the first part, and ~ ,,.. ~/ ~ V v P~Coch 106 l~aeaci.a~eh , a; partnership, -- ~ - "---~-_-.. tlf]t1]FXxxxxxxxxxX64zuaiX~Etxx~:efc(&AtD[xx~Rc~c~.741P;4~R~4fA4R~4xof the second part: WITNESSETH, That the said part leS of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten DaECwca and o•thaJC good mad va2uabQe eol>,s.idenccti.on xRl~~e~x to the said part.cea of the first part in hand paid by the said part, of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha Ve granted, bargained, sold znd conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, d.-L6 heirs and assigns forever, all the following .described lot b d4deX of land, situate, lying and being in the County of P~(2~-1~~ attd State of Colorado, to-tcit: Lots "P" and °Q" 82ack 106, C.itr~ and Tol:~lab~•te as Ahpen. ~ ~~, TOGETHER with all and singular the-. hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion ~snd reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the •estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said part,~~ of the first part, either in law or eryuity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. NO.4G3. q'ARRAFTY DEED-Far PMr~^tapMe Rerned.-Bradford Publishing Co., 18244G Stout St--^~ Denver, Colorado-11-73 k 3ca!, a ~ eac~ ~ ~~ ~? TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said part t/ of the second part, ,~,'(b heirs and assigns forever. And the said part.(,Q,~S of the first part, for ~hPlt6el VPh, heirs, executors, and administrators, do covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the said party of the second part, .tab heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents.thee/ cute well seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and ha V2 good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and foam as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind ornatuzesoever. eXCen~ geneha.P ~C1Xeb ~Oh 1974, ditched, ecuemewtA and he6ehVC1.'~.`i.0ftd o(y neeond, ~.~ any. The Gnanteea agree .to abbume and nay the ou,th.tandi,ng na~te and deed ob .trub.t ab a6b.tgned recorded .in Sook 245, Page 755-578 and BooFz 266 Page 504-505, with a present outstanding principal balance in the amount of $4,997.20, and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, -(.Ph heirs and assilms against all and every person or persons ]a~~~fully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said partdeh of the first part shall and will ~'4'ARRANT ANll FOREVER DEb'END. IN WITNESS WHEP.EOF, the said part.(,eb of the first part ha V2 tA2Y1X9B~bC the day and year first above written. ~l 'r) Signed, sealed and Delivered in the Presence of ' ~C/ ~~ ;! Rabe~i~t g: ..S --c~ : ~ ~ ,. . t , set •the4hard6 ----....-°--~°----°--°~----------------- [SEAL] STATE OF COLORADO, ' } ss County of P.ithcn J "' The foregoing instrument was aclmowledged before me this 29.th day of DeeembeJt 1s 74,by Robeht 6. Sxevenb, hub band, and Ccufo~ f. S.tevenb, t~+i~je, 1\Iy commission expires January 9 . , ' ,j . J . _ ,, __ _,i >~• ~~ Z a O F 197$ .Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public. m ~o o ~o b, ~ l U~ ~ r ` y, ' ~ ~ \~T' ~ b G O z `~ ~\ eNf"~~ F,. > G t9 In ~ \l QI 0 R O O U . Y N ~ ~ ~ U o « y T o (('y`~, [;~ F ;~ p, N ~ p '~ ~~ . i ~ a ce: f~ y , . ~ CJ .:. .... C n ~ Y V u i 0 V p Y Reception No. u1781 L f=€Y ......Record ~ •~~ 4. t THIS DEED, Made this day of ,19 73 between WILLIAM J. CHAMBERS of the State of iawaii, County of Kauai, and CARL HOFFER of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the first part, and COUNTRYSIDE ASSOCIATES, a Partnership of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the second part: STATE DDCUMENipftY FEE Au G 1 S 1973 WITNESSETH, That the said partteSof the fast part, for and inconsideration of the sum of TEN DOLLAE (10.00) and other good and valuable consideration ~s to the said part leS of the first part in hand paid by said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and aclmowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these ppre~eents do SULandP ass~gns for grant, bargain, cell, convey and confirm, auto the said party of the second part, 1 t S/114CAs ecer, all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkiri and State of Colorado, to wit: East 1/2 of Lot L and all of Lots M, N and O, Block 106, in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen TOGEPHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and pmfita thereof, and all the estate, right; title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said part 1 eS of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said p~~g.'G~Sined and described with the appnrtcnancea, unto the said part Y of the ~fl°n7dlparht,,,~tS/~Siffi and assigns forever. And the said parties of the first part, for them seI V eS/t nos, e~~ 8nd admimatxst°rs, dAopp e°°enant, grant' bargai°' end agree to and with the said party of the secondpart, its/~~n~$~sign~, that at the Lime of the eneealing and delivery of these presents they arewell seised of the premises above conveyed, ea of good, sore, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritsace, iD law, in fee simple, and ha ve Sood right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever ]rind or naturesoever, except general taxes for 1973, payable in 1974; and subje< to reservations and exceptions as contained in the United States Patent affecting all property in the City of Aspen and theSabove be lined premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, its/ UCC ~rxand assigns against all and every person or persons lawfally claiming or to Haim the whole or any part thereof, the said parties of the first pert shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. I1Q WITNESS WHEREOF, the slid parties of the first art ha V e hereunto sett heir hand S and seals the day and year first above written. ~ ' ~/7{ ...._....... W'ilI'Y-s7iC-J:-- ~Ttit'iLY'"S-'"'--'-'-"'-' ._ ..(SEAL 1 1 ~, ------._.-------------.....-------°------• (SEAL) ;gip STATE of ~ WA I 13i Car ---1To f e ~~ ~ ss, Covnty of Kauai J ~ ///''' The foregoing instrument was aclnlowledged before me this '~G'~' day of %~~~-y i,9y~ !i,b~,'„W~LLIAM J, CHAMBERS. / _ \•}14y commfas~dn e~-pires September 12, 1975 ,19 ~ - ass my hand and official seal .. ~ ~ ' ~~" - ~ h~ - '= DONNA G06tEZ NpSBiJ -' 3 ~ -: ? U P ~~. ` c Notar Public, Fifth Judicial CirGUit, ' State of Hawaii 140.932. W ARAANrY DEED.-For Photo¢renhle Rerord-Bradford Publishin¢ Co.. 1824.46 Stout Sfxet, Denver, Coioredo-il-72 l,.y.t~ ./'~ ,t~ Qy~v G..o~u~ .Pew/Ni ~4uy/t!~ ` I ~.. -STATE OF ~G?OLORADO ) SS: 'Counxy~;qf~ Pitkin ) ~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~3 ~ day of'~'~__~, 1973. ~'~.~WITNE55 my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: .~ i• ' ry ' ._ ,__ ___ _ -_ _ i ~ix.;,i '. p. .~ '. _ ~. y ~'~.; ._ _,Z~ w.o ^t~ ~., :~ z W A F E ~~~ y~~~ No ary uI~ bTic ` is c1' .~::>m+Ai`lJ:i. bY~l}iaG ~%~' r ~1" m ~ o M! .~ ,~ i ~ ~~~ s ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ i j ~ i ' ~ ~ P ~ m z i ~ ~ a M o w c m ~ °j ~ a u O V P+' a u ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ O ~ " ~ i1., ~ W 6 °~ v A ~ ~ i u ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~i i A o ~ , `v~ ~ r / ,~ .aC ~ y 1w .,~' .. f +~ j. n `\D ii{ 1 N w :~ s' "~, ' N ... a 0 a~i b R N Y k, Y' o ry ^ ~ 4 V i ! \ t ~ I' J \\ ~. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 18, 1975 Yaw/Ginn Building £.epresented by Leonard Oates, this buildir.a has gore threat,*h or.. Located on Spring, chances since its concepti man ~.._._ - . y Origir:al and Durant Strect_e, tl:e applicants had beer_ given new zoning code under Ordinance 50 protection from the . passed by the City Council recer.ily. Council had as}:ed that the residential uni'cs r,ot be ccr:domir:imized in the future and that all the apartments have a one year lease covenant. Oates noted that all eight units would be sold under one otanersh.ip sc 'they would be able +_c handle tY.ose requeets. Kane said that +.he prebler.: c:as with tl:e cor:.r:ercial section of the building especially with the uses - it was zoned Neiyhborhood/Cor:arercial. Jer.}:ins questioned t•a:ether there was a ba~~-r„ent pl.anrec. ar,d Ka;:e said tha ~ 38 par):ing spaces were planned. Jerkirs t:•ar:dered v:hether ii would alr:a1°s re.:.o.in parki_ra area and Oates noted thai: as long as °_he're were access to the building for cars, it would be a parking ' area but ii ro cars were allowed in the downtown area, then they would put the spe.ce to ether toes. Sehi~-for gtzestienea whehter they 1.ad met. a1.1 the 3esigr. .equiremerts erd Y.ane noted in the affirmative, F,lso asked by Schi_`fer t.~as e~heti.er the Pl.arning Cffice recoru.:ended a;:l° corrditiens imposed and Y,are said he haci r:o restrictions. Motion Collins moved to Grant. tl:e exem_rticr. from SebdiviGion Regr.laticns for tl:e law/Gi-nr: bttilcti.ng trrder section 20-10-c c~ the code. Hurt seconded. All ir. favor, r^etien carried. View Plane Review: The F.yr;ar, hveruc- Ccrp. Ettild_r:g, as prepesec. by Ted 2?ularz., Hyman Ave. Corp. architect for the prc;ec'c and. F:dc:•ard (t•ierdy) 1^_orse, ;gad '~wo raa;cr problems - crt: was cenrern~_rg the vi ec•T p'_ane .end the ctl:er a:>::ing ;'or e.:e^pt_.cn from P. U. L). tanford noted that since the View preserve.ticr: Crdina.^.ce l;ad been approved by Council„ this is the first one that P & Z has had to ccrsider. Mularz explained that when he was designing the building, he had had Tr_cc do a vi.et: plane dra:oina to establish the height he had tc c:ork .:i~:h. .'`.t t1:at :.itr:e it t:•as discovered that cite Ci~l v:~., us.i;:g a di:`~~rer:~ pe:>t `_han fire L'.S.C.G.S and thus the building had lost 2.2. feet because of the difference in height. Jenkins questioned which was the correc+: post aria I'iularz noted that the Cit;~' ~ maser :,ra^- wrong. Tare City used the L^er:ch mark of 790 from the Cou:'t House building i.!,s:ead cf the 7909 r•..ark. Je.,tiins asks d if ti.C Cit.}• acre ci:ar:gincr ~~ nur.:ber and Stanford said that they were ir: the process o~ changing i.t row. Sci.~ffer questioned t:etl:er _.~ made r.he buildi:~g i~ic,7he= or lower"~ fill le.._... e;a ~' d1 :ed C.1at ~..t letQer P_d ].t ~' i''111<t __ > also noted that he had tried to stay within the limitations imposed ,`.y the vieer rl: ne ~.;d using the O.S. C.G.S.'s survey, he had cn'y beer. a little over the hein,;:t bet u.^_ing the Cit~.• .....:her ..~ w.ls .: a cvcr. ?.l: o r:e:.tio::~;.i ..~.. .. encrc lchrc~..:. ci 3=< ~eet_ ir. t e~ rear of :e ui_cii::9. Cis ar.. .:sic ch r. t.9-i:. ..c .nil(~it c.esi.gn, ey .._. c_ied _o k _p to ..c.__ c. ~t comer o~ ,.Lc bUlldlTlg el)c'_nl(tlll:~ :tiClll(_ 1?e faCi;;n hi:G Gall 2i TOm '_'ill'ir:] Gallery) . .;chiifer }:cd i this more anratery _ ....D. ..^d S~..aio~-d _..:id chat t:~c, t:•er(~ rcc;cc~*_it:~ air ~~:,_ "ht;. u _ ,c,~ILLC• of the restrictions im}+osc~ by the Vicw Plane. P]ularz ti:G tli~ht ti::1L ... _, C11Cl:t ::;1C1 ell ;l .?.1 CC S:!1!' :IC.(`.'L~il Url }ll Ol ..'. l'..:I.u ~, ,. t!:. .:t'ci:. c.e._ _, i).:.1 ~ri~-~: t~? m, _c _L.. i,•...;t ~~" all the rc:,triec.,-,..... ht>>7.-ire al..%, -~o.in+.cd „".. '_h,!r_ ~h~ r Plannin7 OI Cic~~ h.ui (u>}:cd that they provi(Ip an .~r'cad+~ Lhrou~rt~ -3- ___ . . Pik; rq ~ a ~ ~.~-,M~~~ s~A~ Iv4 = bs~.a~ s~A~s- Ids' = ~ 7D . ~~~ r6a~.~.s~~s~K . z.43~t ~ ra,.,r~.• ~Y~~ ao8 = 98q ~~2 ~ 1/M 8~s~rabs aC~;euao7 = 957.?S ~ ~~111~ 5 ~.~. ~,~ 3 0 1z ~3gq~t~- ~ I/M lo.~nl b~' ~CCS 3 0 3 = COwv.~r~'~.~ 'tea 'T'9.ma+,~~n. ~po.ea.. , d i „ ~~ ioz iv9 = -- >> zc I ,, ~.v~ 1, -, s! $ ,o3s ~ %M Z'o'~al ~15OD.>S ~~Z~ l.S I 162.5 ~ !. SAM ~777.25~i -sga(~ ~%tn~ ~~-gR.sGZ j Tof ~~ ~ a s s~a~ .a8~ = ,95$ . 63q z 1 . 39q I o 3S ~.4-s~ =. z. a5 ~ = i.~~1 : t . ~J~1-`~- . g$ 9 z 2. 37~- ~65n ~.©oo ebb _.-_r-__ z ??. 3OS a4. ~ 69- ~ 09~.~~ Y' ~`~ ~ 1 ~~ .. ;~ -e, <~ -°- ~ ~~ e4~ is 4:.r ff .v rm ~.. :P r •*. @u . «~ 4 i,o~ ~A.ra oq = I (~ ~ '~ I o U = (~(~~ S p, G -°nr-~°'' 1 ~~ ~ lP~ A~~. ~' o ~.~ K a t~~-C~L•~ x ~~.5, +(35.5 9 5~ = `~ 3 ~2~. ~ro.c1 ~1v~,A _ (,,rYlo,)-(Ii.'-; •f.~~ ~'~~;}x ~3f~) -{3v~4)~'(5~.'sr ;~ w. ate. ` /-~: ~' ~r°e~.e ~ .^. t° \ ~ ~~~~~~3 -.D`1`~ ~`~w'vt+Q. ~'vV>4q+>'w^hl`nG ~Ein ~i.~1~^•n ~ ~.\ 1 ~ ~~..1....,.. VJ J ~~1 i7 ~~ ., t• ~~~ ~~~~a ~ ~_ - 6..M 't. ~' •.J /s 'l w.a.a j ja.,..J is '..?~ /'q a. :a a°~ 1~ 15 p,.... ,~. f .. ~ .r P. j1 f ?'"S.D,l..pr ~ ... ~+~A. °~ /sly ~,{n e ~ O~ z.F ~ i.:- y`~•. ! iU/ ~Y". a:/4 g`..aEe c~1~'~~{s-V J~ S'~~.41~Y\\'R`'7 ~~ ~`~, ~'\j`~~ O',~~ ~ t:. •..5 .(„'~ Vf 'aY i c;;r ~- 1 A4'QRLI`',Sc. C'^ 6€~' hl 9~~ ~LS'~ra~1>a~C~.~~~ G~~`j(i 9t ~ ~j!\ ~`J3 " ~7~ ~ ~ ,'~+ ~ ~ 3 t~ C,~ e ~, ~::.~ P~+ ~i Cvyie ~' 100,- ~ '~ a !-"-"' fi"~ {~R.~,1 ~°G~A` 104 0~ ~ G x rso~ = q op® ~°~"'- ~. ~. 7 S2~ a _ 1,5 C?_ G._ _.,. tn' (r~ / J1~ ~ 1 f~ o..~ J ~~ v `v Ru"i • ~' ~, (l ~.R+-.~ rt"~.~ ~ a`. N`y ~v~ ~ ~ V' ~Y,1~` -~ 4/ ~ a. 1 c3i U ~~ y ~ ~ ~ V Q ~~~ ~ ~ o ~- - ~ ka ~ a b'~ p~~- ~: ~s.c5l. p ~.~~ ~'~~~ t tj,~ j. J... ~' r ~rJ '~'•'t'L r~ k ~, ~, (y t~~./ ~l`3~ ~~ ~ ~`~'~ 'f"./,~' (,~,,. ~ 1~°.! b ~ 1A,1 ~~ eaw-~ `.1 ~ `4--:.~y-3anre,.+ '"c.. ~'~-~ro,~~~. `~ 0~~~-,o ~at~c.. er~~'~ry ~,.~.o~31a~ _ ~ (oS '~''~i e~ ..,,.r - _.,. ~ A _{i ~ A r . ~ -> ('~. :~ .1 G E`~ l Q+.x. ~ 1 ~ X11"? 6~ ~''`p,Wvta~ c::~ (~ } ,y `~ `A,, ,~ .,.X~ '"S .~`l" C`~ , t f'•''ti'a ltlf`t "~ (°9 ~-N'"°4^. ~ , { ~ ~ S' ~ ~ ~,'/ i '~ 1'~-i.'-._.. ~ tl g"" r i+ ~ ~ ~ r f6t ~..N+,~ } 1.`.~- "1~ ~ ~ 1 ~t'°!'r ~ ~(~~j- ~• s~ ~ ~v`S ~ ms`s. t{ ._ J u a t 0 - 22 - ~~--- ~i P-a~~a. l,~va. \ ~ ~{o~'~ ~~.a)-+c~~Esx.~s.s )~~SGx 3~{-) -Cq.: x ~.~.} ,. za,,.~ 1.,av¢.1 =~~;2.SX33`1i•~9.SX42,~~~?.3~(n6.5~ W1r, ~a L.~.va ^. s? Ca'~. ~7.°.s~`5 ~3.~ lt) J ~S`uZ7.5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ qq~~y; ~~ ~Q/ .d ~.i. ~~ q 2.v.C~ 1, Av~-1 r ~ o: q ;~ E7 ~-~~9: ~ ~~ ~ ~,,5~j3•~,x ~~.~, ~~0.` 7 ~7d. D ~ ~-''' ~.1,7~~.~3~" 4"~a.~5 ~~1r .4 ~' ~g. ~s ~s~~-- 3~ ~~ ~' ~ -, ~~ ` _~ i ~ -° = ~ T-- C~ f ?,-~ `." ~.>r-~~_ j'c~~r,tir? _ ~3 I ~C ~f~)-}-(JS.SX 11-4° \l~la~ 1 ~.5 ~7,5x 3,~'.5~ ~ 33-7 ~'-~~" l~,~e^~ ~~rcA =L"sXIA~~~~-'1~-t~7.sKia~~ IS{4~ ` -~. ...~ ~:- • s PY `b "~ 1 lid--y~~. ~ i ,~ ~ ~p ..~, .., /~ 1 C',-~r• 0 V dot= .- l' 'Q+.u>a ~E "' • Gin k ~_.~....~.----~ r of -~ A '~ }, ~ ~' ^ ~ ~ ~+ . '.~,.'~ ~~~ f 16aG.~5 ~. {•5f ~ 43~ ., •: •• p• • ~d~~ • /~~ ~ ~-r. n a ~s .~. ^~ ev ., G~ ~ ~J/ 1 r~ t' ... IYtt^."€'IG'r" t°tr.°,-At::-',t. W. ..y ., I`Z.P :i: + •/ '~ ~a ~ C> "~ } .,. p E ~q~ ~ O ~' f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ • tick'."1 .. .~__.. _ ~.. pp ( (I~pyO "~Q C p ~ ~. •~'- S • ~i i` ' t ` ~ f f yp ~ t t, ~~ , ~°T d t5'S;'~ ~,a 1~ d 2, ~7~~ s' ~t :S.I ~ w I2Q~i.`u~- ~ 1 t G~P3 -- ~ 1 ~ ri'~ ~ w~"1 e 1 ~ tt // 1~ ~.P-_~.._..._ ~...`. o~~~ s 17. cos q,f ,~ v~-= ~~ j AGREEh-SENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ~ day of ~~ 197, by and between Robert G. Stevens and John C. Ginn (hereafter "Stevens-Ginn") of Aspen, Colorado, and the Aspen City Planning Commission (hereafter "Commission") Aspen, Colorado: WITNESSETH: I. Recitals 1.1 Both parties hereto acknowledge that it is an established rule that the City of Aspen, or its recommending bodies, have no power to make commitments that will embarrass or control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties; that the Aspen Planning and Toning Commission cannot by contract deprive itself of any legislative powers or govern- mental powers; that it cannot bargain away the right to exercise the police powers; and that it cannot contract in such manner as to embarrass or interfere with its future actions in govern- mental matters as the public interest may require. 1.2 Stevens-Ginn has obtained approval, subject to use approval of the Commission pursuant to Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, of the City of Aspen, for their project on the East 1/2 of Lot L, all of Lots A4, N, 0, P and Q of Block 106, City of Aspen. 1.3 Under the provisions of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, of the City of Aspen, the recommended uses for the subject property are "Central Area", and the project is on the edge of the central area. 1.4 Ordinance 19 authorizes the Commission to permit land uses (in accordance with the recommendations of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan) in its deliberations under the review procedures established under Ordinance 19. 1.5 The purpose of this Agreement is to establish uses which are acceptable to the Commission for this project and to restrict the uses for this project during the present term of Ordinance 19, or extensions thereof. II. Basic Agreement 2.1 The Commission hereby agrees with Stevens-Ginn that under the procedures of Ordinance 19, the following proposed uses shall be allowed, exclusively, until the termination by its terms of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, or extensions thereof. Camera Shops Banks Food Markets Dry Cleaning Plants Retail Liquor Stores Variety Stores Key Shops Furniture Sales and Repair Shops Art Studios, Supplies & Galleries Bookstores Carpet, Flooring & Drapery Stores I3ardware Stores Stationery & Office Supply Stores Business, Professional Offices Decorator Shop Candy & Tobacco Shops Paint Rz Wallpaper Stores Recording Studios Health Clubs Tile Stores Garden Shops Antique Shops Pet Stores Barber or Beauty Shops Tailor Shops Drug Stores Bakeries Catalogue Stores Laundromats Hobby Shops Appliance, TV Repair, Sales & Service Shops Multi-Family Residential Uses Job Printing Any Uses Allowed in Neighborhood Commercial/ Limited Industrial zone of the City of Aspen Code 2.2 It is understood by the parties thereto that all development of the subject property shall be in accordance with valid zoning, subdivision, environmental control, stream margin, or other land use regulations in effect or from time to time adopted and effective within the City of Aspen. 2.3 It is further understood that under certain conditions a local government in exercising its zoning powers will be estopped from exercising such powers when a property owner, relying in good faith upon some act of government, has made such a sub- stantial change of position or incurred such extensive obligation and expenses that it would be highly inequitable to destroy the rights which he has ostensibly acquired. By execution of this Agreement Stevens-Ginn waives any claim that proceeding hereunder shall constitute such expenditures or change of position to estop the City of Aspen from changing its land use regulations -2- ., relative to the subject land and imposing such regulations in the future on the development anticipated by Stevens-Ginn. 2.4 As of the termination of Ordinance 19, or any extensions thereof, this agreement shall terminate except that the uses provided for herein, if in use or if leases have been entered into by Stevens-Ginn, or either of them, for space in their buildings, these uses may be continued in spite of a change in zoning. If the uses provided for herein are discontinued and are no longer allowed by a change in zoning, Stevens-Ginn agree that they shall then be bound by current zoning laws for further uses of the space. Planning Commission City of open BY~~/~~ 7`l: xooert G. Steven ~/ o C. Ginn e~F.. ~~_ P •'' CITY ~ ~ ` ~ PEN aspen,c box v .V :A~ LiT M FMnRANnI IM T0: Planning Office FROM: Building Department SUBJECT: Proposed Stevens-Ginn Building DATE: October 25, 1974 During the time that the Stevens-Ginn buildings were being re- viewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Ordinance 19, the buildings did not meet Chapter 24 (Zoning) for the following reasons: 1. The buildings were 2,485 sq.ft. over the maximum permitted floor area. 2. The buildings were required to have 4,125 sq.ft. of open space, only 3,105 sq.ft. was pro- vided, short 1,020 sq.ft. 3. The countryside building was required to have a ten foot front yard, a ten foot rear yard and five foot side yards, due to residential uses on the top floor. No front yard, rear yard or west side yard was provided. 4. Thirty lennial feet of open space was pro- vided on Durant Street where 82.5 feet was required. MEMORANDUM Planning Office October 25, 1974 Page Two F' 5. The building was over the maximum permitted height of 25 feet within ten feet of the front and rear property line. 6. A dry cleaning business was proposed in the Steven's building. Dry cleaning plants are not permitted in the C-1 zoning district. Items 2 thru 6 were granted approval by the Board of Adjustment. Item 1 was corrected by reducing the floor area of both the Stevens building and the Countryside building and by providing additional arcade space as a bonus for additional floor area permitted in the C-1 district. During the Board of Adjustment hearing the question was asked where was trash to be stored? The architect stated that all trash would be stored in the basement. The final working drawings show no provision for trash storage in the basement or any place on the premises. During the Board of Adjustment hearing the architect stated that thirty off-street parking spaces would be provided in basement underground parking. The final working drawings show provision for twenty-six off-street parking spaces. Clayton` Meyring City Building Inspector CI~~ ~~ ~. P~~ a$~D E',~ ~C°tl~~.~n 4~Q.~19~ VL~3 i~ ~Y~-i V April 12, 1974 Robert G. Stevens & Co. P. 0. Box 1147 Aspen, Colorado Dear Bob, The Planning Office has reviewed the uses contained in ah agreement proposed to be entered into by the City of Asper. and the developers of the Stevens/Ginn buildings located on the east z of Lot L, all of Lots M, N, 0, P & Q of Block 106, City of Aspen. The uses are in confor- mity with those approved by the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission pursuant to Ordinance 19 building permit review. As you know the Aspen zone district map is now being reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Toning Commission.in the expectation of future zone changes. The Planning Office expects to recommend for the subject property and for the block on which it is located a neighborhood con- venience shopping zone designation. The permitted uses that will be recommended are as follocas: grocery stores, liquor stores, drug stores, laundry and dry cleaners, food specialty stores, barber and beauty shops, laundromats, shoe repair, tailor shops, multi family residences and business and professional offices. If adopted, the uses for the district would be somewhat more restrictive than those contained in the agreement, ~. page Z Robert G. Stevens & Co. and therefore you should be aware at this stage of your project that such zoning may be applied to the property. Yours truly, ~CU~~ t~ Donna Baer Planning Office DB/bk cc: Countryside Associates encl. ~-. AGREENE, TIIIS AGREEhfENT made and entered into this day of 1974, by and between Robert G. Stevens and John C. Ginn (hereafter "Stevens-Ginn") of Aspen, Colorado, •. and the Aspen City Planning Commission (hereafter "Commission") Aspen, Colorado: WITNESSETH: I. Recitals 1.1 Both parties hereto acknowledge that it is an established rule that the City of Aspen, or its recommending bodies, have no power to make commitments that will embarrass or control them in the performance of their legislative powers and duties; that the Aspen Planning and Toning Commission cannot by contract deprive itself of any legislative powers or govern- mental powers; that it cannot bargain away the right to exercise the police powers; and that it cannot contract in such manner as to embarrass or interfere with its future actions in govern- mental matters as the public interest may require. 1.2 Stevens-Ginn has obtained approval, subject to use approval of the Commission pursuant to Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, of the City of Aspen, for their project on the East 1/2 of Lot L, all of Lots hi, N, O, P and Q of Block 106, City of Aspen. 1.3 Under the Provisions of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, oP the C2ty of Aspen, the recommended uses for the subject property are "Central Area", and the project is on the edge of the central area. 1.4 Ordinance 19 authorizes the Commission to permit land uses (in accordance with the recommendations of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan) in its deliberations under the review procedures established under Ordinance 19. 1.5 The purpose of this Agreement is to establish uses which are acceptable to the Commission for this project and to restrict the uses for this project during the present term of Ordinance 19, or extensions thereof. II. Basic Afircement /'~ ~` 2.1 The Commission hereby agrees with Stevens-Ginn that under the procedures of Ordinance 19, the following proposed uses shall be allowed, exclusively, until the termination by its terms of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973, or extensions •- thereof. Camera Shops Banks Food M1farkets Dry Cleaning Plants Retail Liquor Stores Variety Stores Key Shops Furniture Sales and Repair Shops Art Studios, Supplies & Galleries Bookstores Carpet, Flooring & Drapery Stores Hardware Stores Stationery & Office Supply Stores Business, Professional Offices Decorator Shop Candy & Tobacco Shops Paint Rc Wallpaper Stores Recording Studios Health Clubs Tile Stores Garden Shops Antique Shops Pet Stores Barber or Beauty Shops Tailor Shops Drug Stores Bakeries Catalogue Stores Laundromats Hobby Shops Appliance, TV Repair, Sales & Service Shops Multi-Family Residential Uses Job Printing Any Uses Allowed in Neighborhood Commercial/ Limited Industrial zone of the City of Aspen Code 2.2 It is understood by the parties thereto that all development of the subject property shall be in accordance with valid zoning, subdivision, environmental control, stream margin, or other land use regulations in effect or from time to time adopted and effective within the City of Aspen. 2.3 It is further understood that under certain conditions a local government in exercising its zoning powers will be estopped from exercising such powers when a property owner, relying in good faith upon some act of government, has made such a sub- stantial change of position or incurred such extensive obligation and expenses that it would be highly inequitable to destroythe rights which he has ostensibly acquired. By execution of this Agreement Stevens-Ginn waives any claim that proceeding hereunder shall constitute such expenditures or change of position to estop the City of Aspen from changing its land use regulations -2- ' 1.elative to the subject land and imposing such regulations in the future on the development anticipated by Stevnens-Ginn. 2.4 This Agreement and its terms shall terminate on the lapsing of Ordinance 19, or any extensions thereof, and it is acknowledged and agreed that Stevens-Ginn shall then be free to provide any uses allowable by zoning laws in effect at that time. Planning Commission City of Aspen by Chairman Robert G. Stevens John C. Ginn ~, ,.~ .~ .., T0: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens/Ginn Buildings DATE: 4/16/74 Conforms with approval given at conceptual and preliminary reviews. Conditions: 1. A use agreement has been submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney and P.O. If new zoning is adopted, it will apply to this site. 2. Project received all four requested variances from the Board of Adjustment. 3. Trash management plan should be submitted. 4. Covenant should be submitted to restrict apartments to long term rentals. NELSON, HOSHIN, GROVES fi. PRINSTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION wiLLIAM H. NELSOx ATTORNEYS AT LAW O8EOO8Y $. AOS$IN ~IONN W. OHOV$$ 500 FIRST NATIONAL BgN14 6UILOING ANTHONY F. P8IN9TER P O. BOX 90 GRAND JUNCTION. COLD RA00 BI501 SON B. OETZ TELE PX ONE 242-4903 IBE-E81G$ O. ALDBIGN qR EA CODE 303 April 10, 1974 Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Post Office Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Stevens - Ginn Buildinl~ Dear Sir: OF GOVNSEL MICHAEL D.IVHITE FI'. OOLLINS~ OOLORADO It is our understanding this project will come up for final review on Tuesday, April 16. This letter is written on behalf of City Market, the owner and occupant of the half block across the alley and adjacent to the proposed project. City Market objects to the project in two respects: 1. Allowance of a commercial dry cleaning establishment in the project. This is particularly aggravated because of the location of the dry cleaning establishment. 2, The basic concept of the project, which is oriented toward the City Market parking lot. City Market believes the customers of the new project will logically attempt to use the City Market parking lot since the open center courtyard of the project is directly across the alley. This is an unfair burden to force upon City Market's facilities and will materially aggravate the present situation. We acknowledge there is under- ground parking provided under the proposed building; however, we believe your own planning staff will confirm the fact that com- mercial customers do not use underground parking. An examination of the Aspen Square and the North-of-Nell buildings will clearly confirm that fact. Even though underground parking has been Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1974 Page Two reserved for commercial tenants and their customers in each of these other buildings, the parking space goes unused except by tourist guests using the residential facilities and employees. For example, it was suggested by Mr. Stevens and his rep- resentatives at the Board of Adjustment hearing, that customers going to the dry cleaning establishment (which is on the alley immediately across from the City Market building at a place where deliveries are made to the Steak Pit and other basement tenants in the City Market building) will drive into the underground parking, park their car or truck, take the elevator to the ground floor and then go into the dry cleaning establishment. It is un- realistic to expect people to use this circuitous route; we be- lieve the traffic in the alley will be interrupted as a conse- quence of improper stopping or parking by people visiting the commercial facilities intended to face the alley. This will interfere with traffic flow for the customers of City Market, for others who use the alley for delivery purposes, and for those attempting to shop at the proposed project. In addition to the elimination of the dry cleaning plant, City Market believes that if the intended development were to face Durant Street, in a more conventional manner, many of these aggravations could be eliminated. In consequence, we hope the Planning and Zoning Commission will re-examine the project. We also note we first had knowledge of the project as a consequence of the Board of Adjustment notice to us just a few days ago. Ordinance 19 review, which does not contemplate notice to adjoining owners, has presumably gone on for many months and the management of City Market was unaware of this - hence, this late information to you. Very truly yours, William H. Nelson WHN:ms ~_ 21 March 1974 L'oard of Zoning Adjustment City of Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colorado Re: St~vensjCour.*.r,rsic':.: Coml:~erdal ;;~~il:c~_-s Gentlenen; ;Ve wish to apriy for ~..~ 1 z~ :ir ~ rfc ' pl,xnnin,~ concc~-;t erc', c;; ', ~ , ~~ t.: ~ . ~ .. ' a ~ * t; .^ • O`iice, to arcfzitect:._?.hy r~l...._ t; ~, r... .. _ _.- fect certain site plar,.r.~ r^l ~.ar:_ .~:._ •~-; _. t':; ~ - environs. because the overall cer.~~.",t 1S I'a's ' ^ _ ~ ~ `:c t :-; r - r :. , ~~lill delineate first tt~ x:~~criant a^ ~~ ~~=~ t:~ c~::_'~t 1 . = _i-- inthe specifics of tics vrio~h; vsri.;:.~~~ i~~c•:~ct~. The overall land r.~rcet cer.,:iil:^ cf :' c:.~ it s i° ;'-i-"' :' r.,.==~' by two parties 19F:~5.: ir...'•rit10:'.3 ^TE', t? _.C.CC t` ) t`.7',^, I•; r,- iated building proi~cts cf nii;,:i co!n:nsrci~~lrce!.e~ral-:i a--:. _:~- caura~•cd by tftc rialt.a_:.. C':=c to c ,:--;: _. ' ; ~ , t:~ t projects as a srrr:,t c ._, would renefit t€i~ rroi ~t ~^~~ r_s u~~ ~, <,~. ,. .~ t ,.,- - , ~...__.__- natad site rl'. ht]j j; ', T` r.::P .i:'.f 1' ;.. ... . , t. ._. -., - and L~d~striar_ r.:o/r ,_rt, r fd;r- r..~~•<,1 . •.__ ~ :_~ a ~~:_ .. - etxips and de^i-n resrcr,.~:° to t::~ ~l.t^:.:.:• c ~;:1-;_ . _r ~ r r_~r::.:::.i- in~ city environs. ` c ` t c' Thy project sit° is lx~t•::,1 at t'.-.~ ~,,..r. _. • ;_ ..._ t Aspen Central Are ~ 2n 1~ c^ --, ~ , t~ ' __ ' . it Recreational-Accc,.:..;«~j _ .-. ~ •-- ° i<. 1 _. . offers a urtr.t•~ lccatic:!:~i o rrl ~ ~ to c ~x 3t'r ._ -~ scrvin~ the oily service r .:, o. t. ~ _~ : r _; 1 ;-. ~:.' ~~c:1 j Within v,.2l.Cin? C:iL'L:3.RC~'.. It is G:1~rL~:iG::~~-u tSt':t Cii.'. ~'~~~~1;:'i li:'•I-:3 CGl;l- mercial uses will be service ori~nt~1 to ~:u~,rZ:;nt ~ I:C! relate to ic~ci i Letter to 1"soard of Zonir~ Adjustment 21 P.larch 1974 Fags 2 service shoppin? provided by City Market< Fy thus providing comniiment<-Iry shoppin+; services, the care of a small and needed neighborhood service center will be formed. To achieve, physically, the objectives of a nede~trian oriented service center vre see;c to co:nbinL and into-rate the apen space regiirements to the Ir,~tuai brneit of t..".v e*:tire project. Ey usir~ open space to create mid-bloc's pedestrian circulation be- tti~.ecn City l,:rrket and the nearby residonti2l wrens the following obj^ctives can be effected: lamer open space area than scold bA achieved by two segarata open space areas; open mace bycomes active circulation area relating to pedestrian use and slla~pirg ac- tivity rather than dead area simply comrlyirg with zonir: require- ment; allo2~•s ;-rester building frontage on co:~~mon open space - thus more activity generation; the larger common o^en space al- lows more architectural flexibility to create and irteTrate covered arcade space with open space; allows more efficient urban circula- tion for project vicinity. 1. Oaen Srace Varirrce The nvo bufldings have been designed relative to each other to combine tr°ir even spaces into a cross bloc!: pedestrian mall cec:rectinT City Ivarket throw^h tl.-~ project si:oppin? plaza with the n~i~hboring resideraial areas. In addition to providin7 an urban pedestrian linE: relating to service needs the combined oven space implements the objectives of open space zoning -space used for the functional and perceptual needs of people in an urban environment. in order to confinure the combined open space into a pedes- trian mall with epen space on both ti:e street front and the City itiarket front the renuired fronta~~ of one-half the com- bined site dimension cannot be provided although ti2:. Com- bined frontanes (alley and street) exceed the requirement. ti~~ e seek variance approval ®configure the open space street frontage requirement as shown on the attached site plan. Letter to Board of Zoning Adjustment 21 Paarch 1974 Page 3 2. The actual open space (by open to the sky definition) is 5'j,, less than tl~ 25 ~ lot area reouirement, hovrever because of its combined nature and because of the contiguous rela- tionship wiW one and two story covered m~li areas is greater in area and consir'ir~bly more useable than norm- ally pos:~iblo. Ey co:-nbinin_~* tho o-cn e^ace, h~v:evcr tEt total outdxr pedestrian s^aca (o;:vn r.:1 coverc:i) e;cce:~::s iho ouen s?~acc reE;^airement by Il;. C~°cause the mall will be an activa pedestrian axes sub;c:ct to tL•~ ble:^.'2eiYts of Aspen weath°r, tha architecture has Years provirad v=ith covered overh~n~ in eom?:ination t:ith tl:~ onen s^ace for both protective and perceptual reasans, tires latter attempt- in; to recall tho variation and hu-:^n scale of a European villa?e street. Lecause the o^~n space is eerfi~^ared in the intar~dt of Y~th the functional and psrcectu:zi interests of the pedestrian and comprises an urban d~:sin inn°fit to the city, we request variance ap^roval. Tha following tni;,~alation delineates the specifics involved in the variance: Total Combined Project Site Area 16, 500 s. f. (51 city lots) Total open space required by Zoning g, 125 s, f. 25`" .., Total Actual Open Space 3, 535 s. f. (22, site area) Total Additional Covered t.5a11 Space 3,10 s, f. - (19; site area) Total Combined Open Space and Covered 6, 675 s. f. ~,atl Space (41 o site area) Totat open space accessible for use by each building: Percent for Countryside BuildinU 3, 535 s. f. ~ 33.6 1 ,~"vfi. . Percent for Stevens Building 3, 535 s. f.. 5g 'U s. . s _ ___ _ ~... F 0. Letter to Board of Zoning Adjustment 21 March 1974 Page 4 Total Qpen Space and Covered t~iall Space accessible for use by each building: Percent far Countryside Building 6, 675 s, f. = 6~, Percent for Sterens );uildin; 5, 675 t;. f. 111;x. ZiZ~v s 3. 7.oninR reL*,ulation re!;isires an open area on the rear lot line with a horizontal dimension of 10 feet and a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet. 'ire request variance to ex- tend a pedestrian mall access stair from a h~i~ht of 3 ft. (mall levol) to alley grade. Tln^, st:_rs vrili ;xterd argroxi- mately 5' -5" horizontally into the 10 foot space and are arcroximat~ly Q{) fea in vridth. This rear lot line open apace requirement eras created to insure adequate refuse storage on the alley. Although rc;fitse stara?e will be gro- itided in tho sub-tirade parking structure the inclusion of th•~ step will leave a total re,•naininT area of 1Q feet x 125 feat -certainly ad•ac!~.s<^_te for any cortin^ancy refuse storage. Additionally the step extension ~~~ill provide a desirable archi- tectural extension of the pedestrian mall toward the City lviarket complex. 4. Zoning regulation recnsires that no buildin; shall extend higher than twenty-five feet above existin grade Tess than ten feet from the front and rear property lines. t,'e request variance on this portion :of the Aspen Bonin Cody to allow instuilntiaa of slor..ir~ serarations that trill rise from a lc~:~l :,alcoay height (less th_~n twenty-five feet above grade) to ;oin tt:e exterior (alley and Burant Street) walls of tIa<.° liaildinr•s at a point t:n `,act horizcntally bnc's from the b.^icony ed-e !property line) and approximately seven to nine feet above the third floor decl: level. The installment of this building element would aford tha nec- essary separation b: tween bath ih~ private offices in the Stevens Building and tvro between the I,mployee Housing Apartment Units of tt~ Countryside Buildin. Letter to Board of Zoning Adjusunern 21 March 1974 Page S Because this project is providing needsa on-site automobile parking, it must be noted that in order to gain legal access to the RaraUe level this portion of the structure had to be elevated to the maximum alloy+~able hcinht vrhile still re- tainin? its sub grade structure status. This procedure h:~s caused this height probi:.m therefore re^,uirin; this variance. 5. Required Yard Variance Zoninn regulation rer~.:ires that in the C-1 Zone any per- mitted use of the AR-1 accomod^don recreation district except patio ho;ases subject to all use, lot area and yard requirements of that district regulation unless otherwise stated. Tin Countryside Euilding's third floor is a multiple family dwelling type use and zoning regulations reouire certain front, side, and near yards. It is our observation, based on conversations vrith the City of A°r..en Gutiding Department, that the ~ foot minimum side yard provision is to insure that anv portion of a dvrelling unit fa.cinry this side yard would br able to g;et adecrsate and required lig[.t and venti- lation. In the Countryside {3uildin? the deign of all the d~~~elliny units is such that there is as need to take either light or ventilation from any required side yard. The AR -i portion of the Code further reouires tha[ for m+.ltiple f,~miiy dv;~ellin,^,s both front and re^r yards l~ a minimum of ten feet decn. hince the d~vellin•~ unit por- tion of this project is en tho ton floor and because other zo=~irg regulations require that tha front and rear walls of the living units lx: placed a minimum of iG feet back from the strew and alley property lines creating 10 foot wide deck areas far each d~~•elling unit, the feel that in essence the front and rear yard requirements of the AR-i portion of the code are satisfied. Letter to Board of Zoning Adjustment 21 i.iarch 1974 Pabe b 't'le therefore request variance Aspen Zonfn? Code to allow the Dt:~elling portion of the project designed. 6, Use Variance on this portion of the A~iultiple Family to be cronstructed as i,'e reQU~st variance to a11o~N a combined commercial dry cieaninn facility :gad dry clear~irn pia?, im station locat::d at tho lo~;;~ar level of tho ~tevons portion of tP~ project. Alth~n~h orly a rortion of t!-3s us is d~fir..^.d as non- conforming we fail tho comflneu f, ciiity is clearly a Service Comr.:crcial Use as deinad in tlso C-t Zcnir,T I'ro- viGion. Addition^Ily i3ecause the irtcnt of tt~c projec[ in ryenaral is to iorrit a nci~:?iuorhood oricntc3 sorvice centor in combination v.~th tic City itlark:at foo:3 shop{;in', this use is both com atible vrith the intent and au~mentive to the concept. The dry cleaning facility a~fll use no toxic or flammable materials in t :c cleaninb process and v:ill emit no pro- ducts of combu~ticn. Than': ycu for your consideration. Very truly yours Copland Finholm Hagman 1'avr Ltd Larry Xaw JLY:ss EncL r ,~ , T0: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens/Ginn DATE: March 12, 1974 The Building Inspector for the Stevens/Ginn B 1. Exceeds F.A.R. Building - Variance Request has reviewed the variance requests sildings and finds as follows: 16,500 sq. ft. of lot area 1,330 bonus for arcade space = 34,330 sq. ft. permitted floor area According to the B.I.'s calculations the buildings have 36,815 sq. ft. of total floor area (above ground), or 2,485 sq. ft. over maximum. B.I. won't allow some arcade space because it doesn't meet definition in the ordinance for "public space". 2. An additional variance will be required because any building containing dwelling units must observe set backs required for residential buildings (front & back - 10', side yard - 5'). 3. B. I. calculates that 4,125 sq. ft. of Open Space is required by the code and site contains 3,105 sq. ft. or 18% rather than 25%. 4. Open space must have 82.5' length on Durant Street and only 15' have been provided. (This is included for information; P & Z was informed that open space on the street was planned for less than required by the ordinance.) C I'I'Y ~:~~ ~~~ .~'~. P E N aspen,cor<;.~°:.:,.~~:,~~E~~r box v .; March 13, 1974 Ronald D. Austin, Esq. Clark, Oates, Austin & McGrath Attorneys at Law P.0. Box 3707 Aspen, Colorado Re: Ginn_Stevens Dear Ron: The P & Z did not discuss Stevens_Ginn Tuesday evening because of a time problem. I think, so that the matter can be resolved most effectively, your best method of operation would be to ask Donna to put it on their agenda and then plan to attend. Very truly yours, ,~ -~ S~n`dra M. Stuller City Attorney SMS:sd cc: Donna Baer T0: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens/Ginn Building - Variance Request DATE: March 12, 1974 The Building Inspector has reviewed the variance requests for the Stevens/Ginn Buildings and finds as follows: 1. Exceeds F.A.R. 16,500 sq. ft. of lot area 1,330 " " bonus for arcade space = 34,330 sq. ft. permitted floor area According to the B.I.'s calculations the buildings have ,. 36,815 sq. ft, of total floor area (above ground), or 2,485 sq. ft. over maximum. B.I. won't allow some arcade space because it doesn't meet definition in the ordinance for "public space". 2. An additional variance will be required because any building containing dwelling units must observe set backs required for residential buildings (front & back - 10', side yard - 5'). 3. B. I. calculates that 4,125 sq. ft, of Open Space is required by the code and site contains 3,105 sq. ft. or 18% rather than 25%. 4. Open space must have 82.5' length on Durant Street and only 15' have been provided. (This is included for information; P & Z was informed that open space on the street was planned for less than required by the ordinance.) .,, ,_ MEMORANDUM T0: Members of Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sandra M. Stuller, City Attorney DATE: March 4, 1974 RE: Stevens - Ginn Building Ron Austin called last week indicating gnat Bob Stevens is, with Ron's advice, refusing to enter into any agreements to limit the uses of his building. I understand that it was your intention to limit the uses to non-tourist neighborhood commercial. Ron's position is that (1) any such delineation of uses is impossible and (2) he ca:inot allow his client to burden his property with any such covenant on uses. This note is merely to inform you as to my conversation with Ron. I will be on vacation through March 10th but would like to discuss it with you on my return. SMS:sd T0: FROM: Sl16JECT DA"F E MEMORP,"dD'JM ~. p ` ,r"~ r ,~, xF L.t~~ENti Aspen City Council Planning Office Si.:evens-Ginn Project November 11, 1974 The Stevens-Ginn project is a 33,000 square foot Commercial/Office/ Residential building located on 52 lots at the northwest corner of Durant and Original. The lot area is 16,500 square feet, and the proposed zoning is Neighborhood/Ccmmercial. The attached memo from the Building Inspector dated October 25, 1974 and the attached memo from the planning office dated March 12, 1974 indicate That at the time the project v+as being revievred under Ordinance 19 it did not meet the standards of Chapter 24. The floor area ratio (FFlR) of the building at the time of Ordinance 19 approval alas 2.23 to 1. The zoning ordinance in effect at that time allovled an FAR of 2 to 1. Ordinance 19 esllowed zoning rulings of the Planning and Zoning Co~:mrission to be more stringent but not less i:han those 'in effect at its inception. The current v!orking drawings submitted August 29, 1974 indicate that the project now contains 33,C57 square feet, which results in a FAR of 2_ to 1. The proposed zoning of Neighborhood/Commercial reconrnends an FAR of 1 to 1 with na provision for parking buyout. 'ihe rationalz for no parking b~.~yout is that given the tr'eighborhood/Commercial concept, the planning office recommends that the uses in the building be directed towards the more permanent residents and their needs. it is __ ___ .g Memorandum City Council November 11, 1974 Page Two envisioned that this type of user will be more apt to have a car at their disposal and more apt to use it at this type of commercial complex, than say a tourist would at a core area commercial establish- ment. For this reason, the car must be considered as a factor to be dealt with in the planning of this type of complex. The current working drawings indicate that 26 cars could be parked in the base- ment. It is the opinion of the planning office that this number will barely handle the auto generation of the residents and managerial personnel (shop owners - office staff) of the building. . Based on the following breakdown as supplied by the developers, the following parking needs are anticipated: STEVENS GINN Commercial 3800 sq.ft. 6000 sq.ft. = 9,800 Office 4600 + 3600 sq.ft. 8000 sq.ft. = 16,200 Residences 7000 sq.ft. = 7,000 33,000 sq.ft. Parking: Assuming 'z of a use is intensive and 2 i s less intensive. Commercial 9,800 sq.ft. x 3.5 = 34.3 spaces Office 16,200 sq.ft. x 2.5 = 40.5 spaces Residences 8-one bedroom + 1 Studio = 9 _ spaces 83.8 84 spaces This type of parking need generation is realistic and serves to show why commercial buildings directed toward the resident market segment: need to have a lower FAR so as to be able to provide adequate parking. The same theory is applied to the office zone under the proposed zoning. ~ +. Memorandum ~~; City Council November 11, 1974 Page Three. In conclusion the planning office recommendation for exclusion of this building from proposed Ordinance No. 50 is based on three factors: 1. Building massing in relation to the land area. 2. Intensity and ty~~ ^use in relation to the land area. 3. Inadequacy of the parking provision of the project. This project received conceptual approval on December 18, 1973; prelirr~inary approval on February 19, 1974; and final approval on April 16, 1974. ,. . 1 March 1974 Board of Zoning Adjustment City of Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colorado Re: Stevens/Countryside Commercial Buildings Gentlemen: -~ ,.. We wish to apply for several zoning variances based on an overall planning concept evolved, with the recommendation of the Planning office, to architecturally relate. two neighboring buildings and ef- fect certain site planning relationships with the surrounding urban environs. Because the overall concept is the major basis for this request we will delineate first the important aspects of the concept before listing the specifics of the various variance requests. - The overall land parcel consisting of 52 city lots is owned by two separate parties whose intentions are to erect two separate but architecturally related building projects of mixed commercial / residential use. Encouraged by the Planning office to consider and plan the two separate projects as a single design entity it was en- visioned that this approach would benefit the project and its urban - surrounds in terms of coordinated site planning, parking and vehic- _ ular circulation, open space and pedestrian movement, building massing and architectural relationships and design response to the ~!`'--. planning determinants of surrounding city environs. The project site is located at the south-east periphery of the desig- - nated Aspen Central Area and is contiguous to both Mixed Residen- `' " tial and Recreational-Accomodations areas. The site is located such that it offers a unique locational opportunity to compliment City Market in serving the daily service needs of the adjacent resi- dential population within walking distance. It is envisioned that the ground level commercial uses will be service oriented to augment ARC!-11TECTS • PLANNERS • ASPEN, C®@_®RAD®• 8'6 G7 7 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET • POST OFFICE BOk 2736 • TELEPHONE 303-925-2867 Letter to Board of Zoning Adjustment 1 March 1974 Page 2 and relate to food service shopping provided by City Market. By thus providing complimentary shopping services, the care of a small and needed neighborhood service center will be foamed. To achieve, physically, the objectives of a pedestrian oriented service center. we seek to combine and integrate the open space requirements to the mutual benefit of the entire project. By using open space to create mid-block pedestrian circulation be- tween City Market and the nearby residential areas the following objectives can be effected: larger open space area than could be achieved by two separate open spaces areas; open space becomes active circulation area relating to pedestrian use and shopping ac- tivity rather than dead area simply complying with zoning require- ment; allows greater building frontage on common open space - thus more activity generation; the larger common open space al- lows more architectural flexibility to create and integrate covered mall space with open space; allows more efficient urban circula- tion for project vicinity. 1. Open Space Variance The two buildings have been designed relative to each other to combine their open spaces into a cross block pedestrian mall connecting City Market through the project shopping plaza with the neighboring residential areas. In addition to providing an urban pedestrian link relating to service ___. j needs the combined open space implements the objectives - - of open space zoning -space used for the functional and --_ perceptual needs of people in an urban environment. -~--- ~_=_`~:, In order to configure the combined open space into a pedes- trian mall with open space on both the street front and the City Market front the required frontage of one-half the com- '_ .. bined site dimension cannot be provided although the com- - bined frontages (alley and street) exceed the requirement. We seek variance approval to configure the open space street frontage requirement as shown on the attached site plan. F~ ., Letter to Board of Zoning Adjustment 1 March 1974 Page 3 2. The actual open space (by open to the sky definition) is 5°~~ less than the 25% lot area requirement, however because of its combined nature and because of the contiguous relation- ship with one and two story covered mall areas is greater in area and considerably more useable than normally possible. By combining the open space, however the total outdoor pedes - trian space (open and covered) exceeds the open space require- ment by 11~/o. Because the mall will be an active pedestrian area subject to the elements of Aspen weather, the architec- ture has been provided with covered overhangs in combination with the open space for both protective and perceptual reasons, the latter attempting to recall the variation and human scale of a European village street. Because the open space is con- figured in the interest of both the functional and perceptual interests of the pedestrian and comprises an urban design benefit to the city, we request variance approval. The following tabulation delineates the specifics involved in the variance: Total Combined Project Site Area 16, 500 s. f. (52 city lots) Total Open Space required by Zoning 4,125 s. f. @ 25~ lot area Total Actual Open Space 3, 350 s. f. (21~ site area) Total Additional Covered Mall Space 3,140 s. f. (19~ site area) Total Combined Open Space and' 6, 490 s. f. and Covered Mal pace (40~ site are a) .. . Letter to Board of: Zoning Adjustment 1 March 1974 Yage 4 3. Zoning regulation requires an open area on the rear lot line with a horizontal dimension of. 10 feet and a minimum ver- tical clearance of 10 feet. We request variance to extend a pedestrian mall access stair from a height of 3 feet (mall level) to alley grade. The steps will extend approximately 5' -6" horizontally into the 10 feet space and is approximately 40 feet in width. This rear lot line open space requirement was created to insure adequate refuse storage on the alley. Although refuse storage will be provided in the sub-grade parking structure the inclusion of the step will leave a total remaining area of 10 feet x 125 feet -certainly adequate for any contingency refuse storage. Additionally the step ex- tension will provide a desirable architectural extension of the- pedestrian mall toward the City Market complex. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours Copland Finholm Hagman Yaw Ltd Larry Yaw JLY:ss RECORD OF PROCEtJIWGS 100 Leaves ,a., ,., ..~., __ _ ___ -I char `ieeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1975 voice any objections would have been there because of i.'tr notice. The only problem is that the Commission dicl not discuss at the public hearings the division of the land. Stated that it meets all the requirements of the su;~di- vision regulations. Stated that they could rehold the public hearings, but that would hold up Schottland. Johnson stated that he could see no reason to rehold the public hearings. Ms. Stuller pointed out the overwhelming hardship that would be imposed on Schottland if he was asked to yo through this all over again. Stated that if it was the Conunission's intent to handle the Rio Grande Subdi- vision, can do that by correcting the minutes. Bartel stated that what they were trying to do is cor- rect what should have been the responsibility of the seller. and both Bartel and the City Engineer wanted *_o get something on file of what the City purchased and it has been on all the maps. Reminded the Commissio r. that Lot 3 carries with i.t no development approval., and whether a condominium plat is subdivided for Lct 2- or not, still must meet the subdivision requirements for the entire thing. Schiffer stated that he felt the Commission had approved the condominium subdivision before approving the land subdivision. Bartel stated that on the plat it states, "Let 3, Rio Grande Subdivision as herein shown is accepted and recordation of this plat approved only as the exterior survey boundary and does not constitute an approval of the tract as specifying the desigr. requirements 20.7 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen prior to the issuance of a permit. For construction thereon Lot 3 shall be resubdivi_ded or subdivision of deed all as provided for by Chapter. 20 which is the subdivision regulations of the Code and approval shall be contained on satisfaction as to the design requirements of said Section 20-7 at such time permanent dedication of right- of-way, utility and public easements shall be finalized and any landscaping requirements satisfied." Ms. Stuller stated that it would be possible to start all over on Lots 1 and 3. Schiffer stated that he felt that was the only way the Commission could handle the problem, and try to find some way to allow Schottland to go ahead with this pro- ject. Schiffer suggested continuing the meeting until Thurs- day in order that the City Attorney could come up with a solution. Jenkins made a motion to continue the meeting to Thurs- day at 5:00 p.m. Motion hied for lack of a second. Stevens-Ginn I Yaw stated t}rat he had just found the calculations. Building •~I Stated that the parking as calculated on square feet of certain different types of use, just applied the Codc to them. Stated that they have two parking spaces to spare. Stated that his calru];~Cions conu~ up with a rcquircmcut of. 27 spaces and arc providing 2F. I:~.~- -22- RECORD OF PROCE"' `JNGS 100 Leaves quested that, since parking was the only condition or at least the primary condition on which they were asked to return, request that the Commission give final ap- proval subject to the evaluation of the IIuild iiig In- spector. Vagneur made a motion to reconsider the motion on the final approval of the Stevens-Ginn Building, seconded by Landry. All in favor. with the exception of Johnson who abstained. Notion carried. Vagneur made a moticn to give final approval to the Stevens-Ginn building under Ordinance $19 conditioned on the execution of the agreement regarding the uses and that the 28 parking spaces meet the requirements of the present zoning code. Motion seconded by Landry. Members in favor: Vagneur, Landry and Schiffer. Members opposed: Jenkins. Me[!mbers abstaining: Johnson. Mo- tion carried. Jenkins made a motion to continue the meeting to Thurs- day, April 18 at 5:00 p.m. A7otion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting continued to April 18th, 1974 at 5:00 p.m. Meeting recessed at 9:30 p.m. j .. Recording Secretar RECORD OF PROCEED~B 100 Leaves ..~ R_jecular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer questioned if that alternate access could be the permanent office. S9alls stated that as far as employee housing and parking was concerned, at the last presentation, Ms. Reed, one of the owners indicated that there was no problem in that area and that they would supply it. Stated that ~ the housing would not be supplied in this building. Have not arrived at a number in regard to e:hat the City would like to require in the way of employee housing. Ms. Baer requested that the applicant meet with Mojo to discuss that problem. Jenkins stated that he felt some type of impact study should be made. Jenkins made a motion to give preli.mary approval under Ordinance $19 for the RBIs Building conditioned on •.oork- ing out. of the parking situation, that the applicant get together with Mojo and work on the employee housinc situation and arrive at some sort of agreement and that the applicant work out the access problem. and obtain an-agreement from the County stating the.t the County will provide alternate access if the alley. is closed. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor with the ex- ception of Vagneur who abstained. Motion carried. Stevens - Ginn J Johnson stated that he would be abstaining on discussion Building - and vote in this project. Yinal Approval Zn a memorandum from the Planning Office, states t^:at this project conforms with approval given at concep- tua]. and preliminary reviews. Conditions: (1) A use agreement has been submitted and reviewed by the City - Attorney and .the Planning Office. If neeo zoning .is adopted, it will~apply'to`this site; (2) Project re- ceived all four requested variances from the Board of Adjustment; (3) Trash management plan should l:e submit- ted; and (4) Covenant should be submitted to restrict apartments to long term rentals. Schiffer questioned the City Attorney as to whether or not she was satisfied with the last paragraph of the a- greement. Ms, Stuller stated that essentially what it is saying is that they are afraid that if they start construction thi summer and the zoning is changed on them mi.d-stream, they might have entered into some leases and made com- mittnrents that they might not be able to honor later on. Ms, Baer stated that theprevious agreement indicated that zoning applied at the time of occupancy was to pre- vail. Stated that the only reservations she has is that the City is so close to a rezoning proposal and possible action that hesitates to commit to something which miytrt be in conflict with it. • Architect Larry Yaw stated that the~app]icant feels that the agreement reflects as much the nature o[ the times, the interest of the City and the interest of the Droner. Feel it is a fair and not burdensome request on the City because it does take care of the immediate range - long term interest. If the use is legislated against by -18- .~ RECORD OF PROCEEDf1'S'~S 100 Leaves ,~. , _ _ q ~ar'Mee-tin9 Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 furture zoning then the agreement provides that when the occupancy changes it will fall under the prevailing zon- ing. Jenkins questioned what mechanism the City had to en- force use control. Ms. Baer stated that that was taken care of through the building permit system since almost any change in use requires some type of remodeling and thus a building permit. Schiffer stated that as far as he was concerned, the a- greement would be satisfactory. Yaw stated that since the last presentation, the appli- cant has been able to provide more open space. Now have a total of 5925 square feet which is both combined open space and-covered space and mall space. Yaw stated that with regard to the trash, had conversa- tions with Aspen Trash, and concluded that the best pos- sible system would be a trash compactor in the basement. Stated that they did agree that having trash in the base ment was the best method. Stated that itis stored un- til the specific picY.-up time. Ms. Baer stated t11at the Planning Office was satisfied with the trash solution. Yaw i.ndicatod where the access to the underground park- ing lot would be. Stated that the degree of inclina- tion of the ramps would be 8$. Schiffer stated that he felt it would be better to have a different type of access. Yaw stated that the premise of the underground parking would be that that parking condition relieve what would be a very big problem without i.t. Stated it would be used for both employees and customers. Stated that the one instance in which he saw some potential for conges- tion is where City 6larket has prevailed on a public right of way to make a driveway out of it. Schiffer expressed the possibility that customers would be using the City Market parking lot for convenience rather than the underground parking. Do. not feel it is a situation which can be policed. Yaw stated that the situation would be much worse if they did not provide parking. Schiffer questioned if. there was any way that the archi- tect could design a situation where the parking access was on the other side of the building. Yaw stated that they would have to completely redesign the building in order to do that. Stated that that woul constitute a hardship. - Jenkins questioned Mojo as to whether or no the had re- ceived enoughinformation from',the applicant to create an impact study with which he would be satisfied. Mojo stated that he had received no information. -19- rte. ~` ' RECORD OF PROCEEDS 100 Leaves ,~„ <.. RegvLar Meeting Aspen ~Plannin9 & 'toning April 1G, 1974 Mojo stated that after reviewing the plans has come up with what he thinks will probably happen. Stated that he is projecting approximately 7U employees out of the, project. Felt that it was absurd to thin]: that the par- king lot is going to be used for anything other than empl.oyecs. Felt that there would be customers driving down the ramp and creating a jam in the lot. Stated that he would like to see the studio units used as hous- ing for employees in the building, and would liY.e to see the lease covenant that. Stevens stated that they had infor:med the City that they had the information any time the City wanted it. Yaw stated that he disagreed with the number of employ- ees projected by btojo. Stevens stated that with the tenants he had in mind, could only count 16 employees that would be in the build ing at one time. Vagneur stated that she would liY.e to see two flcors of parking. Stevens stated at the origin of the project he had ap- proached the owners of City Market for their opinion of a neighborhood shopping center and ~~:hether or not he should put parking in the building. Stated that City Market felt they should include parking. Yaw submitted floo- plans and elevations. Ms. Baer questioned how many parking spaces there were. Yaw stated that there would be 28. Ms. Baer stated that it started out being 36 spaces. Questioned i_f the appl.i.cant had checked with the Buil- ding Inspector to see if 28 spaces would be sufficient. Johnson and Schiffer stated that they thought the ap- plicant had said he would provide 38 spaces. Ya~v stated that there were two reasons for the reductior, of parking: (1) the mechanical areas for this and ac- complishing a gentle ramp; and ~(2) the par}: ing require- , - menu which do prevail make you go to 11' which pre- ' eluded other parking spaces. Felt that was extremely excessive as far as workability. Bartel stated that the Building Inspector would calcu- late the required number of parking spaces for the build ing. Yaw described the floor plans and uses. Described the building material to be used - wood, stone and glass. Ms. Baer questioned the applicant as to what they would do if they find that they do not have adequate parking spaces. Stated the Commission could not approve a pro- ject with less than the required number of: parking space Yaw stated that they have provided as many parking space as possible. i~ ` -20- ,~ ~• RECORD OF PROCEEDw.!~S 100 Leaves Regular ,M Cet~.ug Aspen Planning & 'boning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer stated that since the project was in the C-1 District, were not allowed to buy out parking. Yaw stated that in the event they did not have enough parking, would have to request a variance. Ms. Baer stated that there was no hardship. Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that he felt the Building Inspector should determine how many spaces would be re- quired before the Commission actcdon final approval. Vagnuer made a motion to table final. approval on the Stevens-Ginn Building until the calculations were com- plete on the parking and then be put on the next avail- able agenda. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSItdESS Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that this was a problem Rio Grande of Rio Grande Subdivision versus Aspen Center Subdivi- Subdivision Sion. J Bartel stated that the legal notice for the preliminary plat indicated that it was for the Rio Grande Subdivi- sion, that it was the Rio Grande Property including both sides of Mill Street. Stated that there is no public notice for final plat. Bartel stated that the drawings on the subdivision show a 3-lot subdivision. One lot, the 11'~ acres for the Cit lot 2, which is the Aspen Center and l.ot 3 which is the remaining ].ot of that 3 acres. Stated that the sheets in the proposal first show* what amounts to a boundary survey for the 11'~ acres, a fairly detailed schematic site plan for Lot 2 and nothing on Lot 3 with language on the plat that all that is being approved on Lot 3 is the L',~oundary, that there are no development plans being approved for Lot 3. Bartel further stated that the minutes for the prelimi- nary plat meeting on March 5th are approved so that requires specific action to correct the record. Stated that the minutes for the final plat have not been sub- mitted and corrections there could be made at the time they are acted on. Vagneur stated that she had never understood in any of the meetings that Rio Grande was mentioned. Schiffer stated that it had always been discussed as the Aspen Center and had always looked at i as a cwidomi- nium subdivision and just looking at th, building in re- lation to Lot 2. Repeatedly the point had been made not to discuss Lot 3. Assumed that the land had been sub- divided. Johnson stated that those were his feelings also. Jenkins stated that he had no feelings to the contrary. Schiffer stated that the problem is that the minutes in- dicate that the Commission approved the Aspen Center Subdivision, and the City Council approved the final plat for the Rio Grande subdivision.- Stated that the noti.cc requirrmcnt has boon satisfied, and preswnnhly anyunc who would hn v,• cuwr to tho public hr.u~i nil lu -21- ~, ... w STEVENS REALTORS OFFICE BOX 1147 /ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 /PHONE (303) 925-2155 February 19, 1974 Bruce Gi,f.~i.a, Cha,ihman Aspen Pkanni.ng S Zoning Comm.i.6a.LOn C.cty ob Aepen Aspen, Colorado Dean 8nuce: The Planning Department requested that I aubm.it to you uses which would 6e acceptable and may 6e used .Ln .the Stevens-Ginn cammeracaC complex located on the eaet 1/2 ob Lot L and a.El os Lots M, N, 0, P and Q, Black 106, Aspen. The department requested that th,ib be made ae pant ob the record during the preliminary approval btages. The Sollow.i.ng ubes are ubeb wh,ieh we may pick brom on may use .in the 6utune w<.th negand to a lesbor-leeaee arrangement with tenants .Ln the above pro f eat. Reta.i.l eammenaial establ.i.shmentb lfm.ited to the 6ollow.ing and a.imilan ubeb: antique shop, appli,anee atone, sat bupply btone, sat gallery, bakery, bookatane, camera chop, candy, tobacco on r..cggrette btore, ~q1~ 6tone, aloth.ing bxOhe, decorator bhop, ~leparAnent atone, drug btor~ ~loaist dhop, hood market, bwni,tune atone,Igx3~ a~`ap "fiaxi~oarte atone, hobby shop, ~eaise.QiLy shop, job printing shop, hey chop, li.quon atone pet bhop, paint and wallpaper btone, photography ahap,~lJ~rti.ng goodb stare, Ib.taCeon~Ly btore, variety btore, ~QUe or 60UVe-L1JL bhop, bank on 6.i.rtanC.i.al .ins.tttution, seconding studio, hea.C.th club, bauna and mabbage, carpet btore, file atone, tenn.i.b count, radi.a and telev.LS.LOn,aunant, shoe s.taae., real estate obb.ice, probesa.ionaR o66.icea. These uses and other a.imilar ubea we would expect apprDVa.l bon bor Chia cammerauLl and o~b.ice bpace pnoJec.t. ~aization RES/DENT/AL / COMMERC/AL /RANCHES /LAND PLANNERS AND DEVELOPERS John C. Ginn ~~ ~IY/ f' f nw ~~,E~~-~ I`~1~ ~~ (IEk LTOR$ 'v-. i+' R W POST OFFICE BOX 1147 /ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 /PHONE (303) 925-2155 Febnuany 19, 1474 $huce G.%CCi.a , Cha,Vfman Aapen PQann.ing E Zafu.ng Cammi,aa.ion City ab Aapen Aapen, CaZonado 4eaa 8/utee: The Planning Depahbneitt Itequea.ted #hat I aubmLt .to t/vu uaea wlu.eh aJauYd 6e aceep;able and may 6e aced .in Xlte S.tevena-G~nn comme2c%a2 eamplex heated on .the eaat 1/2 0~ Lo.t L and a.C2 o;j Lo,ta 1.-1, N, U, P and Q, 8loek T06, Aapen. The depahtment nequea.ted .that .L`u,a be made as pant o6 .the neeoad during .the pltelim.inazy appKOVaI a.tc:gea. The Soleaw.ing uaea are uaea which cve may pick sham an may uae .in #1ie butwee w.itJi negated .to a leaaan-lesaee ahxangvnent wi,tLt .tenavitia .in .the above pzajeat. Re-ta.i.f eomrnenciaP ea.t:b.Ci,alvnenta 2im.i,ie.d .to the boC?aw.ing and a.uni.Ccuc ua ea antique chop, appt,ianee a.tn/te, aht aupply ata><e, ant gaZ2oJty, bahelcy,~boolia.tone chop, candy, .tobacco on eigane~tte a:tane, ~~-~h --Cwta2og a.to>te, o.tlun aeon. deea>ca-tole chop, ~depantment a.to.~ce, :~ ~' ~ drug e.ta><e;, {~loxcis.t abta~, ood ma>tket, /~unnc.tur,2 a.tene, fR+e~~- e{ev}s,"handwahe a.tohe, habbu chop, Lam, jab pni.nwing chop, key chop, P,i.quon afore pet chop, paint and wa~'£papen a.ton.e., ~~.i ~;; "~'~~ pho-tognaphy,ahop„}~~ , ~". va~u:ety "'~` ° I :. a-tone, bank on 6.inanci.tte .ina~:i.ttl.t,/:an; ~" hecohding a.tudio, heaCth c.@ub, aauna and maaaage, caltpet a.tolte, .tiee a.tolce, .teani.a eow~t, had~.o and tie,Cev.iatvn,~, eaeae a.te~e, nea.C eatia,te ob5.iee, pna~eaa.iona.e og5.icea. Theae aced and a;Jten a.un-i.2an uaea we would expect appnova,Z ~olc tort .thi,a eommenci,af and obb.iee apace pnojeet. l ~ .''j. ~ "~ :,h.'1- e~,t1G~ evena / j ~` ~' ~. eh.t C. ' .~te.ve~u Aiatlton.iza~tion JcE~n C. Ginn hid i= I ""~ _~;_.~ ~. ~_~\Ca. eF ~, Fv~ ~., RESlLENTlAL / COMhfERCfAL / IiANCIIF..S /LAND PLANNIiI2S RNLI 7)L~/;!_OPf:7i.Y T0: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens-Ginn Buildings - Preliminary Review DATE: 2/19/74 2/14/74 the subcommittee (Smith & Harland) heard a pre- liminary presentation under Ord. 19 of the Stevens-Ginn buildings and gave approval. A model was presented. All referral letters were positive. Engineering made standard recommendation for on site drainage retention. Applicant explained three variances that would be requested. Variances pertain to configuration of open space resulting from 2 land ownerships and are being reviewed by the Building Inspector. Smith & Harland felt the variances should be supported by P & Z before the Board of Adjustment. Smith and Harland liked bulk and massing of bldgsa; liked off set open space passage way between the two buildings; questioned snow and ice build up on roofs & between bldgs. Follow up of P & Z conceptual approval: East & west facades will be stucco, no trim - no windows because of bldg. code. There will be 9 apts. (8 1 bedroom, 1 studio); ~~~ leases for no less than 1 yea;; no future condominiumi- zation. Request applicant come in at final review with some method other than the traditional one for trash handling & removal from the bldgs. P. 0. asked applicant to come in at final review with a list of possible neighborhood commercial uses that could be approved by P & Z in advance of individual bldg, permits for finishing after leasing. T0: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens-Ginn Buildings - Preliminary Review DATE: 2/19/74 2/14/74 the subcommittee (Smith & Harland) heard a pre- liminary presentation under Ord. 19 of the Stevens-Ginn buildings and gave approval. A model was presented. All referral letters were positive. Engineering made standard recommendation for on site drainage retention. Applicant explained three variances that would be requested. Variances pertain to configuration of open space resulting from 2 land ownerships and are being reviewed by the Building Inspector. Smith & Harland felt the variances should be supported by P & Z before the Board of Adjustment. Smith and Harland Liked bulk and massing of bldgs.; liked off set open space passage way between the two buildings; questioned snow and ice build up on roofs & between bldgs. Follow up of P & Z conceptual approval: East & west facades will be stucco, no trim - no windows because of bldg. code. There will be 9 apts. (8 1 bedroom, 1 studio); leases for no less than 1 yea;; no future condominiumi- zation. Request applicant come in at final review with some method other than the traditional one for trash handling & removal from the bldgs. P. 0. asked applicant to come in at final review with a list of possible neighborhood commercial uses that could be approved by P & Z in advance of individual bldg, permits for finishing after leasing. - r*~ -- <„r ~ ~-~`_~ 14 February 1974 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission - City Hall ~ " `_~ Aspen, Colorado ~----~ Re: Stevens/Countryside Commercial Buildings - -.__ Gentlemen: - - The overall planning-architectural objective for this project, which ~: ' "' is comprised of two separate but related buildings, has been to ef- fectively relate and coordinate the opportunities inherent in the de- sign control of amulti-structure project and the related open and pedestrian spaces. _ In order to accomplish these objectives we will apply for the following Zoning and Code variances and request that both P & Z and the Plan- - ---- ning office recommend approval of the variances. It is our opinion _ _____ that approval of the variances improves the quality of the pedestrian - experience in the project with no resulting encroachment on health, (- = safety or welfare. - ' 1. Open Space Variance l-..._..-.-. The buildings have been designed relative to each other to ~_ combine their open spaces into a cross block pedestrian -__ mall connecting City Market through the project shopping - -_, i__ .w plaza with the neighboring mixed residential environs. In [_ __; addition to providing an urban pedestrian link relating to [::__~;_ service needs the combined open space implements the ob- ", _ jective of open space zoning -space used for the functional ____-__ and perceptual needs of people in an urban environment. r - ~ The actual open space (by the open~osky definition) is 3~/0 --- ~--= _- less than required but because of its contiguous nature is I -- - - greater and more useable than normally possible. _r~ r `~~- By combining the open space, however, the total pedes - ~ ~~_.' trian space (open and covered) exceeds the open space re- _ r--~ quirement by 11~. -~~ -_ `- - ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 270 SOUTH GALENA STREET•POST OFFICE BOX 2736 •TELEPHONE 303-925-2867 '_ _ . ,.-. ~,~~ __ Letter to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission - 14 February 1974 ~. - Page 2 • -- Because the open space as designed is configured in the interest of both the functional/perceptual interests of the - ~ pedestrian and a benefit to the urban design interests of ___ the City, we request variance approval. __:._ The following tabulation delineates the specifics involved in the variance: Total Combined Project Site Area 16, 500 s, f. • - -- (52 city lots) ~. ~ `- Total open space required by Zoning _ @ 25% 4,125 s, f. Total Actual Open Space 3, 535 s. f. (22~ site area) - Total Additional Covered Mall Space 3,140 s. f. _ f (19% site area) ---- Total Combined Open Space and Covered -_- Mall Space 6, 675 s. f. ! ~:- ~~ (41~ site area) ~- . r C. ==i 2. Architectural Projection Variance `--~ In order to create a more interesting and variegated pedes- ~--' trian experience in the mall area between the two buildings r~ ... ~_ '~! ~ (portions of which are directly on the actual property line ~~ defining the separate ownerships) we request approval of a ~ variance which would allow the projection of architectural ~__- _ elements such as beam ends and balconies into the air space of the mall portion of the project. r' - =; -~--: r--"! 1 ~ ~ - ~ ___ ~ q ~ ~__~, -._. ..,.. ~~. Letter to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission __ 14 February 1974 --_ _ _ Page 3 The separate owners of the two project properties are in agreement regarding the benefits to the mall area they jointly share and have substantiated so in the attached letter of agreement. Pursuant to approval of the vari- ance they will enter into legal agreement allowing mutual encroachment of architectural projections on each others respective property. 3. Openings in Property Line Building Walls (on pedestrian mall) The Uniform Building Code does not allow openings (win- dows etc.) on that portion of a building that are located on a property line. This particular code provision is designed for the building to building fire protection where the adjacent property use is an unknown quantity. The code provision additionally allows openings within certain distances of the property line based on proximity to a future adjacent (but unknown) building. (" - ~ - `___-- 1 We request for the purpose of this project that the latter provision (distance between buildings) be applied for open- ings rather than the strict application of the property line provision only on the property line which defines the ped- estrian maw This would effectively consider the project as a single entity rather than two separate buildings on separate, but adjacent, properties. Because the building to building relationships are established with respect to each other and will be constructed simultaneously, all pro- visions of the code will be complied with. We are of the opinion that the variances are necessary to complete the project as envisioned by the owners, the architects and the planning office. Thank you. ~.__. ---~- JLYas ~.. ~., ~ ~_' Very truly yours Co land Finholm Hagman Yaw Ltd ~~~ ~ Larry Yaw ,~, ' ..-, -, ~~ 21 February 1974 - Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall -~, - Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~- _-. Re: Stevens/Countryside Bldg. _ 1 I Gentlemen: r . ~., Thank you for completing the recent review approval for the above projects and for the helpful comments generated during r the review sessions. ~- - Because we have the opportunity to sit in a session of further `' -~ review with P & Z regarding aspects of our variance requests, we are submitting the entire project for Final Development - - plan approval under Ordinance 19 at this time. - - It was our intention, and I so stated at the review session of --- 19 February that we saught final project approval. This in- '- tention seemed to be lost in the ensuing discussion, and I neg- lected to re-state the request prior to the commissions vote, - - on the approval. __ ; ~ We would therefore appreciate your consideration for final -- - =~ approval at this time. Thank you. _- _ Very truly yours _.e -__ '- _._ Copland F/inholm Hagman Yaw Ltd !~-~ A ~,I ---'~~ ~-- ' Larry Yaw L___ _ JLYas r. _. r -_ ~~ -,~ L ~_ '._, ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 2736 • TELEPHONE 303-925-2867 i " -. ~.._ __ i., i_ 21 February 1974 The following tabulation superceeds the one outlined on Page 2 of a Letter to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 14 February 1974 from Copland Finholm Hagman Yaw Ltd. The following tabulation delineates the specifics involved in the variance: Total Combined Project Site Area (52 city lots) Total open space required by Zoning @ 25J Total actual open space Total additional covered mall space Total Combined Open Space and Covered Mall Space 16, 500 s. f. 4,125 s. f. ~-~ ~_. _.: Total open space accessible for use by each building: Percent for Countryside Building = 3, 535 s. f. _ s. f. Percent for Stevens Builing = 3> 535 s. f. _ s. f. 3, 535 s. f. (22~ site area) 3,140 s. f. (19~ site area) 6, 675 s. f. (41/0 site area) 33.6/0 58/0 Total Open Space and Covered Mall Space accessible for use by each building: Percent for Countryside Building = 6, 675 s. f. = 63~ 10, 500 s. f. ° Percent for Stevens Building = 6, 675 s. f. = 111/0 ,O Os. f. ARC--IITECTS • PLANNERS • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 2t0 SOUTH GALENA STREET•POST OFFICE BOX 2736•TELEPHONE 303-925-2867 12 December 1973 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: The following information is submitted for your consideration in com- Ordinance 19tBuilding Peram ttReview Procedureequirements of the The overall planning effort, encompassing nearly one-half city block, is comprised of two separate but related building projects of mixed commercial-residential use. In order to more effeclannin~ one archi- coordinate the opportunities inherant in joint urban p b tectural -planning firm has been retained for the entire project. The individual projects will thus bencep GTO e a~ d p destr an moaement. parking and vehicular c.rculution> op P building massing and architectural relationships, and design response to the planning determinants of surrounding city environs. project Description The project is located on the south half of City Block 106, the remaining half block being occupied by the City1Market complex. The initial plan- ning will include all the remaining 7~ lotseant c patedsfor spr ng 1974ha1f block with building construction of 52 The following summary constitutes preliminary projections of anticipated space use for the separate projects. The projections are in conformance - with the provisions of the Aspen Zoning Code and comply with all elements - of the Aspen Land Use Ylan. A 7l'li i i A ~ `••• k•~~ 210 SOU I N GALENA S i RFET • POST OFFICE BOX 2736 • TELEPHONE 303 925-2Ho r Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 12 December 1973 page 2 Lots ? L, M> N & O Ownerslup I Countryside Associates Asnen, Colorado Land Area 10, 500 Sq. Ft. Building height Three Stories Use Distribution Sub-level -parking Ground level -commercial Level two -office level three -rental apart- ment Use Allocation In -structure parking 24 spaces Commercial 7000 sq. ft. Office 7000 sq. ft. Residential 7000 sq. ft. Total 21, 000 sq. ft. F. A. R. 2 Lots P & Robert G. Stevens Aspen, Colorado 6000 Sq. Ft. Three Stories Sub-level -parking Ground level-commer- cial level two-commercial/ office level three -office 14 spaces 8000 sq. ft. 4000 sq. ft. 0 000 sq. ft. 2 Community Planning Relationships The project site is located at the south-east periphery of the designated Aspen Central Area and is contiguous to both mixed residential and the recreational-accomodations areas. The site is situated such that it offers a unique locational opportunity to both serve the daily service needs of the adjacent residential environs within walking distance and accomodate re- lated office/residential uses at a fringe location of the Central Area. Rela- tive to pedestrian orientation the site is located within the following walking Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 12 December 1973 Page 3 times of related urban elements: 4 minutes to majority of mixed resi- dential area bounded by Roaring Fork River and Central Area: 3 minutes to geographic center of Central Area (Elks Building); 1 minute to ski lifts; 22 minutes to the proposed Transit Terminal; 2 minutes to proposed ped- estrian mail. An additionally important attribute of the site is the contiguous locational relationship to the City Market complex. It is envisioned that a major portion of the ground level commercial uses will be service oriented to augment and relate to the food shopping service provided by City Market. By thus providing complimentary shopping services the core of a small and needed neighborhood service center is formed. Because all required parking will be accomodated at a sub level. within the project, building (s) users will not place additional burdens on street or public parking locations. Although there are no designated view plane corridors affecting this pro- ject the building height will be maintained at three levels. At the present preliminary level of project definition both the proposed users and the location of the project site accord closely with the following criteria as set forth in the policy statements of the Aspen Land Use Plan. 1. "Provide neighborhood shopping establishments to serve the daily needs of surrounding population and to compliment but not to compete with Central Aspen. " 2. "Increase the number of housing units constructed for permanent resi- dents. " 3. "Central Area -ordered yet diversified land uses, such as resident - related commercial residential and professional office uses should be located on the fringe of the Central Area. " Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 12 December 1973 Page 4 Site Planning Relationships Although the two basic building masses comprising the project will be located on separate lot parcels and will conform individually to the zoning regulations of the separate parcel areas, we seek to combine and integrate the open space requirements to the mutual benefit of the entire project. By using the open space to create mid-block pedestrian circulation between the City Market Complex and contiguous mixed resi- dential area the following objectives can be effected: larger open space area than could be achieved by two separate open space areas; open space becomes circulation area relating to pedestrian use and shopping activity rather than dead area simply complying with zoning require- ment; allows greater building frontage on common open space thus more activity generation; more efficient urban circulation for project vicinity. In addition to being architecturally related to the Durant Street exposure the buildings and circulation points will be designed to relate to the City Market exposure creating buildings with essentially two fronts. The added benefit of the approach, from the aspect of the city-scape, is the view across the City Market parking area will be terminated by a de- signed building elevation rather than the typical back-alley elevation. Parking will be sub-level and shared between the two buildings. The vehicular entry points will be off the alley and remote from pedestrian surface circulation. Architectural Character The projects will be designed using materials indigenous to the area and ' with historical precedence of materials used in Aspens Victorian era. The building elements which most clearly characterize the Aspen area are the many structures of Victorian persuasion built around the turn of the century when Aspen was a thriving mining town. The combination of a _ _ mining town resourcefulness and the mountain environment gave form to an architectural feeling that will be reflected in the building elements characterizing this project. Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 12 1)ccemb:.r 1973 Page 5 The design objective does not intend a direct copy of these historic buildings but rather will draw on the same design determinants to create a strong architectural relationship with them in terms of scale, texture, materials and forms. Some of the architectural elements which best exemplify this feeling are exposed wood beams, wood decking, and exterior siding, round wood poles and railroad ties, lichen stone masonry, vaulted ceilings, protective overhangs, and pitched roof forms, Roof planes and wall surfaces will contain terminations, fenestrations and other architec- tural irregularities to create human scale desired in the project. It is hoped that this project will provide a pilot example of how two separate projects can be coordinated, with the help of the City, to effect better open space use, an integrated architectural result and a project more able to reflect the intent of urban design in the City of Aspen. We respectfully submit this document and the accompanying plan docu- ments for approval to proceed to the preliminary design phase. Very truly yours JLY:ss Copland Finholm Hagman Yaw Ltd r. ~~ L... ;. '~. ~.- it Larry Yaw {~ ~ ~~ y,. r, 1 f ~.., ,~„ , 1lecemben. 12, 1412 Ta fUhom Lt May Concern: The 6oCCaw.Lng uaea rue can.temp.Cated w.i,th 2egand .to .the deveCopment ob commenci.a.C apace ,to be Qocated on .the eaa.t one-ha2b ob Lo.t L, aY,1 ob Lo.ta M, N, U, P, Q, Rand S, BCock 106, City o~ Aepen: banbeh chap, beauty chop, apanta a{wp nenta,2, prtobeaa.iona.2 abg.ice apace ouch as nea.L ea~ate obb~.ce, attohneya a6~~.cea, p2annen'a o6s~.cea, ant ga,P..Ceny, Sunni,twce chap, job pni,nti.ng chop, c,eaxh.i.ng b.tohe, .Ci.quoh b,tahe, pa~,nt and wa,22papert atone. These one jub.t a bew ob .the uaea w{u.ch may be cowtemp4.ated .i,n .the deveYapment ob .the above-mentioned peak ea.tate. D#heh. additi.onak on dib6enent uaea may be added at a .Catelr. date. Verty a.inceneCy 'T'"/~/ ,., i Decembeh 12, 1913 Mn. Lcurn y Yaw Copland, finho.lm, Hagman, yacv, Ltd. 210 S. Galena S.t~ceet Aepen, Co.fonado Dean Lanny: Aa awneh 05 Lots R and S, Block 106, Aapen, I heKeby g.Lve my canaen.t and appnova.l ban you .to .Lnc2ude Lofts R and S .in your. mab.ten b.i.te plan bon .the bo.2low~.ng: zhe eaa.tenly one- halb ob Lo.t L, aCE ob Lo.ta b{, N, U, P, Q, R and S. I beef .that .i,t .i,a -to my beneb.it and .the beneb.i,t ab .the City ab Aapen .to ~.nc2ude my Lots R and 5 eo .that .the entice 7-1/2 .lo.ta can be deveYoped u~s~ng .the beat pn,Lnciplea ob .land use, economy and aes,the.ti.ca. 1 .thenebone gna3it you bu,Cl penmiae.Lan .to ~.nclude me ~i.n your e.i,te planning boa .the entih.e 7-1/2 2a.te. Very a.incenePy yours, MEMO T0: PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF ASPEN FROM: ED DEL DUCA ASST. CITY ENGINEER RE: Site Plan Stevens/Country Side Project Date: 2/14/74 After reviewing the site plan for the above men- tioned project, I have the comments following: 1) Storm drainage runoff should be reduced to the historic rate of runoff of the site. 2) I can not comment on the vehicular circulation since it is not clearly shown, however, it was my understanding that it was recommended by the planning department that all accomodations for private automobile parking be removed. The Engineering Department is in agreement with the removal of the parking and feel that, especially ir_ this location, a pedestrian oriented complex is very appropiate and is congruous with the concept of deemphisizing the downtown use of the automobile. ~~~~~ Ed Del Duca C~ ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 2059 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2323 ~-i~- 75~ Cc ~7 0~0~, .moo ~r o-~ o-y. W ~t W ~~,-e G~ ~ - . ~. ~._. ~~~~~~- SNAP-A-WAY k'"'"'`RETAIN YELLOW COPY. SEND \1'HIiE AND Pi N:' P.ES WITH CA3ECN INTACT GrayLine "Snap-A-Nay" GrayLine "Snap-A-R'ay" GrayLine ^Snap-A-VJay" GrayLine "Snap-A-Say" SPEED " GFTEfF® To open Planning and Zoning Commission FROM Aspen Sanitation Distrmct Box 528 Aspens Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 SUBJECT Stevens-Countryside Building Block 106 -- -NO.De ~o FO LD MESSAGE DATE Feb. 13 t9 74 The es en Sanitation Listrict nas been re uested to counnent on the availability_ of sewer service for this building. Block 106 is within the boundries of the ~; ~ r; ct~lax.~_~nd Trunk line capacity is sufficient to ad~uai;l~s~r~'-iFa one-pr4Pase - 1 i REPLY ENO. 8 FO LO _-N O. 10 FOLD DA SIGNED G five °sxA P-A~wAr• FovY aA~c4x a vesES RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY t2~= WILSON JOXES C4Y PAXY ' V IB61 ~ PNINTED IN Y.a. A. ' - _ \ \\/Y' Tt. r ,. _,~ ..., i, ~~~~~ ., -. >, ;, ~,~:r DATE: 2/14/74 ~E ©7C V Steven/Countryside Commerical B1k 106 Lots E~ L + M,N,O,P,Q RE: Fire PYotection This is to say that in the context of the existing system this area has adequate access and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION. Yours truly, ,- -. - ~ ~=~. William F. Caille Fire Marshall cc: Donna Baer ,;. 13 February 1974 City of Aspen Department of Engineering City Hall Aspen, Colorado Re: Stevens/Countryside Commercial Project Gentlemen: The following is our electrical engineers preliminary estimate of the power requirements for the above referenced project, Sub-level parking garage - 14, 850 s. f. @ (1) watt/p, s. f. _= 14, 850 watts Countryside Building Plaza level (commercial) - 6000s. f, @ (6)watts/p, s, f, = 36, 000 watts 2nd level (office) - 8000 s, f. @ (10) watts/p, s, f, = 80, 000 watts 3rd level (apartment) - 7000 s. f. @ (6) watts/p, s. f. = 42, 000 watts _ 2~ total building power 158, 000 watts Stevens Building Plaza level (commercial) - 3800 s, f. @ (6) watts/p. s, f. = 22, 800 watts 2nd level (offices) - 4600 s. f, @ (10) watts/p. s. f. = 46, 000 watts 3rd level (offices) - 3600 s. f, @ (10) watts/p. s, f. = 36, 000 watts ~~ ~~ total building power 104, 800 watts Total project power requirement 262, 800 watts, Iris-anticipated that-3-phase power will be required. The building will be heated by gas fired hot water, Please call if you have any questions. i ~~~: ,~ .l' ~ ~J- '~'-l~;~,~ ,, ~~~ )~ ~~,, ,. i ~/ '~ . i \ ~i ~_; ~ ` JLY:sIs Very truly yours Copland Finholm Hagman Yaw Ltd A, 5 J Larry Yaw ARC1-IIT~CT~ • PLApd:~,31ERS • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 2736 • TELEPHONE 303-925-2867 G T0: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens-Ginn Buildings - Preliminary Review DATE: 2/19/74 2/14/74 the suboommittee (Smith & Harland) heard a pre- liminary presentation under Ord. 19 of the Stevens-Ginn buildings and gave approval. A model was presented. f All referral letters were positive. Engineering made standard recommendation for on site drainage retention. v Applicant explained three variances that would be requested. Variances pertain to configuration of open space resulting from 2 land ownerships and are being reviewed by the Building Inspector. Smith & Harland felt the variances should be supported by P & Z before the Board of Adjustment. Smith and Harland liked bulk and massing of bldgs.; liked off set open space passage way between the two buildings; questioned snow and ice build up on roofs & between bldgs. Follow up of P & Z conceptual approval: East & west facades will be stucco, no trim - no windows because of bldg. code. There will be 9 apts. (8 1 bedroom, 1 studio); leases for no less than 1 yea;; no future condominiumi- zation. Request applicant came in at final review with some method other than the traditional one for trash handling & removal from the bldgs. P. 0. asked applicant to come in at final review with a list of possible neighborhood commercial uses that could be approved by P & Z in advance of individual bldg. permits for finishing after leasing. ,. +I^'4 ~r./ MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and 7.oning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens-Ginn Buildings - on site parking DATE: January 4, 1974 1. The site is ideally located for pedestrian use. Pedes- trian orientation of the buildings has been stressed. (4 minutes to mixed residential area-east; 3 minutes to geographical center of Aspen; 1 minute to ski lifts; 2Z minutes to the proposed transit terminal; 2 minutes to proposed pedestrian mall). There is a shuttle bus from the Railroad property parking lot and the collector-distribution system buses are in operation. Therefore, transit for occupants of the buildings is available within the city at the present time. 2. The adjoining streets should be marked for high turn- over parking, thus providing customer and client parking on the streets for the buildings as long as this is needed. Such parking would be city managed and capable of being included in over all transportation planning. 3. The City Market parking lot should becc:ae a part of the city managed parking areas system. High turnover parking in this lot would be more easily enforced by the city and would result in more efficient customer parking for the market. 4. All parking for the proposed buildings is underground. Experience herel and in other cities has shown that r, \, MEt40RANDUM Planning and Toning Commission Janury !~, 197 Page Two underground parking is not efficiently used by customers and clients of commercial and office buildings. On Site parking for the proposed buildings would be used pre- . dominantly by residents and tenants. Planning policy has been to encourage these groups to use public transit or park in public parking area and not to bring their cars into the central area. 5. In city centers a pedestrian orientation can only work if public transportation modes are dominant and not competing with private automobiles, the use of which is greatly facilitated by private parking areas. 6. Once a commitment has been made to expensive underground parking, it is unlikely that it can ever be eliminated from the site during the life of the building. 7. The Pitkin County Air Quality Report indicates that air pollution as a result of auto emissions is 88% above minimum state standards. Although a 54% reduction is expected to be achieved by the Federal new car program, a deficit of 29% must be recovered through vehicle inter- cept parking lots, street parking removal and other vehicle restraints. The report states: Although the malls have a beneficial effect in reducing concentrations in the central business area of the city, the vehicle pollution will merely be shifted to the perimeter. MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 197+ Page Three Motor vehicles could be allowed to ven- ture into the city to drop off passen- gers, goods, etc., but parking in the city should be restricted by means of the removal of on street parking and by setting moratoriums on parking lots. The latter provision applies equally to private off street parking in the business district and perimeter. Every reasonable effort should be made to discourage automobiles from coming to this site. 8. If on site parking is allowed, no commercial uses located on the mall could be duplicated in these buildings without adverse consequences to mall businesses. Serious problems related to definition of use and to enforcement would result. 9. 38 parking spaces have been proposed for 26,000 square feet of office and commercial space and 7,000 square feet of residential space. According to Colorado Municipal League standards and our own experience locally, a real-. istic figure would be 87 spaces for office and commercial uses and 10-20 for residential depending upon the number of bedrooms in the apartments. By way of example, the 2 new buildings, containing similar uses, at Main/Hunter/ Hopkins, should be observed. Parking was provided accord- ing to the code and is wholly inadequate. Both North of Nell and Aspen Square provided parking according to the existing code, and the facilities appear to be inadequate for employees and owners by approximately two thirds. ~~ ~ ~. y MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 1974 If a decision were made to try to accommodate automobiles on the site, and in order to meet realistic parking needs at the Stevens-Ginn Buildings, 97 to 107 spaces should be provided, the larger percentage on the surface. Such a solution would not be desirable for the applicant or for the city. The solution proposed by the applicant is partial and neither adequately solves the problem of parking on the site'nor furthers the purpose of a pedestrian dominant central area. RECOMMENDATION: No provision for private automobiles on the site; purchase to be negotiated according to the zoning code and depending on uses. 1 A sample of underground parking uses at Aspen Square and North of Nell indicated in the first instance that virtually no customers of Aspen Square use the parking. In the case of North of Nell, a permit system is used and customers are not permitted to use the parking. Both buildings have had trouble policing their parking, and as a result North of Nell initiated a permit system for owners and tenants. ., ,, ~~ d~u ~. ~~~ ~~ 1jU~~~-c~" ~~~~ C~liu-~._ -.,- ~GC~' . ~~I~ ~12 ~~1/ la ~~ ~S~ ~'n`'~ ~- ~~- 7~ GuzuJ J~J -r-~ ,lam .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~. v ~~~'" ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~oCe „/~i~.a,~s .,t / ~ ~~ f~ _, ~..~ . RECURL U!= F'RUCC~Dii~6G~ lC~v (.eavc;s ,~lqx F: f. i. F: ~'K FL ]. 8. L L. C:. ____ .. Regular Meeting Aspen Plannina_& Toning Februarv_19, 1974 Chairman Gillis called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with members Chuck Vi-dal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna F,aer and John Stanford. MINUTES 1/8/74, 1/10/74, Schiffer made a motion to make an addition to the min- 1/15/74, 1/17/74, utes of Januar}~ 15, 1974 (pp. 10, para. 4):"... not and 1/22/74 that we should base our decision entirely but that they are relevant." Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of 1/II/74, 1/10/74, 1/15/74 as corrected, 1/17/74 and 1/22/74. Motion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Geri Vagneur arrived. OLD BUSINESS / Larry Yaw, architect, was present representing the pro- Stevens - Ginn ject. Submitted a model of the proposed building. Building Yaw stated that the project had been approved at the conceptual stage and they had completed the preiimi- nary review witia the subcommittee. Stated that the subcommittee had recomrnended approval, expressirq a concern with the trash removal. Yaw gave a brief review of the project to this mint. Stated that this project involved two owners caorking together. Stated that the Planning Office had en- couraged this approach for the following rea~•ons: (1) Can deal better with architectural continuity; (2) ~~an combine open space; (3) Can exercise control over architecture and the needs of the area. Yaw submitted an overview and pointed out the location of the project. Stated that the shops relate in func- tion to City Market. Stated t}lat it was located con- tiguous to both the mixed residential area anti the roc reations accommodations. Yaw stated that by using open space in this manner and by creating a link between user and need, feel they can make the open space a pedestrian experience. Further stated that in the preliminary review with the subcommittee, it was requested that the applicant give a listing of uses. Submitted a list of uses to the Commission. Stated that the architecture of the pro- ject would be in wood and heavy timber and stone with a relationship between the roof form and the roof ruat- erial with City Market with the idea of bri.ngi_ng thing a little closer together. Yaw stated that in addition to the preliminary presen- tation, the applicant is requesting that the Commissio back the applicant on three variances which they will. go to the respective boards for. Stated that the con- cept behind asking the Commission's backing on those variances is on~a of dealing with the project:; in ti~eir entirety rather than a~, two individual ent.i.ti.es. Yaw stated that one of the variances which they would .. ,.,, ... .,, i~icCOFit? OF' f'ROCi;.EDiPd S 1C~0 Leaves .• ,, ~,. ~~,ii-_ Meeting _ Aspen ;?lanni.rg & Toning I'ebruary 1.9, 19'14 like to ask the Commission to back them on is that of the open space itself. Stated that open space is re- quired to have a certain frontage on the street. Feel that the relationship between City .j,arket and this as a shopping environment for service needs precludes an important aspect of the strict definition of the open space. Stated that by combining the open space, the applicant has considerably more and considerably more useable open space than is available to an individual project. Yaw stated that the actual open-to-the-s}:y space is less than the 25B required. It is 22g, however, com- bining the pedestrian space, have over 400 open space. Felt that the intent of open space is for the func- tional use and enjoyment of people. Feel is is a very acceptable notion. Yaw stated that the other variance the applicant would like the Commission to back is one of projections. Stated that there are some beam endings and some roofs that project into one another's property lines. Feel these make the pedestrian experience a little more ex- citing and have an encroachment agreement. Submitted a copy of t-he agreement to the Commission. Yaw stated that the uses in the building are in genera: the lower level of one building is commercial, the upper level is combined commercial and office and the other level is office. The uses in the other building include commercial on the lower '_evel, office on the second level and residential on the third level. Re- minded the Commission that at the conceptual presen- tation it was required of the owner that eight units cannot be condominius~ized and have full year leases. Johnson stated that he was withdrawing from consider- ation of this project due to conflict of interest. Yaw submitted photographs of the proposed project, and indicated where the property lines were. Gillis questioned the applicant on how the trash re- moval problem had been handled. Yaw stated that the trash removal has not been hand- led. Stated that there are two basic ways to handle the problem. Stated that the preferred way cvas to handle it in the lower level. Stated that 'she mall would be totally heated. Stated that because of the project's relationship to City and market and the fact that the project is addressing itself to City Market and beyond, that the owners have requested that they have no alley elevation. Vagneur questioned if there was underground parking. Yaw stated that there was, with space for 31 or 32, depending on where one column goes. Described the circulation system of the project. Schiffer questioned the letter containing uses. Fclt it would be better. to state the excluded uses. -2- .., ~ 13ECOR!? OF PI?4CEEC?!f~!GS lOl! Leat~c?s f URM •~ C i'.H EC KFI ~. G. R 1. C0. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Februarl_ 1.9, 1974 Yaw stated that- the uses would conform to the zoning which limits then. Stated that that listing was re- quired by the Planning Office. Stated they could not commit space until approval. Vidal questioned if i.n the conceptual presentation, the possible third building acconunodated its own open space. Yaw stated that it did. Stated that there was no op- portunity for trade-off. Vidal questioned the applicant on how he would feel about taking one of the buildings back a short dis- tance to provide more of an open space to the sky. The applicant stated that the model was incorrect. Stated that the drawings reflect about a four foot greater distance between the buildings. Stated that the drawings reflect about 8 foot distance at that point. Pointed out that from the pedestrian level that space was quite open. Vidal expressed concern about the vertical element. Felt that it appears to be a very sunless arec. Yaw stated that they had checked the sun angles and the sun does shine in the mall area. Yaw stated that a second variance which they would ask that the trade-off between open spaces. Vidal stated that he agreed with what the applicant was trying to accomplish, but felt that maybe they }rad not accomplished it in the one bottleneck. Yaw stated that there would be some alterations in the roof form. Schiffer stated that he would like some more time to see the project since this was the first presentation on the project he had seen. Jenkins questioned how many people this particular pro- ject would generate. Yaw stated that they presumed it would be 30 - 35 people. Stated that it could possibly vary to 45 sine they are not sure what uses will be used ire the build- ing. Jenkins stated that he felt parking should not be pro- vided in this location. Further felt that he was not sure that people should be living in the core area. Schiffer stated that he was not in favor of recommend- ing underground parking for every rew building, but felt that in this particular. building, felt it eras a good idea since it is i.n an area, where, 9_f i.t is not provided, people will park on the streets and the City Market parking lot. Felt this is one of the areas where p..irking should be provided at this point. Ms. Landry stated that she felt this building was to -- ~ - ,.,. ,., ~,. .~+ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS T00 Leaves C-f. M:'fCf CL 0. 6.8L Regular Ideeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974 people and businesses that need a pick up access rather than offices or businesses that do not require any parking. Chairman Gillis stated that was the only problem he had with the project. Felt he would li}:e to approve the project conditioned upon the uses, allowing the Com- mission more time to study the uses. Jenkins stated he felt the project had too much land coverage. Appeared to cover the land from lot line to lot line. Yaw stated that if the applicant had followed the true course of the prescribed law regarding this building, there would be absolutely no open space on the back of the building. Felt that in regard to the needs gene- rated by the neighborhood and addressing itself to a relationship with City Market, the applicant had done quite well. Vidal questioned the applicant on how they could ac- commodate the full 25~ open space in the interior area. Yaw stated that it would create some architectural pro- blems. Stated that they would have to remove one full employee housing unit. would penalize the owners in terms of the space they would have to rent. would start getting down to facades that became straight down to the ground tyre of things. Vidal stated that he was impressed with what the ap- plicant had done and how they had applied their open space, but .bothered by the narrowness in the one par- ticular spot. Jenkins stated that he felt if every five lot area in downtown Aspen were developed to this extent, would be too much. Yaw stated that he felt it was not right to encourage the two-owner development for the neighborhood shop- ping concept and then to sa}> that they must park in the Trueman Property, which is twenty minutes away. Yaw pointed out that City Market brings i.n people from a much greater distance than three or four m.irutes aw- way, making it more than a neighborhood shopping cen- ter. Chairman Gillis again pointed out that the Planning Of- fice had recommended no parking for this project. Vagneur stated that she felt the project required par- king, due tc; the fact that cars would encroach on the City Market lot and problems with parking on the street. Vidal stated that he felt the Commission would like to think more about the variances. Would want to si.udy before making r.ecor~m~endati.ons to the Board of 'l.oning Adjustment. Chairman Gillis requested the applicant to come bac;: -4- ,r' ' , ~w ~ . RE~Of};7 GF pRCI(;EEDI1dGS t(?0 Leaves n.=.« ,~. r. r. a-a+=~. .~. e. a i. c>. ___. ___ _-__.__--___.-______ ...__ ___ n^; Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 1.9, ~~_ on Thursday for a work session with the Comriission. Schiffer. made a motion to approve the prelimir:ary re- view of this project, subject to further review of the uses and exemptions. 2dotion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who was opposed. Motion carried. CDES Building Robin Molny was present to represent the developers. Pointed out that the project was located at the cor- ner of Hyman and Original Streets. Submitted plans of the proposed building to the Commission. Molny stated that he had gotten conceptual approval o; behalf of the owners Nick Coates, James Daggs, Dale Eubanks and Dwight Shellmaa. Stated that they had ap peared before the subcommittee. Submitted the pre- liminary plans and elevations. Also submitted a mode of the project. Molny pointed out that the basement plans included a stair tower, mechanical and storage, and two handball courts (proposing that they limit membership to 30 members). Also a limited amount of rental space, whi _ would be offices with skylights. Stated that there would be 4400 square feet below grade, which does not count for floor area ratio. Molny further pointed out that the floor area ration allowable would be 18,000 square feet. Stated that the building would be somewhere between 13,500 square feet and 14,500 square feet above ground. Further stated that due to the area of the client's program, need the lesser. square footages on the first and second floor, with the most being on the third floor, which gives the opportunity to provide a great deal of arcade space at street level. Stated that each of the owners if providing for himself space for expansion in the future. , Diolny stated that the arcade space would be 2400 squa feet at street level. Stated that the second floor would be identical to th first. Stated that the third floor would be completely cov- ere3 with a building 64 feet square which would be th Daggs - Eubanks space. Stated that the applicant wou almost undoubtedly treat the roof line differently in the end than the model shows. Stated that Ordinance #19 makes specific reference to encouraging arcades. Molny stated that the open space required is 2,7.2 square feet, and stated that the building i.s, in its perimeter is 6,400 square fact, leaving 2600 square feet of open space, in addition to the arcade. Molny stated that= the owners had some resr_rvations a- bout the arcade, due to winter conditions of snow anc. ice which get trapped into the arcade. Stated that they had come up with the idea o£ puti.i.nrJ a ylase; :;ki from a certain point down, which would be open from -5- 1 4s RE~Q°D OF PR(3C;EEDIPdGS 100 Leaves v C. f. NOE"FEL 9. B. B 1. CJ. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 Meeting was reconvened by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:15 p.m. with members Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, Geri Vagneur, and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Plan- ners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Stevens - Ginn 1/ Chairman Gillis reminded the Commission that they ap- Building plicant had been asked to return at this meeting in order that the Commission could consider the uses and the variances requested by the applicant. Gillis pointed out that the recommendations of the Planning Office concerning the uses was that the uses that conflict t~;ith the mall uses be deleted as uses for the Stevens - Ginn Building. Should ba uses that a permanent resident would require. Schiffer stated that he agreed with those recommend- ations. Vidal stated that conceptually, he agreed with that also, but felt there may be some specific uses there which the Commission would like to discuss. Ms. Baer pointed out that the applicant would have tc asi; for a fourth variance. Stevens questioned if a shoe store would be considered tourist-oriented. Vidal stated that he would like to see approval of the project, but would like to see if possibly the appli- cant could open up the space between the buildings more if it is achievable. Schiffer stated that he would prefer not to give any recommendations to the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Gillis stated that as far as he was concerned has no problem with the variances. Ms. Baer pointed out that the Planning Office and the Commission had encouraged the applicant to develope this project together and felt that perhaps the Com- mis~•ion should make reconunendations to the Board of Adjustment. Schiffer stated that although he did not have any pro- blems with the variances requested, felt that the Board of Adjustment should deal with those aspects of the application. Johnson stated that if the Commission did not make formal recormnendations to the Board of Adjustment, o;~as sure that the applicants would be sure to give the Commission's comments i:o the Board. Jenkins questioned what mechanisms were available to control the uses. Ms. Baer stated that the best mechanism for this woulc9 be by fui.ure review. Vidal questioned if the Bergman project's uses were covcrnanCed. .~. --, ~ r RECORi) OF PROCEEDINGS 100 L_CflVBS ea m. a. a. a i. e~. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 2].,_1974 Chairman Gillis questioned if it was the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office that the uses be cove- nanted. Vagneur expressed the feeling that i.f so, should only be for a period of designated years, not for eternity. Ms. Baer stated that she would not think so. Further pointed out that Bergrnan's project was only one use in one building. Vidal stated that he felt what should be done is t-o covenant to restrict it for the use restriction that the Commission is presently looking at, but also en- able the applicant, :when conditions change, to come back to the Commission and the Board of Adjustment. to either include or. exclude some other type of use if conditions have changed. Give them the ability to modify that condition. Ms. Baer stated that that would be incorporated in the building permit review. .Vidal pointed out that you can have considerable Chang i.n use W].thJllt coming in for a building permit. Vidal suggest the City Attorney develope something similar to a covenant which would incorporate the possibility of change. Stevens stated that that amounted to an encumbrance. Pointed out that a covenant on that property running with the land is not looked at very favorably from a legal standpoint and also from a lease standpoint. Vidal stated that he agreed with that, but felt that a covenant is a very effective device, and because a lot of people look at covenants when the building is being sold, including the lending institutions and the title companies, that it does not get slipped a- side. Feel it is very effective device. Stevens stated that he felt they agreed in pri_nci.p].e to the Commission's definition of the uses, bu.t do not like the idea of a covenant. Schiffer stated that he, too, felt the City Attorney should devise something similar to a covenant. [4ould like to see the Commission restrict the uses in a way that is fair and wor}:able for the future. Vagneur made a motion to accept the neighborhood shopping center-type uses for non-tourist u~~es on ~ the condition that the City Attorney and taE: app]_i- cants come to a mutual agreement on a way of guaran- teeing the uses. Motion seconded by Schiffer. Vidal stated that he would like to incorporate in the motion that whatever. device is created, structur.i.ng it to where those uses can be modified by either party at a future point in time so that it does not become absolute. Chairman Gillis stated that he felt that would come -2- ~.,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDIRGS 100 Leaves _ c c. +:~rre e. e. a. a c. c _ ____ --- -_ Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 under mutual working out of the problem, without hav- ing to be in the motion. Vidal stated he felt the Commission should acknowledge the fact that it does not have to permanent. Jenkins stated that he felt requiring new buildings to provide covenants on use was unfair. Feel this is an unsound approach. Schiffer stated that he felt there would be a problem going to a building with existing uses and requesting that they covenant their uses. Main Motion All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who was opposed and Johnson who abstained voting on this pro- ject. Motion carried. IiELLER EXEMPTION Nick Heller caas present to represent the project. Heller submitted plans of the proposed addition. Stated that the sole purpose of this addition is to provide Heller with more privacy. Stated that pre- s~ntly, he is living in a studio which. is basically a big room. Would like to have own bedroom and guest room. Heller stated that on the existing property there is presently a triplex. Stated that it is located on. 6,000 square feet. Stated that he has only covered 1/3rd of the existing lot. with structure and has pro- - vided three parking spaces. Vidal questioned the possibility of the proposed ad- dition becoming another unit. i Heller stated that the cnly access to the addition would be through a spiral staircase in his apartment, and there would be no outside access. Stated Lhat it would be impossible to build an outside stair~r,+.y to the addition due to setback requirements. Landry stated that she was withdrawing from considera- tion on this project due to conflict of interest. Jenkins questioned if the addition would extend over any of the other units. Applicant stated that the addition would be over his unit only. Stated that the only extension over anothe unit is a 3' wide balcony. Explained that the additio would contain 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. Heller stated that he had no intention of renting the addition out. Pointed out that there are presently 1950 square feet presently, and proposing to add 393 square feet. Vagneur stated that she had heard of a parking problen in that area. Heller again pointed out that he had provided off- street parking, but the tenants were not nca~ssari_ly complying. Also pointed out that most people have ~/ ~ 30 ~~ )~~~~L I ~i ~ o~~ ~,/ / '~~'v ~-~ - ~`~~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ 3 ~, ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~~ '3 f rv~y~ s~`~ ~~ ,v ~~ ~=~-~ ~~ ~, ~~~- - ~ -~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~-~,o (a I Aaf.... ll.~a. ^du. . I `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ?~, ~~ ~ 0'~ ~~ ~ ~ D b f ~ 2 ~- ~ ~ ~~ l~ . . MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens-Ginn Buildings - on site parking DATE: January 4, 1974 1. The site is ideally located for pedestrian use. Pedes- trian orientation of the buildings has been stressed. (4 minutes to mixed residential area-east; 3 minutes to geographical center of Aspen; 1 minute to ski lifts; 22 minutes to the proposed transit terminal; 2 minutes to proposed pedestrian mall). There is a shuttle bus from the Railroad property parking lot and the collector-distribution system buses are in operation. Therefore, transit for occupants of the buildings is available within the city at the present time. 2. The adjoining streets should be marked for high turn- over parking, thus providing customer and client parking on the streets for the buildings as long as this is needed. Such parking would be city managed and capable of being included in over .all transportation planning. 3. The City Market parking lot should become a part of the city managed parking areas system. High turnover parking in this lot would be more easily enforced by the city and would result in more efficient customer parking for the market. 4. All parking for the proposed buildings is underground. Experience herel and in other cities has shown that MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission Janu~y 4, 1974 Page Two underground parking is not efficiently used by customers and clients of commercial and office buildings. On Site parking for the proposed buildings would be used pre- dominantly by residents and tenants. Planning policy has been to encourage these groups to use public transit or park in public parking area and not to bring their cars into the central area. 5. In city centers a pedestrian orientation can only work if public transportation modes are dominant and not competing with private automobiles, the use of which is greatly facilitated by private parking areas. 6. Once a commitment has been made to expensive underground parking, it is unlikely that it can ever be eliminated from the site during the life of the building. 7. The Pitkin County Air Quality Report indicates that air pollution as a result of auto emissions is 88% above minimum state standards. Although a 54% reduction is expected to be achieved by the Federal new car program, a deficit of 29% must be recovered through vehicle inter- cept parking lots, street parking removal and other vehicle restraints. The report states: Although the malls have a beneficial effect in reducing concentrations in the central business area of the city, the vehicle pollution will merely be shifted to the perimeter. MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 1974 Page Three Motor vehicles could be allowed to ven- ture into the city to drop off passen- gers, goods, etc., but parking in the city should be restricted by means of the removal of on street parking and by setting moratoriums on parking lots. The latter provision applies equally to private off street parking in the business district and perimeter. Every reasonable effort should be made to discourage automobiles from coming to this site. 8. If on site parking is allowed, no commercial uses located on the mall could be duplicated in these buildings without adverse consequences to mall businesses. Serious problems related to definition of use and to enforcement would result. 9. 38 parking spaces have been proposed for 26,000 square feet of office and commercial space and 7,000 square feet of residential space. According to Colorado Municipal League standards and our own experience locally, a real- istic figure would be 87 spaces for office and commercial uses and 10-20 for residential depending upon the number of bedrooms in the apartments. By way of example, the 2 new buildings, containing similar uses, at Main/Hunter/ Hopkins, should be observed. Parking was provided accord- ing to the code and is wholly inadequate. Both North of Nell and Aspen Square provided parking according to the existing code, and the facilities appear to be inadequate for employees and owners by approximately two thirds. MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 1974 If a decision were made to try to accoffinodate automobiles on the site, and in order to meet realistic parking needs at the Stevens-Ginn Buildings, 97 to 107 spaces should be provided, the larger percentage on the surface. Such a solution would not be desirable for the applicant or for the city. The solution proposed by the applicant is partial and neither adequately solves the problem of parking on the site nor furthers the purpose of a pedestrian dominant central area. RECOMMENDATION: No provision for private automobiles on the site; purchase to be negotiated according to the zoning code and depending on uses. 1 A sample of underground parking uses at Aspen Square and North of Nell indicated in the first instance that virtually no customers of Aspen Square use the parking. In the case of North of Nell, a permit system is used and customers are not permitted to use the parking. Both buildings have had trouble policing their parking, and as a result North of Nell initiated a permit system for owners and tenants. ., 4., .. .. "Jen}:ins stated that he t}.ouaht the ligiii: at Spriir_' ~tree~C was necessary, since the only other alternative would b~~ to route traff_i.c up P}i11 Street. Old Middle ,~~ Ms. E3aer rom.i_nded the Commission that w7der. Ordina;.ice - 1.9 School the Planning Office could now review projects which they felt were not major impacts on the community, if they in- form the Commission. Ms. lt~,er stated that ti:e Old Middle ,5'chooa. tar;. pro-osi_;;q tc~ enlas•=e the off~cc, r.p~.ce ar,d the m~,cl.ani_c„1 room and to tear docan ~.he shed. I'u.-iher statca than tl.e ~:,>..~.cant ',.a:~. co°~su.lted with Ll~~~ '3ui_ldi.ng inspe-et.or anu he 1.=.s no urc,>- b]_o~s with s~:.i-hacla, Planning Office feels ti7ei.c ;_s no significant inpact. ~,nd t1_u•reore would li'•;e t-o ex~sn:pt this fro.a Conunission r'cvi..et:. Schiffer made a motion to exempt this proposal from re•.~ies:°, seconded by Gillis. A].1 in factor, motion carried. ORDINAtQCE X19 CONC_EPTUA_L PRE:SETdTATIO;;S tevens-Ginn Nis. 13aNr ~tatec a,at the location of this project i.s on Luil.dings the south half c:F City I37.ock 106, the remaining half blcc:•. being occupied by the City P;arhet Cornple?c. Jim Copland and Larry )'aw were present, architects repre- senting the proposed project. Yaw stated that the proposed use fcr this project would be a combined commercial., office and living accommodations. Stated that this is a unique situation since for once, three separate owners are getting together. Stated that their desire is to plan for two buildings to be implemented in the spring and the third, a year from this time. Stated that the third ocarer is only committed to the planning of-- fort, but not to the architectural consideration. Yaw stated that the owners wanted to handle the project this so that they could do joint site planning, plan for joint open space, parki-ng, architectural control. and to effect a relationship between the buildings that v,ould be impossible if they were to do individual projects. A]so from the standpoint of the Commission, offers a potential to co-ordinate an entire sector of the town. At this time, the architects submitted an overlay showing some of the community relati.onshi.ps to this project. Shocaed that it is on a peripheral corner of the core area right next to mixed-residential and accommodation-recreation. Yaw stated that the urban plan for Aspen designates three things that this project would fulfill: (1) potential cre- ation of a sma]_1 neighborhood service cente=, that is in conjunction with City Mar.};et and some of th~~ ground level. uses; (2) provision of living units for residents - studio or 1-bedroom units; (3) office space. Further stated that they would be treating then; as i.nrli_- vidual projects, with planning, the architoctural relai;ion- ships, open space }~ltonned i_oq_ether. Stated that a71. buil- dings would be three levels. Yaw st:atcd th~st one of the i?r,porC.uit lints qcn<_•r;st.c~d Ly the location with respect to the neighborhood i. e; a mi<I-- -9- r'~ ~.y ~~, i i , ._ L: _ i nc, p , bloc}; crossing i:rom the residenti_a7. area. Al:;o allo~es the to effect approximately 15o more open spa<:e be'~s,een the buildings. Further stated that on those two buildings, prouosed a parY.ing structure that would be underneath. Park:i.ng c°ouL be anticipated for only the people who live and o;ork i.n the buildings. Feel parY.ing is a.n asset for the City at this point bcoa~u;e i'C. is on a periphcrat sector o~: thr tokn, chcrelcr_e there is no pcnetrati.on ini.o fire C _ty ~_. u it ~:ould bc~ sir]~le~:~cl. and sccuri.ty effected so t}~~t1t }-o;~.'r~.~ not u~c01 -'ql7 c; ; i~_t: -1 l_lF~`J-, et.c. to pai ~ t;iC`ir'. `~:1_L7_ Le. prOC>:cd7.77C 37 poli;iLlCj S~aC@~. Ca1Cll1at:2 ~~-35 e1^.~~lUy2eS for thfl tW0 buaullU-r;;. Yaw state-•d that al~proa.irnately 40° of the s;_~ace could be leased at this tiiae. Vidal questioned if there would be any irreversable cie- cisi_ens made that would affect Bake.r's property. Yaw stated that this was not a planning document. '' Schiffer guesti_oned how many houses were presently on that. property. Yaw stated the,t there Caere presently two houses. Stated that one was owned by Robin Molny and will be moved. Not certain as to the status of the other house. Stated t'.:a'~ they would be hap]?y to get the opinion of the Historic Preservation Committee on the status of the houses. Went over the basis of this concept with the Planning Of- fice. Basis is three-fold: (1) shared open--space; (2) t:n mid-block circulation; and (3) massing and treatment of buildings on both sides. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office like to see the third building as part of the project. Lv'ere recommending approval of the project witi7 the follo~•.=i_rg modifications: (1) Historic Preservation Revieca (2) AThat happens with the east and west facades - HPC should look at those. (3) Recommend model at the next stage. (4) Want apartments to guarantee or meet employee housing need. P.greement that they would not be condominiumized in the future. (5) Covenant the leases for 1 year. (6) No on-sight par};ing of any kind. Ms. Baer stated that if this i_s to be a pedestria.ri-oricnte town, the prohibition of parking vaould be essential.. Yaw stated that he would agree to al.l the conditions, with the exception of no on-sight: par.Y,ing. Stated that there were some conditions he world like t:o point out i.o tPie Conuais•sion: (1) Locat:i.on on absolute per_iphera of the central area causes no Vehicular penetr.ati.on of the area (2) Will bo 3U-3.`i people who live told wort: here;, o-rho wi]_]_ rcgnirc' parkin<1 sonu~wherc. I°c~n}>l ~_~ c:-I~o 1 i v~ ~.• here, if they eliminator! the parhin~l, wrnl]_d c~i t.ii er park in the City Market parking ]oL or i_n th~~ -5- .•-. , Rzga)_ar Diecti_ng ~~ Br i.nkman Remodel en Plarulinq b~ Zoni_ nearby residential area. December lE, ]_r.':'iJ Schi"f.fer stated that he agreed with Yaw, since people will take the5_r cars anyway. Vidal stated he felt the point was very valid also. Yao; stated that s.;,ce the parking l:ould be uncicrnc~~_th, r:- ~. r10 :: be Cl1COi: Y";: j `ll:j O"GhCr FiG-'O j~~-r' t0 par}: t~7C i'e. i~IEO pi1::i- in cz~,l}sing cii~,~r;ncc oi: the trade area. I9s. }3aer stated th.._t the Planning Office was al•:are of the' blrl'rlnp kjeing ~;u., 0:1 ClCy i;ar};Gt, blrt SL".attic. t}lat thE' pS:7:~.._ ir.g could be poii_ced. b1s. Baer stated that the Pian:~~ina Office cans also ccncc=rr.ed with auto e,.~i-csion problems, t•;hich are 30~ over. state standards in the core area. Gi.lli.s stated that. his idea of a nei.q_hbonc~od shopping are included d.°ivi.r.; to that area. Vidal stated tha. clue. to the fact that City Market wr,s t. }:?.I:'e and ].t 47 ~ f. r: C.lttOIllOb11C-Orlen'-F'_il COY'11er, felt th8. is ' pt.rki.ng was apprr'r~riate. i.n that location, but felt the palk:iilg should r:ot be restricted to employee par}:ing. Jer.Y.ins stated that a.s long as the Commission continued i:o allow par.}:ing in the core area: we perpetuate the situatio that already exist_;. Yaw stated that when the transportation system is com- pleted, the underground parking area could be converted. Vidal questioned the Commission on whether or not they identified this as a neighborhood shopping center or par+. of the core area. ' Chairman Adams suggest that the applicant go back and do some thinking as far as the parY.ing problem is concerned and perhaps they could come up with another solution. Gillis request that the applicant do a massing diagram or model for the Commission. Schiffer made a motion to give approval to the conceptual presentation subject to each of the conditions rccon'anended by the Planning Office, except for the parking question which should be determined at a later date. Motion seconds by Vidal. All in favor, motion carried. J Ms. Baer pointed out that this remodel was of the old Aspen Lumber S Supply Bui_ldi.nq_, located on Mill Street. Further pointed out that thin i.s an i.nteriur remodel only with a use change. Ms. Deanna Brinkman, Applicant, was present and her Ar- chitect David liauter. Ms. P~rin];man sta~l.ed that the oc;~ns~r of the buil.dinq is Mr.s. White, and had given t.hc~m an ciyhC year lease on the prcmi_ses which lease contains tro add- tional one year opi:ions. Ms. }Zr:i.nY.mnn further slated t:hnt_ the. propo_,cxl ur,e of (.Prs building would include an Oriental Japanese recCaur-a.nt and soveral retail commercial. spaces. Applicant 1`ur.(Lcr stated that under the lease, has appro~:imatcly 1?,000 sq• -~- . ,,_ , . - ~.- 12 December 1973 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: The following information is submitted for your consideration in com- pliance with the conceptual stage presentation requirements of the Ordinance 19 Building Permit Review Procedure. _ The overall planning effort, encompassing nearly one-half city block, is comprised of two separate but related building projects of mixed -- commercial-residential use. In order to more effectively r. elate and coordinate the opportunities inherant in joint urban planning one archi- tectural-planning firm has been retained for the entire project. - The individual projects will thus benefit from coordinated site planning, . - - parking and vehicular circulation, open space and pedestrian movement, building massing and architectural relationships, and design response to the planning determinants of surrounding city environs. - Project Description The project is located on the south half of City Block 106, the remaining half block being occupied by the City Market complex. The initial plan- -__ ._:-~ ning will include all the remaining 7~ undeveloped lots of the project half - block with building construction of 52 lots anticipated for spring 1974. _ The following summary constitutes preliminary projections of anticipated space use for the separate projects. The projections are in conformance '~ with the provisions of the Aspen Zoning Code and comply with all elements -- of the Aspen Land Use Plan. A~~@-11TE~"6'S • PI_ANNEFiS • ~.vPEN, C®L.~I+i~A~®• 8'~ ~'~ '~ 210 SOU f H Ol+LF_NA STFEET • POST OFFICE BOX 2736 • TELEPHONE 303 925-2867 . ,.,. , Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission v"' 12 December 1973 ~% ~i4 Page 2 r ,., ~ _?. r na rT R, n ~__ _ _-'i _~__..J r_ __ , _, __._ _J Lots P & Q _~_ Ownership Countryside Associates Robert G. Stevens Aspen, Colorado Aspen, Colorado Land Area 10, 500 Sq. Ft. 6000 Sq. Ft. Building Height Three Stories Three Stories Use Distribution Sub-level -parking Sub-level -parking Ground level -commercial Ground level-commer- cial Level two -office level two-commercial./ office level three -rental apart- level three. -office ment Use Allocation In structure parking 24 spaces 14 s aces P J Y~ Commercial 7000 sq. ft, C-o'~O 8000 sq. ft. Office 7000 sq. ft. 4000 sq. ft. Residential 7000 sq. ft. ~ `~ 0 Total 21, 000 sq. ft. 12, 000 sq. ft. F. A. R. 2 2 Community Planning Relationships The project site is located at the south-east periphery of the designated Aspen Central Area and is contiguous to both mixed residential and the recreational-accomodations areas. The site is situated such that it offers a unique locational opportunity to both serve the daily service needs of the adjacent residential environs within walking distance and accomodate re- lated office/residential uses at a fringe location of the Central Area. Rela- tive to pedestrian orientation the site is located within the following walking \ ~~ V Letter to Aspen Planning & Toning Commission 12 December 1973 Page 3 times of related urban elements: 4 minutes to majority of mixed resi- dential. area bounded by Roaring Pork ]fiver and Central Area: 3 minutes to geographic center of Central Area (Elks Building); 1 minute to ski. lifts; 22 minutes to the proposed Transit Terminal; 2 minutes to proposed ped- estrian mall. An additionally important attribute of the site is the contiguous locational relationship to the City Market complex. It is envisioned that a major portion of the ground level commercial uses will be service oriented to augment and relate to the food shopping service provided by City Market. By thus providing complimentary shopping services the core of a small and needed neighborhood service center is formed. Because all required parking will be accomodated at a sub level within the project, building (s) users will not place additional burdens on street or public parking locations. Although there are no designated view plane corridors affecting this pro- ject the building height will be maintained at three levels. ' At the present preliminary level of project definition both the proposed ' users and the location of the project site accord closely with the following criteria as set forth in the policy statements of the Aspen Land Use Plan. ~' 1. "Provide neighborhood shopping establishments to serve the daily needs of surrounding population and to compliment but not to compete ' with Central Aspen. " I I ! ! 2. "Increase the number of housing units constructed for permanent resi- - ~~ dents. " i ` -' ~ 3. "Central Area -ordered yet diversified land uses, such as resident ' related commercial residential and professional office uses should be °. _, located on the fringe of the Central Area. " j J , 1 Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 12 December 1973 Page 4 Site Planning Relationships Although the two basic building masses comprising the project will be located on separate lot parcels and will conform individually to the zoning regulations of the separate parcel areas, we seek to combine and integrate the open space requirements to the mutual benefit of the entire project. 13y using the open space to create mid-block pedestrian circulation between the City Market Complex and contiguous mixed resi- dential area the following objectives can be effected: larger open space area than could be achieved by two separate open space areas; open space becomes circulation area rc-lating to pedestrian use and shopping activity rather than dead area simply complying with zoning require- ment; allows greater building frontage on common open space thus more activity generation; more efficient urban circulation for project vicinity. In addition to being architecturally related to the Durant Street exposure the buildings and circulation points will be designed to relate to the City Market exposure creating buildings with essentially two fronts. The added benefit of t:he. approach, from the aspect of the city-scape, is the viev,~ across the City iVlarl:et parking area will be terminated by a de- - signed building elevation rather than the typical back-alley elevation. '~- _. ~. ,_ ~, 1 l_.. - Parking will be sub-level and shared between the two buildings. The vehicular entry points will be off the alley and remote from pedestrian surface circulation. Architectural Character The projects will be designed using materials indigenous to the area and with historical precedence of materials used in Aspens Victorian era. The building elements which most clearly characterize the Aspen area are the many structures of Victorian persuasion built around the turn of the century when Aspen was a thriving mining town. The combination of a mining town resourcefulness and the mountain environment gave form to an architectural feeling that will be reflected in the building elements characterizing this project. Letter to Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 12 December 1973 Page 5 The design objective does not intend a direct copy of these historic buildings but rather will draw on the same design determinants to create a strong architectural relationship with them in terms of scale, texture, materials and forms. Some of the architectural elements which best exemplify this feeling - are exposed wood beams, wood decking, and exterior siding, round wood poles and railroad ties, lichen stone masonry, vaulted ceilings, protective overhangs, and pitched roof forms. Roof planes and wall surfaces will contain terminations, fenestrations and other architec- tural irregularities to create human scale desired in the project. It is hoped that this project will provide a pilot example of how two separate projects can be coordinated, with the help of the City, to effect better open space use, an integrated architectural result and a project more able to reflect the intent of urban design in the City of Aspen. We respectfully submit this document and the accompanying plan docu- ments for approval to proceed to the preliminary design phase. Very truly yours -, _.~ JLY:ss Copland Pinholm~ tagman Yaw Ltd Larry Yaw `~ J ~~~ `, r. `.~..~ ~~ Decem6en 12, 1912 To lUhom Lt May Concern: The ~oK.2ow~.ng uaeb ane can.temp.eated with negated .to .the deve.£opment ab commenci.a.~ apace ~o be Qoca,ted on .the ea6z ane-ha.e6 ob La.t L, aC2 0~ Lo.ta M, N, U, P, Q, R and S, BQock 106, City o~ Aapen: bartben chop, beauty chop, eponta altpp nentae, pno6eaa~.ona.C abb~.ce apace ouch as neat ea.tate o~~.ice, attonneya ab6.icee, pQannen'a o~5~.cee, ant gaZEen.y, 6wcn.%tune chop, fob pnintcng ehop, c.Co.th,i.ng exone, ~.i.kuah atone, paint and wa.Er'pape~c etone. Theae ane ju.a.t a bew o6 .the uaea which may be cantempeated .cn ~i:e devePopment a~ .tl:e above-mentioned nea.2 ea-fate. O.theh additi.onae on d~.b~enent uaea may be added at a .Cater date. Velcy a.inceneCy ~~~ `' ~~1~ c ~.. Decembeh. 12, 1973 Mrt.. Lanny Ycuv Copland, Flnho.Pm, Hagman, Vacv, Lxd. 210 S. Ga.2ena Sxneex Aapen, Colorado Dean. Lanny: Ae owneJc og Loxd R and S, Black 106, Aapen, I he~.eby give my canaen.t and appnova,L Son you xo x,nclude Laxa R and S In your. maaxert a.ite plan tort .the bo,P.lowting: .the e.aaxert2y one- ha,C6 ab Lox L, a,Cl ob Loxa h1, N, 0, P, Q, R and S. I heel xhax .it .i.a xo my beneb,i.t and xhe beneb.it ab xhe City os Aapen xo include my Loxa R and S ao xhax xhe entire 7-1/2 .eoxa can be developed uaing xhe be.ex prt.tnci.pled ob lnnd uee, economy and aeaxheti.ea. I xhenebarte grtunt you Su,P.e penmi,aaxon .to .include me .i.n yowe a.c,te planning Sort. xhe entire 7-1/2 loxa. Vertu a.inceJcelU Nouh6, laical z B.L ti~@3 EIILDiP11G 6F~'Se°~:C71C)N DFP yfiAE6V"1' CITI OF ASPEN -COUNTY OF PITK!N COLORADO ADDRESS GENERAL fs DF 10B CONSTRUCTION 710 East Durant (Countryside Bldg.) PERMIT WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BV BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK: NEW ®X ADDITION ^ ALTERATION ^ REPAIR^ AAOVE ^ WStECK ^ OWNER NAME Countryside Associates ADDRESS PO 273_6 PHONE 2867 LICENSE LICENSE __ O NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER V -- a INSURANCE ADDRESS PHONE C7 O SUPEP.VISOR V FOR THIS JOB NAME _ _ _ _ DA TE C ER FIF IED __ _ LEGAL ~ L and __ _ _ DESCRIPTION lOT NO. ~O BLOCK N0. 106 ADDITION Townsi te SURVEY ATiACHED^ - DESIGN A uc BY Pessman BY Co eland Yaw ~X2a~5t~~ _ PE i No. AREA (S.F.) HEIGHT NO. ~ TOTAL _r . _ 1 OCCUP 21, OOO STORIES ANCY AT GRADE _ (FEET) 3'~ 2 3 UNITS 8 GROUP DIV. BASEMENT FIN- ^ GARAGE SINGLE ^ ATT Ao-ree ^ TOTAL TYPE FIRE _ park ~~~' ^ __parklR OUBLE ^ DET ACHED ^ ROOMS CONSTR. ZONE DEPTH Beww FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AGENCY ALTHORLED DATE Z GRADE FLOOR ESY ~ I` DW G R VI EXtERIOR N E E F Q FOOTING SIZE Cf.ILING ~ o ZO NII:G - 7 EXTERIOR CONC. ^ ~ FDN. WALL ROOF PARKING ® THICKNESS MAS'Y ^ ~ .- THICK ^ CAISSONS ^ ROOFING PUBLIC HEALTH SLAB SGR BEAMS MATERIAL MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING THICKNESS 1ST PLR. 2ND PLR. 3RD PLR XTERIO . oVALL STUD SIZE ABOVE AROVE A60VE b SPACE IST PLR. 2ND PLR. 3RD PLR. - RE6~IARKS Offices 2nd. floor NOTES TO APPLICANT: FOR INSPECTIONS OR INEORM,ATION CALL 925 - 7376 FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FO0. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, SWIMMING DOOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SMALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. THIS BUILDING SHALL NOi BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERT P~CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS 6EEN ISSUED. ^ PERMIT SVBJE CT TO REV, CA lON OP, SUSPE Sf N F K~VIOLATION OP ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. SIGNATtlRE aF ,~~: ~` .~ - -PHIS FORA4-FS~A PERMIT ONLY DATC PERMIT NO. WHEN VALIDATED HERE 12-III-7 fst~x 640-73 VALUATION OF WORK ~ 525, 000. PLAN r P ~ TOTAL FF[ FILED 651.50 Dou6LE crlecK ^ 325.75p1ck FEE ^ CASH ~ ~77-2~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL BY DAYE LICENSE ~ RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT _.. ~___. (v6sl 4 B.I. E`~fEi.~lPaGe Esl~:F'E`I..1''E~i'~E 6~ E'~Pt"ita:F6~91" 1--1r^i-rv nF ~coGt~_rnIINTY fiF f'IThitdf 1. CULORADO - .,_.~ r~~~~ ~-~ -. GENERAL A€%DRESS CONSTRUCTION Qw 1053 720 Fs3St nl~-,ant _ _. ~$t~v_ennz~~'_rof e=~~ona1 $_l _ RMIT ___ WHEN SIGNED ANO VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEVART MENT TF{I$ PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK= NEW ~7 ADDITfON ^ ALTERATIOtd ^ REPA6R^ h900'E ^ ~/RECK ^ = ~ OWNER ---_~ Trust _ _ NAME Robert G. Stevens & Co.,(aDDh;ESS _1147 PHONE 2155 __. LICENSE LICENSE ~ CLASS NUMBER ~ NAME (AS LICENSED) V _ _ INSURAN"E Q `^ N PHONE ADDRESS Z _ O SUPEP,VISOR V FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED LEGAL Townsite 106 ON D T P & ~ AD I I BLOCK No. DESCRIPTION Lor No. SURVEY ATTACHED ^ DESIGN A uc BY Larr Yaw BY _ Yaw, Finholm, Co elaT~c~_ NG _ AREA (S.FJ HEIGHT NO. I TOTAL OCCUPANCY II AT GRADE 11 A (FEET) - STORIES .; } UNITS _ GROUP DIV. FIN ^ SINGLE ^ ATTACHED ^ BASEMENT GP,RAGE UNFIN. ^ DOUBLE ^ DETACHED ^ 1 YOTAL I ROOMS TYPE FIRE CONSTR. ZONE __ DEVrH FIRST SIZE sPAUNG SPAN AGENCY AUTHORIZED BY DATE BELOW Z GRADE w FLOOR _ BUILDING ® F REVIE W F E%TERIOR FOOTING ~ CEILING ZONING Q SIZE o E'~ z EXTERIOR CONC. ^ ~ PARKING ~ FON. WALL RGOF O THICKNESS MAS'Y ^ ~ THICK CAISSONS ^ I PUBLIC HEALTH SLAB ^ 8 GR BFP.MS R AL MAT' MA$ONRV ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING EXTERIO THICKNESS 1ST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3Rn FLR. ALL E ABO r F LR. 3RD RR. FLR. 2NO 8 SRACE REMARKS _Re~ail atnraa r p firag P & z_12-173 _ ___ NOTES TO APPLICANT: '- - FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 945-7336 FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDE0. THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR R CITY VALUATION COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION O Y ORDINANCES WHICHEVER I OF WORK 333 200 T ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR C , APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL F5E SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. FILED T P 459.70 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOUBLE CHECK ^ 229 .85plck ~ ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE ^ CASH I~ 6 g g , 5 5 THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. ^ BUILDING DEPARTMENT ENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. PE0.MIT SUBJECT TO Rf,VO CATION OR SU SP, I SIGNAT0.lRE t ~ {"~ ~ ~ ~ 7 l ~~~' ~ ®F 1 ) J DATE , / / I ~ APPLICANT: +~~~ ~ APPROVAL BY THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE WHEN VALIDATED NERE 12-13- PERMIT NU. LICENSE ~+I RfCUrn uwoa I n~.w..~ 635-73 i ., '; ~.1f~. '~.i 1 ~~ f~ ~ 1 `~, ~~ ~-ter-~, ~ ~ ~-~- ,~~~-~ <~ ~~~ ~~"~ `~ D ~~, ~~~ J,t~~J Q~l ~~~~ c/ " 0 /~ ~g Z1/7~ ~~:, -/S- I/~ ~ J ~~~ ~~" ~~~,Anl~~ J ~ ~~~ 3 r~~ ~ a.~~~- .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a/~ ~ ^' ~z~ C /~~~~ a i „ ~ ~ 4, ~f _E. - ~ ~ :. _.~ .... ' r '~~11 10~U'~',.~ A111. .. .. ,~ 't~'-V S~cS ' F1 Gi7.-St-lz1'l'n 1 -. `, ~. :~. ~ p ~ s, ,~ r ~~ 9 , ~. ~_ 1, r h J ,. ` t ~ y l , tt ~1 n ~ ', ! ~ t~'~ y~~~ n~ •ti ~1 ~~ k , ~5" ~ . * 1 , I 4 ~ 5 ,~ ~ 4 Y1 .ti ~ y ~. ~ - - - I- F mss"-~_~~-,f~_ .. _ _~ ,.-~ ~f.~T~+N'. _,I~~M.{.VL.~~-aTll.a' ~ 1'- ~ . ~1 .:3 p ~y, Y'y ;~. t, ~ 1. , r 10; . s ~, Q':~~C ~ . ;r. tb 3s^+ C . ..+b-. .t 1fia~' ( J 9 I ~ 11 1 - r ' . { ~ ; :L"f - ~~ "' s . F _ _ _ _ A, _ - ` - - _ . ~~ ~ - i ~i+. Ci d lt' ~ ~ - ~ ~' i ~ i` ~,.._:. ~ ., S s _ _ - { ~ ~- i - _ ~ - $~~ • _ - _• - - i . - S -.. .... ~- a _. . - _ ' _' _ _ ~ _. - -' .. ! 5 ~. _ ~ _ _ - .~ .. ~ - ,. - y E' - . f _ , r _ _ -, i - S { r . . .~ j - i - _ ++ ~ ~ t. j _ ,. '~ - - .._ :. - s~ - .- ,_ p ~. _ .. - - L ., ~ - - - . '' ~ . J ~ ~ 1~ £-~ _' . '- .. _ ' ~- .~-ca'r`= o~~.~ ;~c~ ti~~ ~vN~ c~-~ c~.,o~s_ -.~~t`~~ ~?~NY C t TY. for.;?~or~ ~ ~ . ~ - a~ ~.C...'~r`.t,.TtiL?OJS.:A.~~~ ~~ it w1 t~O° ~ ~ ~ ru v~ ~-r s ~ ' . ~a i .-. - - , ~ -- , ~` ~•, E~ca-~.~, CG'S. x. FEr:G+E~ ~ ~~v, tac ; I - - F ~ ~ ~lE..~ Rt ~ ~~'i? ~ , ip ~~ ~vt~v ~a~ i E ' ~ ' ,a .._ p ~ ~ I ~ _ . - . t .. ±I ~ ~ - ~ _ r ._ #r st t _ 1 >. _ i f}t } r ~t' - Y `r ! ~ - f - f - ~ ~ l - - - :Z*'~ - s SAY ~ a ~. ~ .. ;rl .. - - [ - - ~ .. ~~ ) ' _ ..r `!' , ii .erg yt~'+,~'0x ;_ls> - ~ _ ° _ ° _ ~ - _ - ,~ _ -. . - ¢ `t }, _ ~ fir - _ .'---" ~ -- 5 + -_. -- --- ._ - ^ 1 `' w ` t`_ - :~~ .. '~,.•v',~ ;os= ~ 9ut tin t.,w,~;- ~_ _'' _~ _. y - _` ~ `~r~- }y ~ tOCo~ Q c a' pG ~ 3Q~.Oi ~ i'7~c~w ~0.17~"~'~ _ ( ~ 1 _ _ - o - ~o - ~s - - ; - ~ 1 Y; ~ ~ ` a - .. _ .. _ f ..~ f - - ~ ;. 1 Y 1 ~ f - - . ., ii .~ • s ' - ~ - ~ a 1 ~, f ~ ` r - R ~x. r~ ;, t' wry ~ '1 y }F - _ - f._ . fr)''.d y~ ~ k ~f rY ~ ~ .(~~ ~~~ ~''~tt ~,t. Ny t{'-t ~ T' a'. ~ ~'+ t .;•,, ~ ~( Rl r,~ ' Y -\,Y t~ J~ 'V.',} ~ ~ „i~1~'~~! ff" :TS' "~ :.IrY N ~~ ~ 1:: I J~ y•1 t r f y ti•~ '~1 .. ~/ '4~~ ~ ~! tYf`~ {.. , ? ++?i .:r , ~~ ~dn 't:>~ r~ y'~)tQ k: •S 3 _ ti. w~ t ,,1.~ ~ {{.._'~ +,:, _ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~C i .Fl c ,.'' 'i .f .a r tr. ~ hx rs• ~ J^. '.~'rd+'l 'i 4P~ it 1 ~ ~ .. - J//. ~ ~•~ ,- Y ~ .;: .h -l , J G ; '°5- •!~ !~ ,+ s- b .} .'e ,-7~ ~• ~ t.y .1•t b•~i .~ ~ ./ l." ~ .sue Y~{ ~~ ~f t ~' ,F ~ t~t .* ''' ~ .~ ~ 4, l$.4 t A S~h.C~1 ; ," ~, ~ '`. •. _ :...'.,~ ~?d,.:*`^`"*'4"•i~ .-w .*~ r ; r ; ~ ~ . _ 'Ci tJ . ~ i•J't ~ t r Q I p .. M _ - 1 t ti, ~ Y 1 L ~ -.§ f ~ JJ j:;3 1,.~.:~r 1,j "`t v r:~~a/Y t.~ 'Fr.}~ t .. p.r ^' ++•1 t~ r J-. '~f _ , ( I11.~~-I!?~~~7 .,`, `~` tea/ ~r....~:\~/~ ....a~~ ~ ' ks! '~ ~. ./L.yi w.G~i~ rr., Ot 1 ,,y .p Ps .t ,/~ t' ...~ ~L+...'~'~^--~~~r~.-~,,i~.~rt~l ~~`V,•+-r~„y^j '' ~ ~ ~•~~'A. F J ~ t F 'a ~ tom. F.. , .. ..~ ~,~ - > Gf)t Y~! ~ r -_t 47 r 1 h+. l~ t - __-_' ._•__•_--.-_..._~-_/~ `~o~ ; ~..'..! L ~ , `r \ ` ~ ~ 4~_i t.... ~.r--. xt'C. 1`r.ll..:..~ ~ ! "T 7i '~ h,~.~ ~'~( 4.~~T- *s "~ ,~ r 1 s ,~ y~ ~ ., i• ti a t i F \. 1 .,r\'.: .L.~. :~ H, ?t'A~ t. /~r'~'A.+ .ib+,.'~~ ...5 .., Pr .. ~'i t. ~ iE.3: [x - J L~,- -`