HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.403 S Galena.A5-90 - Guido's Swiss Inn CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 1/23/90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: ! / ,QR /9fl 2737- 182 -21 -004 & 005 A5 -90
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption for a Change in
Use and Special Review for Reduction in Open Space and Reduction
in Utility Service Area
Project Address: 403. S. Galena St. & 425 E. Cooper St.
Legal Address: Lots E - I, Block 90, Aspen Townsite
Th
APPLICANT: Guido Meyer
Applicant Address: 425 E. Cooper Street, Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address /Phone: 130 Midland Park Place, F2
Aspen, CO 81611 5 -8080
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $835.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 3
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: \ 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date a /`O PUBLIC HEARING: YES - NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
/ City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. 1 Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshal/ State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
y Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center •
S.D. �''"
DATE REFERRED: 2 /6 I J INITIALS: �v
tie?
"
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: (Q/7711 c tO INITIAL: ; /-
City Atty City Engineer Y Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: into 10 4
•
CLOSING MEMO TO FILE
GUIDO'S SWISS INN
GMQS EXEMPTION FOR CHANGE IN USE, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION OF
TRASH SERVICE AREA, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION OF OPEN
SPACE.
DATE: JUNE 8, 1990
FROM: KIM JOHNSON, PLANNER
On April 3, 1990, Resolution 90 -6 was adopted by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The conditions of approval are:
Applicant shall provide prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit:
1. A deed restriction, in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney and to the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, of at
least three dorm rooms to low income guidelines as adopted by the
Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority and amended from time to
time.
2. A design for snow melting around the trash storage and pick -up
area approved by the City Engineer and the Department of
Environmental Health.
3. Maximum height of any new construction shall not exceed 28.6
ft. as measured from pavement level at Cooper St. Mall.
In addition, the Applicant agrees to provide the following :
4. A program for the control of ice fall and ice build -up on
Galena St. Mall, the content of which has been reviewed and
approved by the Parks Department.
5. Fireplaces must be gas or certified stoves.
6. Charbroiler emissions, if any, must not exceed regulations of
the Aspen Municipal Code.
7. The applicant shall work with the Planning Office to determine
the payment for the reduction in Open Space, to be paid before
the issuance of a building permit as per Section 8 -109 I.3. of
the Aspen Land Use Code.
8. Applicant shall provide a written agreement with BFI to roll
out dumpsters and return them to storage upon each disposal.
Regarding the 8 conditions of approval, as of this date, all
requirements have been met including verification of filed deed
restrictions, snow melt and ice fall provisions, and agreement
with BFI concerning trash pick -up.
The open space issue has been resolved as follows: Planning
Staff worked with Guido to determine the current square footage
of open space compared to open space resulting from this
proposal. It was concluded that the proposed open space exceeded
the existing open space by at least 100 s.f., so a cash payment
is not required. The areas described as open space must be
treated to look like open space. A landscape plan has been
reviewed and approved by Planning whereby planters, trees,
shrubs, paving stones and exposed aggregate paving shall be
included in the open space areas.
jtkvj /guido.close
•
JUN - 81990
SNOWMELT AGREEMENT
GUIDO MEYER, OWNER OF LOTS E,F,G,H, & I, BLOCK 90, CITY OF ASPEN,
AGREES TO INSTALL AN ENTRAN LT SYSTEM AROUND �JiE�RAS _ , t
STORAGE AND PICKUP AREA PROPOSED ED OFF OFF THE ALLEY. (/� �
GUIDO MEYER
a/
P aA K-e SSW k 'Q,.,u3O 6ws VC/2- .
.A fol'r e
9a.„
/A, „„,,,,,?2,44,4,
lti " !TN ENC //kGAIMCitlifht_ l /6Fi tTH De-r,
frif-ez
#393' 06\./6/90 15:01 Rec $15.00 BK E,, j PG 87
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT JUN 8 IWO
FOR AFFORDABLE RESIDENT DWELLING UNITS
THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement ") is made and entered into this (tirday of 21\71.A. $- ,
1990, by and between Guido Meyer, whose address is 403 S. Galena,
Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner "), and
the multi - jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant
to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded
in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder's Office (hereinafter called "Authority ").
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically
described as Lots E, F, G, H, S I, Block 90, City of Aspen,
Colorado ( "Real Property "), which Real Property shall contain
thre DQym Rooms, Dorm Room One being 148 net livable square feet
at '731 Z E Cooper, Dorm Room Two being 154 net livable square
feet at g21P E. Coo er and Dorm Room Three being 149 net
livable square feet at 46 /, E. Cooper, with one 24 square foot
storage space per Dorm Room located in the basement level, which
shall not be included in net leasable area per room.
WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the
Dorm Rooms which restrict the use and occupancy of the Dorm Rooms
to residents of Pitkin County and fall within the resident
qualifications guidelines established and indexed by the
Authority on an annual basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00)
dollars and other good and valuable consideration, paid to the
Authority by the Owner, the receipt and'sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by the parties hereto as
follows:
1. Owner hereby covenants that the Dorm Rooms described
above shall at all times remain a rental unit and shall
not be condominiumized.
2. The use and occupancy of the Affordable Dorm Units,
described above, shall henceforth be limited
exclusively to housing for individuals who are employed
in Pitkin County and who meet the definition of
"qualified low income residents" as that term is defined
by the Housing Authority Guidelines established and
indexed from time to time. Owner shall have the right
to lease the Affordable Dorm Units to a "qualified
low income resident" of his own selection. Such
individual may be an employee of the Owner, provided
such person fulfills the requirements of a qualified
resident.
#323266` 66/06/90 15:01 Rec $15.0O 0 622 P6 88
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
3. Written verification of employment of persons proposed
to reside in the Affordable Dorm Room Units shall be
completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by
the Owner of the Dorm Rooms prior to occupancy thereof,
and such verification must be acceptable to the Housing
Authority.
4. If the Owner does not rent the Affordable Dorm Units
to a "qualified low income resident" the units shall be
available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing
Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall have the
right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval
shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
5. Units shall not be vacant for any unreasonable period
of time, which shall be defined as a maximum of
forty -five (45) days, between leases. Approval for
such additional time may be requested by Owner for
repair and /or refurbishment of Units, which approval
shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
6. The Affordable Dorm Room Units are limited to occupancy
by no more than one adult. Resident adults must
qualify as, and have been found by the Housing Authority
to be, residents of the community and residents thereof
as referred to above.
7. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the
Affordable Dorm Units shall provide for a rental
term of not less than six (6) consecutive months.
A signed and executed copy of lease shall be provided
to the Housing Authority within ten (10) days of
approval of residents.
8. This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with
the Real Property as a burden thereon for the benefit
of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the
Housing Authority and the City of Aspen, their
respective successors as applicable, by any appropriate
legal action including, but not limited to, injunction,
abatement, or eviction of non - complying tenants, for
the period of fifty years from the date of recording
hereof in the Pitkin County real property records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
instrument on the day and year above first written.
OWNER: Mailing Address:
x 1 }So
� � MPatkl Cad g 1 l
r, ,
' #323266 06/0 l 90 15 :01 Rec $15.00 BK 622. 89
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
1
1
STATE OF COLORADO }
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN }
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
r . , day of J „TN 2.--- , 1990, by G,;: A c.� \1`\ :, ✓' .
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: .,,,,,,....\ \q, \ri��
KArP ft
.- c_ Q
NotaC --Pu
rf . . '
O e
ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by
the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority.
HOUSING •UTHORITY OF/HE CITY OF ASPEN
AND yiT I COU. ?LORA'•
BY : / GO( I (t- '
TITLE: L .4, ,. _ // A a. 04 J' /....,
Ma�,1•' � u tpldress: 39551 Highway/82 r
•Qs\ (NT •..r Aspen, Colorado 81611
17 tT!#7 ` pP•�`G}OI:O )
£I /[ytPITKIN ) SS.
k�'he fore•.•ng instrument ack� fore me
this „ day of Wi✓.� , 19 by �fvorn/Lc FX,�'s'�C .
Witness / hand and official seal. //
My commission expires: a//?./5 7 ,
Notar Public
TRASH SERVICE AGREEMENT
BFI AGREES TO SERVICE THE PROPOSED TRASH AREA LOCATED BETWEEN THE
BUILDINGS LOCATED ON LOTS E,F,G,H, & I, BLOCK 90, CITY OF ASPEN,
CO. BFI AGREES TO ROLL OUT THE DUMPSTERS AS LONG AS THE AREA IS
KEPT FREE OF ALL ICE BUILDUP, DEBRIS, AND SUFFICIENT ROOM IS MADE
AVAILABLE SO TO EASILY MOVE AND ROLL THE DUMPSTERS. IF ANY AL P •'BLEMS ARIS^ THEY WILL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ��� -------- f. ' DO EYER a D E W RESOLVE THEM WITH BFI. A./
1/a,���
BFI AGEN P. T NY/AGNEUR GUIDO MEYER
DATE: 0 CIS, DATE: ‘/y /n
CITY e SPEN
r 1`` f,, •
30 :7Z f Y - ncil
303 - 920 -51- - j• mistration
303 - 920 -5198 FAX
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning
FROM: Bill Ness, Parks Dept. -
DATE: June 7, 1990
RE: Guido Meyer's Ice Control Agreement
After reviewing Guido's plans for the ice control and walking the building site
with Guido, the Parks Dept. views this project as a plus for the City and the mall
maintenance crews. I'm in full agreement with this project.
BN /rab
CC: Guido Meyer
`;601 8 - rsnr
ICE CONTROL AGREEMENT
GUIDO MEYER, OWNER OF LOTS E,F,G,H & I, BLOCK 90, CITY OF ASPEN, CO
AGREES TO MAINTAIN THE ROOF OF THE GUIDO'S BUILDING LOCATED AT 403
SOUTH GALENA IN SUCH MANNER TO INSURE THAT NO FALLING SNOW OR ICE
WILL RESULT ONTO THE GALENA STREET MALL. HE WILL INSTALL SNOW STOPS
AND SNOWMELT DEVICES TO KEEP THE SNOW AND ICE BUILDUP TO A MINIMUM,
AND TO INSTALL S
ALL SUFFICIENT DRAINAGE AREAS TO CONTROL RUNOFF ,
DATE W /Gp / / gd GUIDO MEYER
jw—
r- "Th
r s
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss. AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF "� )
THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT certifies that he or she h$s )seen an
employee of BFI Waste Systems during the period from ..3 // /1/77
to present, and has personal knowledge that:
1. The trash container for Guido's Restaurant is located
at the northwest corner of the restaurant, in an area between the
restaurant building and the gift shop building, as illustrated
on the attached Exhibit.
2. BFI Waste Systems has serviced this container during my
period of employment with the Company.
3. In order to service this container, a BFI truck is
driven into the Cooper Street Mall and then backed into the area
between the restaurant building and the gift shop building, so
that the container can be emptied directly into th= truck.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
AMAMM "11 1 11/11111619
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of `Cn,r,\ , 1990, by _ ,,: �1 u, .F.,�"
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: H \c \ \qc>„
hi
Not. we—.
Mai
1%. MAY 2 3
,r^ EXHIBIT ,.,
- I I _ 1
•
"' 1
N ^
o) J/ ,
x
x
• I J i--- ir,
1
\ v y 1 si-
1 O
N to
N
�� --
N •M - - - --
n n s'• • - _A 1 a _ y fel
•
• 1 l 111C
zh m L!
^ a
t CC k ,„._-;
E w < , _,
0 ,, ..
I. I
_,,__,
, ,, ,
Q % tN 00 .
N 4
♦
N a)
�• x p
t I z I
o
Q
11 i
11; 'i I
I I_
0
A- % - +A�` I� 1 ! - - - -I- - - - a --
estk w 1
- 1. t
Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
(303) 920 -5090
Joe Wells
Doremus & Wells
608 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO. 81611 May 15, 1990
RE: Guido's Open Space
Dear Joe,
I have gone over the open space drawings you submitted and
conclude that the proposed open space exceeds the existing open
space by approximately 100 square feet. Tom, Amy, Leslie and I
are in agreement that all of the open space is ed that any by
Code dimensional requirements. Staff has decided that all areas
identified as open space must have special treatment in order to
function and appear as open space. Suggestions for treatment
include specialty paving materials, window -box plantings, vines
growing on walls, and tree and shrub plantings in beds of at
least three feet in width.
In order to complete Guido's redevelopment file, please
submit for my review a landscape plan which shows how all of the
open space on the property will be upgraded. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Kim Jo son
Planner
jtkvj /guido.letter
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Guido's Change in Use
DATE: April 2, 1990
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memo is to clarify the requirements
of the Change in Use section of the code and the request for
change in use, and to review our interpretation of open space.
Change in Use - Since our last meeting, staff has reviewed the
Guido's application and determined that the applicant's method of
calculating affordable housing impacts does not meet the intent
of the Change in Use section. The intention of the Change in Use
section of the code is to allow GMP exemptions if the applicant
provides housing for the net increase in employees created by the
Change in Use. The method of calculation which the applicant
employed (net leasable square footage for the entire project)
would always demonstrate no change in employee generation if
square footage remains the same. The intent of Change in Use is
to address the issue of intensity. That is if a structure is
changing in use from a one bedroom apartment to a five person
office, then that change has increased in intensity and the
applicant shall mitigate for the additional impacts, (see Change
in Use section of the code attachment A).
The Change in Use section of the code considers change between
commercial /office, residential and lodge. The applicant requests
to change the restaurant area to retail (not a change in use
because both uses are considered commercial), the 7 dormitory
rooms on the second and third floor will be changed to restaurant
(a change in use from residential to commercial), and the 5 lodge
rooms will be changed to storage (a change from lodge to
commercial storage). The net impact is calculated by assessing
the impact of the restaurant and subtracting credits for 7 dorm
rooms and 5 lodge rooms. The result is a net increase of 2.64
employees, (see attachment B calculations).
Open Space - As P &Z requested, the staff reviewed its open space
interpretation. Staff including the Planning Director went on a
site visit and reviewed the interpretation and found that the
area in question is open space. Staff recommends that the P &Z
approve the reduction in open space through cash -in -lieu.
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. _ for GMQS
Exemption for Change in Use and Special Review for the Reduction
of Open Space with conditions.
�,. Attachment A
Aspen Land Use Regulations
1. General. Development which may be exempted by the
Commission shall be as follows:
a. Expansion of commercial or office uses. The
expansion of an existing commercial or office
building by not more than five hundred (500')
net leasable square feet, excluding employee
housing, if it is demonstrated that the
expansion will have minimal impact upon the
City. A determination of minimal impact
shall require a demonstration that a minimal
number of additional employees will be
generated by the expansion, and that employee
housing will be provided for the additional
employees generated; that a minimal amount of
additional parking spaces will be demanded by
the expansion and that parking will be
provided; that there will be minimal visual
impact on the neighborhood from the expan-
sion; and that minimal demand will be placed
on the City's public facilities from the
expansion. Expansion of a building which
occurs in phases shall be limited to a
maximum cumulative total of five hundred
(500) net leasable square feet and shall be
evaluated in terms of the cumulative impact
of the entire expansion.
b. Change in use. Any change in use of an
existing structure between the residential,
commercial /office and tourist accommodations
categories for which a certificate of
occupancy has been issued for at least two
(2) years and which is intended to be reused,
provided that it can be demonstrated that the
change in use will have minimal impact upon
the City. A determination of minimal impact
shall require a demonstration that a minimal
number of additional employees will be
generated by the change in use and that
employee housing will be provided for the
additional employees generated; that a
minimal amount of additional parking spaces
will be demanded by the change in use and
that parking will be provided; that there
will be minimal visual impact on the neigh-
borhood from the change in use; and that
minimal demand will be placed on the City's
public facilities from the change in use.
8 - 9
Revisions incorporated
through August 14, 1989
0
ATTACHMENT B
Commercial (Restaurant)
2316 s.f. net leasable at
4 employees /1000 s.f. based upon Housing
Authority Guidelines = 9.2 employees 9.2
Residential
7 Dormitory Rooms housing
7 people =
3.76 employees based on
calculations used to establish
GMP threshold at low income rate. -3.76
Lodge
5 lodge rooms at .2
employees per room based upon
Housing Authority Guidelines =
1 employee -1
4.44
Minimum Commercial Threshold X 60%
for Affordable Housing
Net Increase in Employee Impact 2.66
1
MEMORANDUM 4 (
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission W14/110-.
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Guido's Swiss Inn - GMQS Exemption for Change in Use
and Special Reviews for Reduction in Open Space and
Reduction in Utility Service Area.
DATE: March 16, 1990
SUMMARY: Planning Staff recommends that P &Z continue this item
until such time that the applicant adequately address the issue
of View Plane impact and utility /trash access. If the P &Z does
not wish to continue this item, then staff recommends denial.
APPLICANT: Guido Meyer, represented by Joe Wells
LOCATION: 403 S. Galena & 425 E. Cooper
ZONING: CC - Commercial Core, with Wagner Park View Plane
Overlay
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is seeking GMQS Exemption for
Changes of Use within an existing structure according to the
provisions of Section 8 -104 B.1.b. This section allows the
Commission to approve exemption for changes in use between
residential, commercial /office, and tourist accommodation
categories for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued
for at least 2 years, provided that the change in use will have a
minimal impact upon the City. In addition, this proposal
requires Commission approval of Special Reviews for Reduction in
Utility /Trash Service Area and Reduction of Required Open Space.
PROPOSAL: This proposal involves a major renovation of the
existing two structures - Guidos Swiss Inn and the adjacent
Business Building. The site area is 15,000 s.f. Included in the
proposal is a floor area expansion of 1,790, but a decrease in
net leasable area of 365 s.f. The proposed FAR is 1.17:1, with
permitted FAR being 1.5:1. The proposal includes linking the
structures with a two story vestibule which includes stairways
and an elevator.
The current uses for the restaurant building are bakery /prep,
restaurant, and 7 dorm rooms. The proposal calls for removing
the bakery /prep from the basement and creating more storage area,
moving the restaurant to and expanding the 2nd story, creating
retail space on the ground level, and removing the dorm rooms
from the 2nd and 3rd stories.
The Business Building currently houses 5 basement lodge rooms,
ground level retail commercial, and 3 apartments on the 2nd floor
totaling 6 bedrooms. This proposal replaces the 5 basement lodge
rooms with storage /mechanical, adding 3 dorm rooms to the ground
level, and remodeling the ground level retail space. The 2nd
floor apartments will be renovated and expanded, but the mix
stays the same. Please see floor plans and elevation sketches,
Attachment "A ".
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: Having reviewed the above application and made a
site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. The applicant is not proposing any additional commercial
space or number of bedrooms and therefore is not required to
provide any additional off - street parking.
2. The Engineering Department met at the site with a
representative of BFI. The proposed trash area is not
acceptable. Trash is currently picked up from the mall. It
is suggested that the final trash area be located directly
adjacent to the alley and not set back into the site. We
have not understood any reason for permitting a reduction in
the length of the trash area required.
3. It appears from our investigation that the proposed roof
extension would encroach into the Wheeler Viewplane. The
applicant should submit calculations by an engineer or
surveyor which address this question. (Attachment "B ")
Fire Marshal: Ed Van Walraven has made the following comments:
1. A second means of egress is required from the second
floor restaurant to the ground level.
2. An alarm system (manual or auto) is required for both
buildings.
3. Fire extinguishers are required in all retail lease
spaces.
4. Fire extinguishers and emergency lighting is required in
the restaurant.
Environmental Health: Report pending at the time this eino wa 7�
printed. i Sum f44 cGCFo + � iewi,T - fin
5 17.
STAFF COMMENTS: GNOS Exemption for changes in use: Section 8 -104
B.l.b. outlines the provisions by which the P &Z may grant
exemption for projects having minimal impact on the City. "A
determination of minimal impact shall require a demonstration
that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated
by the change in use and that employee housing will be provided
for the additional employees generated; that a minimal amount of
additional parking spaces will be demanded by the change in use
The service area will not have parking in front of it along
the alley.
3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable by trash personnel."
BFI prefers not to have trash areas enclosed as it makes
L�, more difficult. The trash area proposed is
- s hy recessed between buildings, lessening visibility from across
"7' 1 the alley. The surface under the dumpsters will be elevated
to minimize ice buildup, improving pick -up from the area.
4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are
provides by the proposed development and measures are taken to
encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block."
According to the applicant, the CCLC has dropped its efforts
to determine compactor feasibility in the Core area. If a
district -wide, cost - sharing program was developed, the
applicant agrees to participate in the system.
5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement of utilities."
Meters will be located on the south wall of the new corridor
link between buildings, behind the dumpsters.
6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the
construction of the access area."
Construction of the utility /trash area will be a condition
of approval, tied to the issuance of the building permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff has no problem with the request for the change in use,
however, the proposed restaurant changes are contingent on
approval of the elevator and stairway connection. Because of
this fact, staff feels that this item should be considered as a
total package rather than approve some parts but not others. P &Z
should continue this item until such time that the applicant
adequately address the issue of View Plane impact and
utility /trash access. If the P &Z does not wish to continue this
item, the Planning staff recommends denial.
Attachments: "A" - Floor Plans and Elevation Sketches
"B" - Engineering Referral
"C" - Employee Generation Calculations
"D" - View Planes
"E" - Letter Regarding Open Space Interpretation
jtkvj /guido.memo
uses than would be the provision of open space according to the
standard."
The applicant feels that the areas affected by the proposal
are not required open space by definition and dimension. He
reflects on the following code criteria determining that the
application is in compliance:
1. The open space reduction does not occur at the street
corner.
2. The reduction in open space does not interrupt
neighboring pedestrian amenities.
3. The reduction does not diminish open space which provides
relief intended to maintain the prominence of an adjacent
historic landmark.
4. The area does not serve any other functional public
purpose, such as dining.
5. It is inappropriate to retain open space in this portion
of the site because other buildings along the streetfront
are built to the property line; this is especially true
because the site is located on a public mall.
If a final determination is made that the area in question is in
fact open space, the applicant will make a payment -in -lieu based
on the appraised value of the land using the formula described in
Section 7 -404 A.3.
Reduction in Utility Service Area:
In order to qualify for reduction in the service area, the
applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following
criteria:
1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and
its total square footage, the utility /trash service area proposed
to be provided will be adequate."
4 The applicant proposes to provide approximately 250 s.f. of
�� utility and trash service area on the alley side of the
proposed connection between the buildings. 280 s.f. is
?DUN required by Code (10' deep x 28' length.) Three dumpsters
could be placed behind each other given the depth of the
trash service area, but the width along the alley is only 11
ft. This falls short of the ordinance requirement of 28
linear ft. for the cumulative building size of 15,403 s.f.
net leasable. By including the full 28' of alley frontage
prescribed by code, 2 parking spaces would be lost. The
applicant feels that the current uses "survive" with two
dumpsters, therefore supplying space for three would be
adequate considering the addition of 365 s.f. of leasable
space. Engineering's site inspection with BFI brings up
their dissatisfaction with this proposal.
2. "Access to the utility /trash service area is adequate."
buildings. (Attachment "E ") Staff recommended that the
applicant seek Special Review approval to add the vestibule thus
reducing open space, approval of which requires a payment in -lieu
equal to the appraised value of the unimproved land.
The owner proposes an enclosed corridor, elevator and stairwell
( +/- 380 s.f. footprint) to connect the two buildings and improve
the service function for the project. The applicant's
representative suggests that the area between the buildings does
not comply with the definition of open space since it is
currently used as a trash service area. Therefore, mitigation by
cash -in -lieu would not be required if it were covered by
building. The area does not meet the minimum street frontage
requirement.
A reduction in the 25% minimum open space requirement may be
approved when the following conditions are met:
1) "The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are
designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the
character of the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the
purposes of the underlying zone district."
The applicant describes that the additional mass, height and
density of the proposal is limited to the alley frontage and
the connection between the two buildings. There is no open
space on the site that meets the dimensional requirement as
previously described. Landscaping proposals received HPC
conceptual approval. There are no setback requirements in
the Commercial Core and the building of commercial projects
out to the sidewalk is encouraged under the Historic
District Guidelines.
2) "The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will
not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate
those impacts, including but not limited to the effect of
shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane."
The project results in a reduction of net leasable area
resulting in a lower parking requirement. Existing off -
street parking is maintained. This proposal also provides a
new trash service area as part of the redevelopment. The
only effect on shading of public property will be the second
floor addition to the restaurant adjacent to the Galena St.
Mall. The applicant maintains that the proposal has no
impact on the Wagner Park View Plane, but Engineering feels
that the new construction impacts the Wheeler View Plane.
3) "For the reduction of required open space in the Commercial
Core zone district only, the applicant demonstrates that the
provision of less than the required amount of open space on -site
will be more consistent with the character of surrounding land
0
and that parking will be provided; that there will be minimal
visual impact on the neighborhood from the change in use; and
that minimal demand will be placed on the City's public
facilities from the change in use."
Employees /Housing: The applicant states that since the net
leasable square footage will be reduced by 365 s.f., the employee
demand is lessened by 1.6 employees. The employee generation
factor used is 4.375 emps /1,000 s.f. See page 2, Attachment "C ".
Parking: Parking required for the current uses in the two
buildings is 33 spaces (2 per 1,000 s.f. net leasable commercial,
1 per bedroom residential, and .7 per lodge bedroom.) Proposed
use mix will require 30 spaces, a decrease of 3.
There are 9 legal off - street spaces which the applicant commits
to retain. Because the proposed uses reduce required parking, no
additional parking needs are generated by ordinance definition.
Visual Impact: HPC has reviewed the project and judged the
visual impact to the neighborhood to be acceptable. At that
time, no comment was forwarded regarding the Viewplane issue.
The proposed expansion has been limited to the rear portion of
the two structures, except for the connection between the
buildings. The connecting structure is set back 24 and 35 ft.
from the north facade of the restaurant building and is. The
maximum building height will be 26'. The highest point of the
existing structure (restaurant) is 28'. The applicant feels the
project does not impact on the Wagner Park View Plane, however,
the Engineering Department believes it impacts the Wheeler View
Plane. Further documentation by the applicant must be submitted
to substantiate their position. (Attachment "D ")
Public Facilities: Existing utilities and public services are
adequate for the project and expansions. The applicant proposes
a trash service area of approximately 250 s.f. to be located on
the alley side of the connection between the two buildings.
Special Review for Reduction of Required Open Space: Open Space
required in the CC Zone is 25% of the building site with minimum
depth and frontage. Proposed open space along the Cooper St.
Mall consists on 62 linear ft. at least 17' deep in front of the
restaurant, and at least 24' deep between the buildings. Along
Galena Mall, a 2' deep strip runs the length of the property
line. The applicant feels the current open spaces on the
property do not meet the dimensional requirements of open space:
�{eOMj'l'' "have a frontage on the street of one half of the lot line facing
J�;� the street or 100 feet, whichever is less" while being "at least
10 feet in depth from the street."
During preliminary review, Planning Staff made the determination
that the open space presently provided meets the code's
characteristics and then is considered dimensionally non-
conforming open space, including the area between the two
A l l C Y !l I k A , 1 ,A II
1 - —..._ _ 1 ._ _ ._ .
I I' 1
1 ..
W 11 I. .....r.w walk w •
u, I i:
it _ II 1
, —. _—
4
1»
co T 1 L
I. I r I
I
II" .
ii.
I I ON 1 DG' s uwrctoc Du.wcn cu+aw '
11
I
Z I /
r � 'il H 1 1 I
L , •
- 1.-M,
C , 1 ....ex ,.Feu. . — 1 , ; I
le.
\ice • . o - J
��a
� : I; � � I �-- .L ___ 1
+ �. av u.0 z TAYDi
c o o P E a A + E N U E
11D0 SITE PLAN
0, cOIS01Q190 .
.. 1s w w w d d'
Q
. ti y
x
Il I1 es giiUii �' 3 g
4
> 1$
____i .. ......_
j
tat
z- g
• Y
l
Y
•
l
i
i I ;
I:
I:
IIIIII 1 __
__ 1_ 11111111 — .. - ._ .__ _—�
• -
- C "0 °111_
uuwl IV�(�'
It \ III .
n cm
4
J NS
•
i. - -- 2
J I ■
l 11111
i. a �illllllli' I II� L � 11111111[ - � %
rillimim, ii x
• nom
II1, ;
J
Y
1
J
L
J
si
t
11
I M M
QC
' In I — - -__ -- Q
— o 2
q�� d
a
lik
II ►
- Mims 'f I i! tilu
.n._ .. . — ... _
IF . o 2
r--------rr--.— __ , I P A
I BS_ I .I:
d I u ii, i
II e
- J IIIII pl l ll�� i
is _ JIUUN NHHN- - - -.'J 1 •
, I
_ �I! j 1 • .
1� T
... tse
J I 1
„, ,
1 ii .
. ii
u1j
I g
i
y va
2
to
Y .
t
u 11 n mIII u
1111111111) • ■ ,.� n ■! ■ III 11 IIII_ a
61' 1111111
CIIII,
[1111111- i _
� ,o r o q 1 3 0 o.
- -I a
1 Q o
p :1 3. - 1
00
p ; it •
i ill id
llg
.1,{111+` 7 - 71 - - - -- I - 1. _ I
-- y $
r I: i J' 1' _ l pa
� _ � If 1
•
%.,.,.r t_. r .
w,r. ' � '_�t / r _�� = sa see rav • �i ❑—' - ,..r......,.,
,'' IIII
..r r.ry I -X f,C v" W MI '1 `t r ■E I! r i�'iSI v '!! C It i !rs
/ �: 5J L Er ..s Kam. ■
GoorGC ST. GL•VAT ION
A<TwL 'I"�I�'��I��I�����II�IIIII��II� f • Ili
.
. n.r<.... a A
.wn.s
•
-
yPLENA 51; ELEVATION.
rTx � f �r...ru
�.... r..w. Gi la ' ' pr .Q• , - 1 � eim
If . v R rr --II Q _ 1- I 4 — .. r✓n.n • x - -- • IC I- a a . Iii ' L'fY1s..+.. . � -. L .Ta< ti
ALLEY E L E VATIC “
•
a A
.0WADO .
•
411AcrtMEN-r ,.b„
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth, Engineering Department of<
DATE: March 21, 1990 ��\
RE: Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption for Change in Use and
Special Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following Comments:
1. The applicant is not proposing any additional commercial space
or number of bedrooms and therefore is not required to provide
any additional off - street parking.
2. The engineering department met at the site with a
representative of BFI. The proposed trash area is not
acceptable. Trash is currently picked up on the mall. It is
suggested that the final trash area be located directly adjacent
to the alley and not set back into the site. We have not
understood any reason for permitting a reduction in the length of
trash area required.
3. It appears from our investigation that the proposed roof
extension would encroach into the Wheeler viewplane. The
applicant should submit calculations by an engineer or surveyor
which address this question.
jg /guido
mpsr
Aspen /Pit . si t 'it,' ping Office
130 sin t teet
January 3, 1990 aspen ; * a r i i , ; r it 81611
Mr. Joe Wells
Doremus & Wells
608 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Joe:
This letter is in response to your letter dated November 21,
regarding Guidos Restaurant and adjacent building, requesting a
staff interpretation of the Land Use Code. As I understand the
situation, you seek clarification on three issues: areas which
are considered open space, off - street parking, and the common
lounge above the restaurant.
Having reviewed your letter and Bill Drueding's memo, and
completing a site visit with Bill, I have the following
interpretation.
1. Lounge Area - Thank you for the affidavits from current and
past tenants. I shall disregard the one that begins June 1989 as
the moratorium was in full swing by then. However, the others
are documentation enough that the lounge has not included a
"kitchen" for many years.
2. Parking - Yes, I agree that the twelve existing parking spaces
are non - conforming. I also concur that, excluding the trash
service spaces, there are 9 legal spaces. A rough calculation, 2
spaces /1000 square feet, indicates that 10 spaces are required.
I am not clear as to the future redevelopment plans of the two
parcels. Off - street parking is required for the increment of
expansion occurring on a site.
There are two mechanisms that enable a reduction in parking:
a) Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission -
parking may be reduced if the applicant makes a one -time only
payment of $15,000 per space required.
b) The HPC may reduce required parking for Historically
Designated parcels, however this parcel has not received landmark
designation.
3. Open Space - According to Section 3 -1 of the Code, the
definition of Open Space is: any portion of a parcel or area of
land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to
the sky...and similar areas which provide visual relief from the
mass of buildings.
It is the staff's opinion that the open space on the property
meets the code's definition and is, therefore, non - conforming
open space. This includes the area between the two principal
buildings. While this definition does not preclude the
construction of the proposed entrance connection, it does require
the property owner to mitigate lost open space through cash -in-
lieu. The lost open space includes both the area which is
developed and the area which no longer can be viewed from the
street.
There are 2 processes to reduce the required amount of open space
on site:
a) the Board of Adjustment
b) Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission - if it
is determined that a reduction in open space is appropriate than
the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu.
As a recourse to this staff interpretation you may seek a
Planning Director's interpretation and follow that with a request
to the Council.
I hope this has answered your questions. Please call me if you
would like to discuss specific points of my interpretation.
�nc %t
Leslie Lamont, Planner
cc: Amy Margerum
Tom Baker
Bill Drueding
Roxanne Eflin
`'
I. II 4
� I I I I
„,„, iii •
1! ►i 111111111 Li I
1
1 il � 1!I.1III 1111111 ° 111!
E P 11R' L - -- T - - - - 1-
lIfl!!iiI ; ; �III11e!lI ` lUhilIll1
� �
II 1
i WAGNER \ E. • ER AVE.
1 BJJ < PARK J - -- —,
I 1 PUI 1 141111111
1
1 ! DURANTr AVE • - -1 L - - - -•
..
1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8
9 IC 11 ^ ` � ' :f1I,I 1 I HEM p I ki 1
s V T_
' :I:l.I - I ' trace 1
1 1 2 3
4 5 ■
S 1
I I 6 2
-
B ��1i) 12 a
1 1 9 3
4 GILBERT ST. 11 4 4 g
1 1 _ 13 JUNIATA St 9 S IS
6 I l l i �_ 14
1S C a 1O 6 r .. Lli 9 I HIL ST. 17 SHARK ST. 8 7 � 4 '
I r 19 Ills • / 1
T @ ` 70 1 '
4 I
5 SUMMIT ST. ` 11 12 13
rr,�� ; ( ' E
^,,4104,, i • iar
c
W . i %�" �∎ 4 A- W4c4Mv. 4T t'
Z.'■ VIEW 114110
- sue.. .w.,: ss i
ASPEN*PITKIN V
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson
Planning Office
From: Bob Nelson
Environmental Health Department
Date: March 22, 1990 lie 2 3 SJ
Re: Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption
The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above - mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to continue to serve the project with
public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District. This conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County
Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to
"require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever
feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage
disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public
sewers ". The anticipated usage is not expected to increase
substantially with the proposed changes. The Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District should be compensated for the incremental
increase in service when fixture unit tap fees are assessed at
the stage of the building permit being issued.
We remind the applicant that a grease interceptor will be
required outside of the restaurant building to serve the sewer
lines discharging kitchen wastes needing pre- treatment before
reaching the sewer main. Generally this interceptor is required
to be a minimum of 5 gallons per seat in volume.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to continue to serve the project with
water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system.
This conforms with Section 23 -55 of the Aspen Municipal Code
requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to
the municipal water utility system ". Again the tap fees should
compensate the City for additional expected water usage from the
project.
AIR OUALITY:
There is no indication of the number of fireplaces and
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 131611 30W920 -6070
Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption
March 22, 1990
Page 2
woodburning devices currently in the buildings, although this
department does not recall any in the public areas of the
restaurant or shops. We remind the applicant that the rights may
not be retained without change, and therefore, Ordinance 88 -20
requiring registration and gas logs /certified stove in this
construction. In addition, the applicant should plan to control
the smoke emissions from the charbroiling equipment, if such
cooking equipment is expected to be used.
The building owner has presented an asbestos study to this
department for evaluation and the results of this inspection by a
qualified consultant show that it will not be a problem.
NOISE:
There will be some short term noise impacts on the neighborhood
during construction. We would require that the construction
times be limited to those specified in Chapter 16 Aspen Municipal
Code - Noise Abatement. The impacts should be capable of being
mitigated with proper planning.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
The food service facility, in order to fully conform to Title 12
Article 44 Part 2 C.R.S. 1973 - Food Service Establishments and
the Rules and Regulations Governing The Sanitation Of Food
Service Establishments In The State Of Colorado (July 1, 1978),
is in need of renovation, equipment replacement, and major
reconstruction to enable the operators to easily clean and
maintain the food storage and preparation areas as required. We
have reviewed the preliminary plans and find that the proposal is
a great improvement on what now exists. We would encourage these
aspects of the application to update and modernize the facility
to standards of sanitation and cleanliness.
This department does not expect any violations of our food
service regulations will be created by the variation to the trash
storage areas, as requested. Careful planning to make the trash
yard area impervious and easy to clean and maintain will be
required. We would also recommend that this area be covered to
prevent the inevitable spillage from freezing into the ice and to
make the dumpsters more easily moveable for pick -up.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Environmental Health Department
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption for a Change in Use
and Special Review for Reduction in Open Space and
Reduction in Utility Service Area
Parcel ID# 2737- 182 -21 -004 & 005
DATE: March 6, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application from Joe
Wells on behalf of Guido Meyer requesting GMQS Exemption and
Special Review approval.
Please review this material and return your comments to me no
later the March 19, 1990. Thank you.
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth, Engineering Department /�,/c
DATE: March 21, 1990 ��\
RE: Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption for Change in Use and
Special Review
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following Comments:
1. The applicant is not proposing any additional commercial space
or number of bedrooms and therefore is not required to provide
any additional off - street parking.
2. The engineering department met at the site with a
representative of BFI. The proposed trash area is not
acceptable. Trash is currently picked up on the mall. It is
suggested that the final trash area be located directly adjacent
to the alley and not set back into the site. We have not
understood any reason for permitting a reduction in the length of
trash area required.
3. It appears from our investigation that the proposed roof
extension would encroach into the Wheeler viewplane. The
applicant should submit calculations by an engineer or surveyor
which address this question.
jg /guido
OCKME.Wr aG»
EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE
GUIDO'S Total Non -
Sq.Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable
BUSINESS BUILDING
Basement 1
5 Lodge rooms 1,677 (-301 1,376 1,677
Circulation, Mech., & Storage 3,380 X 60 , 71 -
Subtotal: 5,057 910 4,147 1,677
Ground Level
Commercial/Retail 4,672 4,672 - 4,672
Circulation 385 385 -- --
Subtotal: 5,057 5,057 - 4,672
Second Level
Residential
2 2 -BR Units 2,147 2,147 - 2,147
1 4 -BR Unit 2,744 2,744 - 2,744
Circulation 350 350 -- --
Subtotal: 5,241 5,241 - 4,891
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 15,355 11,208 4,147 11,240
RESTAURANT BUILDING
Basement
Commercial/Bakery 300 - 300 300
Circulation, Mech. & Storage 2,020 - 2,020 --
Subtotal: 2,320 - 2,320 300
Ground Level
Commercial/Restaurant 2,245 2,245 - 2,245
Circulation 130 130 -- --
Subtotal: 2,375 2,375 - 2,245
Second Level
5 Residential Dorm Rooms 1,515 1,515 - 1,515
Circulation 100 100 -- --
Subtotal: 1,615 1,615 - 1,515
Third Level
2 Residential Dorm Rooms 468 468 - 468
Circulation 45 45 -- -
513 513 - 468
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 6,823 4,503 2,320 4,528
SUMMARY
Commercial 7,217 6,917 300 7,217
Residential 6,874 6,874 - 6,874
Lodge Rooms 1,677 301 1,376 1,677
Circulation, Mech., & Storage 6,410 1,619 4,791 --
22,178 15,711 6,467 15,768
(FAR 1.05:1)
. . ____ , _
‘ ..
PROPOSED SQUARE FwXAGE
GUIDO'S Total Non -
Sq.Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable
BUSINESS BUILDING
,7
Basement 3
Circulation, Mech., & Stor. 5,894 - 5,894 --
Ground Level
Commercial/Retail 4,782 4,782 -- 4,782 / 0
Dormitory Rooms 990 990 - 990 2
Circulation, Mech., & Storage 494 494 -- --
Subtotal: 6,266 6,266 - 5,772
Second Level
Residential 5,306 5,306 - 5,306
2 2 -BR Units 8
1 4-BR Unit
Circulation 621 621 -- --
Subtotal: 5,927 5,927 - 5,306
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 18,087 12,193 5,894 11,078 2 Z
RESTAURANT BUILDING (Including Connection)
Basement
Circulation, Mech. & Storage 2,686 - 2,686 --
Ground Level
Commercial/Retail 2,009 2,009 - 2,009 I I
Circulation 571 571 -- -
Subtotal: 2,580 2,580 - 2,009
Second Level
Commercial/Restaurant 2,316 2,316 -- 2,316 5
Circulation 412 412 -- --
Subtotal: 2,728 2,728 - 2,316
'ItJFAL FOR BUILDING: 7,994 5,308 2,686 4,325
SUMMARY
Commercial 9,107 9,107 - 9,107 /3
Residential 5,306 5,306 - 5,306 Z
Dormitory 990 990 - 990 5
Circulation, Mech., & Stor. 10,678 2,098 8,580 -- 2-71
TUTAL: 26,081 17,501 8,580 15,403
Doremus & WeLLs
an association of land planners
• — ❑
March 5, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
I am forwarding for your review some minor revisions to Guido
Meyer's GMQS Exemption request which we filed on January 22,
1990. As design work has progressed on the project, more
accurate drawings of the proposal have been prepared and these
indicate that the net leasable space in the proposal is somewhat
higher than previously calculated. In addition, 3 dorm rooms
totalling 990 square feet are now proposed to be added to the
rear of the business building at the mall level.
So that you can see where the minor changes in the calculations
which result from the additional square footage, have been made,
I am forwarding a copy of my marked -up copy for your records.
Let me know if you need additional information.
Than
1I/
Jose' - s, AICP
JW /b
cc: Guido Meyer
Gideon Kaufman
Kim Wyle
• - - -H
608 east hyman avenue n aspen, colorado 81611 n telephone: 303 925 -6866
A
O
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF A GMQS EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN USE AND
SPECIAL REVIEW FOR LOTS E THROUGH I, BLOCK 90, ASPEN TOWNSITE
Application Filed
January 22, 1990
Minor Amendments Filed
March 5, 1990
Dorms &Wei s
an association of land planners
rt
January 22, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
- I
Re: Renovation of Guido's Swiss Inn and Business Building
Dear Leslie:
This application for Planning and Zoning Commission review of
GMQS Exemption for change in use and Special Review is filed on
behalf of Guido Meyer.
A.P.C. granted Conceptual Development Plan approval to the
proposed improvements to Guido's Swiss Inn and Business Building
last fall and an application for Final Development Plan review
will be filed in the coming weeks.
The applicant is eligible for an exemption from GMQS for change
in use because the building's existing net leasable is actually
reduced as a result of the proposal. In addition, Special Review
may be required for a reduction in open space and for a reduction
in trash /utility service area.
We look forward to discussing the proposal with the P&Z in the
near future. If you need additional information please give me a
call at 925 -8080.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
v
JW /b
rnn ... nn inro Hn R, a1,- folonr,rr 1r2 Q9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. GMQS Exemption for Change in Use 1
(S8- 104(B)(1)(b))
II. Special Review (Article 7, Division 4) 6
A. For Reduction in Open Space 6
B. For Reduction in Utility /Trash 10
Service Area
III. Exhibits
1. Application Form
2. Applicant's Letter of Consent
3. Disclosure of Ownership
4. Vicinity Map
CONSULTANTS
Architects
Kim Wyle
Bill Poss & Associates
605 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -4755
Attorney:
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
315 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -8166
Land Planner:
Joseph Wells, AICP
130 Midland Park Place, No. F -2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -8080
I, CMQS EXEMPTION FOR CHANGE IN USE (58-104(B)(1)(b)
This application requests approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of exemption from GMQS procedures for a change of use
under the provisions of $8- 104(B)(1)(b) for a renovation of two
existing structures -- Guido's Swiss Inn and the Business
Building. The project is located on a 15,000 sq.ft. site which
includes Lots E through I, Block 90, Aspen Townsite.
The two buildings presently include 15,711 FAR square feet; as a
result of the proposal there will be a minor increase in FAR to
17,501 square feet. The proposed FAR is therefore 1.17:1, well
below the permitted FAR of 1.5:1 in the CC zone district.
The net leasable floor area of the two existing structures on the
site is proposed to be decreased from 15,768 sq.ft. to 15,403
sq.ft. This is because existing leasable square footage is
eliminated to resolve circulation problems in the two buildings.
Exemption from GMQS may be granted by the Commission under the
provisions of 58- 104(B)(1)(b) for any change of use of an
existing structure between the residential, commercial /office and
tourist accommodations categories for which a certificate of
occupancy has been issued for at least two years. To be eligible
1
for the exemption, mitigation of the projects' impacts must be
addressed. The four areas of concern include the following:
1. Affordable Housing.
Using a ga neration of 4.375 emps /1,000 sq.ft. (the center of the
range of 3.5 to 5.25 emps /1,000 sq.ft. established for the
Commercial Core), the employee generation associated with the
current project is 69.0 employees:
15,768 sq.ft. net leasable (overall) x 4.375 emps /1,000 sq.ft. = 69.0
Because of the reduction of net leasable proposed, employee
generation of the project is reduced by 1.6 employees:
15,403 sq.ft. net leasable x 4.375 emps /1,000 sq.ft. = 67.4
Therefore, there is no affordable housing requirement associated
with the project.
2. Parkin
Under the provisions of S5- 301(C), the applicant may not reduce
the off - street parking below that required for the existing
development (if currently provided); further, the applicant is
required to provide additional off - street parking if existing
development is expanded.
2
The off - street parking requirement in the CC -zone is 2 spaces/
1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable commercial space, 1 space per
bedroom for residential uses and 0.7 spaces /bedroom for lodge
uses.
The off - street parking requirement for the current buildout on
the site is therefore as follows:
Net Leasable Commercial: 7,217 sq.ft. x 2 spaces /1,000 sq.ft. = 14.4
Residential: 15 Bedrooms x 1 space/bedroom = 15.0
Lodge: 5 bedrooms x .7 space/bedroom = 3.5
32.9 = 33
Under the proposed program, the off - street parking requirement
decreases by 3 spaces:
Net Leasable Commercial: 9,107 sq.ft. x 2 spaces /1,000 sq.ft. = 18.2
Residential: 11 Bedrooms x 1 space/bedroom = 11.0
29.2 = 30
The Planning Office has confirmed that there are presently 9
legal off - street spaces and the applicant has committed to
maintain the 9 spaces. Since the proposal does not lessen the
number of off - street parking spaces provided, and the proposal
does not generate additional parking demand, there is no
additional off - street parking requirement.
3
3. Visual Impact of the Project on the Neighborhood.
The visual impact of the expansion on surrounding projects has
initially been judged acceptable by HPC as evidenced by that
Board's conceptual approval of the project. The proposed
expansion has been limited to the rear portion of the two
structures, except for the connection between the buildings,
which is set back over 10 feet from the north facade of the
restaurant building.
The maximum height of the existing buildings -- 28 feet -- is not
increased under the proposal and is well below the height limit
of 40 feet in the zone district. The proposal does not impact on
the Wagner Park View Plane.
4. Public Facilities and Services
Existing utilities and other public services are adequate for the
project. Water service for the expansion will continue to be
provided by the City of Aspen and sewage treatment is available
from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
Solid waste disposal will continue to be provided to the project
by BFI; a trash service area of approximately 200 sq.ft. will be
located on the alley side of the connection between the two
4
buildings for the proiect. Site drainage will be engineered in
compliance with the City's regulations.
The site is located within 200 feet of RFTA bus routes and is
adjacent to the Transit Center at Rubey Park. The proiect is
located two blocks from the Aspen Fire District station.
5
II. SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4)
A. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
The owner proposes an enclosed corridor to connect the two exist-
ing buildings, to improve the service function for the project.
The applicant's representatives have suggested that the area
between the two buildings cannot presently be defined as open
space, since it is used as a trash service area; additionally,
the area fails the test for minimum frontage along the street.
In fact, none of the existing open areas on the site presently
meet the definition of open space; none of these open areas both
"have a frontage on the street of one half of the lot line facing
the street or 100 feet, whichever is less" while being "at least
10 feet in depth from the street."
The Planning Staff has taken the position that the open space
presently provided on the property meets the code's definition
and is therefore non - conforming open space, including the area
between the two principal buildings.
While we disagree with this interpretation, the Planning Office
has suggested that the applicant seek Special Review approval of
6
i.Y P
a reduction in open space, which requires a payment -in -lieu
equivalent to the appraised value of the unimproved land, pendino
final resolution of this issue.
A reduction in required open space below the minimum reauirement
of 25% of the site may be approved when the following conditions
are met:
1. "The mass, height, density, confiauration, amount of open
space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development
are designed in a manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is con-
sistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District."
Additional mass, height and density resulting from the project is
limited to the alley frontage and the connection between the two
buildinos. There is no open space provided on the site which
meets the technical requirement of the definition, as discussed
above. The landscaping concept for the project, which is
relatively unchanged from the existing layout, has been
established by the Conceptual HPC approval.
There are no setback requirements in the Commercial Core and the
building of commercial projects out to the sidewalk is encouraged
under the Historic District guidelines, to maintain the historic
character of the commercial core.
2. "The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parkin('
in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane."
7
The project results in a reduction in the net leasable square
footage; consequently, the off - street parking requirement for the
project is reduced. Existing off - street parking is maintained.
A more efficient trash service area is provided with the
proposal.
Construction on the site will result in very minimal shading of
public property, as the only addition which will affect shading
is the second floor addition to the restaurant, to the west of
the Galena Street Mall.
There is no impact on existing view planes, including the Wagner
Park view plane.
3. "For the reduction of required open space in the Commercial
Core (CC) zone district only, the applicant demonstrates
that the provision of less than the required amount of open
space on -site will be more consistent with the character of
surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open
space according to the standard.
If the Planning Office's current interpretation regarding open
space stands, a reduction of required open space by approximately
200 sq.ft. is proposed as a result of the connection between the
two buildings. In addition to the footprint of the connection,
this includes the area to the south which will be screened from
view from the Cooper Street Mall by the new construction. This
reduction represents only about 5% of the open space requirement
for the site.
8
The applicant has given consideration to the following code
criteria in determining that the application is in compliance:
1. The open space reduction does not occur at the street
corner.
2. The reduction in open space does not interrupt neigh-
boring pedestrian amenities.
3. The reduction does not diminish open space which pro-
vides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an
adjacent historic landmark.
4. The area does not serve any other functional public
purpose, such as dining.
5. It is inappropriate to retain open space in this por-
tion of the site because other buildings along the
streetfront are built to the property line; this is
especially true because the site is located on a public
mall.
If a final determination is made that the area in question is in
fact open space, the applicant will make a payment -in -lieu based
on the appraised value of the land, using the formula described
in §7- 404(A)(3).
9
B. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION IN UTILITY /TRASH SERVICE AREA
Under the provisions of §5- 211(a)(5), a utility /trash service
area of 200 sq.ft. is required for up to 6,000 sq.ft. of net
leasable floor area an additional 10 sq.ft. of area for each
1,200 sq.ft. of additional net leasable is required, unless re-
duced by PO by Special Review.
In order to qualify for Special Review approval for a reduction
in the service area, an applicant must demonstrate compliance
with the following criteria:
1. "Given the nature of the potential uses of the building and
its total square footage, the utility /trash service area
proposed to be provided will be adequate."
The applicant proposes to provide a utility and trash service
area of approximately 250 sq.ft. on the alley side of the
proposed connection between the two buildings.
While the proposed trash service area's size complies with the
square footage requirement of the Code for an expansion of up to
6,000 sq.ft., the dimensions of the area do not meet the Code's
requirement. The area is required to have a minimum width from
the alley of 20 feet. While the requirements for the minimum
depth and minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet are met for the
10
Pr
4. .
trash area, the width is limited to only 11 feet. The utility
area is only 5 feet deep.
The trash containers used in the Commercial Core by BFI personnel
are 6.75 feet by 3.5 feet; these are rolled into the alley and
attached to the truck for emptying. The depth provided in the
trash area is adequate to accommodate the dimensions of the bins.
The length of the trash service area will accommodate a total of
3 containers, which is one more container than is presently
provided and should be adequate to service the project.
2. "Access to the utility /trash service area is adequate."
Access to both the utility and trash areas, which are separated
from the alley by 50 feet, will remain uninterrupted by parking.
3. "Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable by trash personnel."
According to BFI personnel, enclosing the trash area is not
desireable in terms of ease of trash collection, as it creates an
additional step in accessing the bins. In this case, the trash
area is well- screened from pedestrian areas because of its
location in a deep recess between the two buildings.
It has been suggested that the design of the concrete pad to
minimize ice buildup is the most important consideration in
11
s r
improving the ease of operation of the trash area. The trash
storage area will be protected from the elements and elevated to
minimize ice buildup.
4. "When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are pro-
vided by the proposed development and measures are taken to
encourage trash compaction by other developments on the
block."
In the past, the CCLC investigated trash compactor systems to
determine their feasibility for use in the Commercial Core.
These efforts on the part of CCLC have apparently been shelved.
Such a system would only be feasible if all the building owners
are prepared to or required to participate in the cost of such a
system. The applicant agrees to participate in a district -wide
system when and if such a system becomes feasible and adopted.
5. "The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement of utilities."
Meters are to be located on the south wall of the new service
stair between the buildings for easy access.
6. "Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the con-
struction of the access area."
Construction of the utility /trash service area will be a condi-
tion of approval. The applicant will be unable to secure a
building permit for the project unless the trash area is included
in the construction documents.
12
>a 1 y
C. SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE:
1. General Application Requirements (56 -202):
(a) Application Form is attached as Exhibit "1 ".
(b) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as
Exhibit "2 ".
(c) The street address of the project is 403 South Galena
and 425 East Cooper. The legal description of the site is Lots E
through I, Block 90, Townsite of Aspen.
(d) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit "3 ".
(e) The Vicinity Map, included as Exhibit "4 ", locates the
subject parcels.
O!e
(f) Public Notice is not required for Special Review -e&
GMQS Exemption by Planning & Zoning.
(g) Compliance with Substantive Review Standards:
Specific Conceptual Development Plan review standards
are addressed elsewhere in this submission.
2. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development
on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant
to the Special Review application.
Refer to attached architectural drawings.
3. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated
properties in the same Zone District and of neighboring
parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with
the dimensional, off - street parking or trash /utility service
area requirement which is subject to Special Review.
13
. J
Based on recent experience, it is doubtful that many existing
commercial core projects comply with the current open space
requirement. This is because open space areas must be at least
ten feet in depth for a distance of one half of the street
frontage to qualify.
With the exception of the project to the north of the site, where
a significant amount of subgrade open area is maintained, the
balance of the block is generally built out to the street, in
compliance with HPC guidelines.
With regard to trash service area requirements, virtually all
applicants for expansion of commercial projects have sought some
variation in the extensive requirements for trash storage in the
CC zone. The square footage of the trash area provided complies
with the requirement, but it is necessary to seek a minor
variation in dimensional requirements only.
14
•
•
EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE
GUIDO'S Total Non -
Sq.Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable
BUSINESS BUILDING
Basement
5 Lodge rooms 1,677 301 1,376 1,677
Circulation, Mech., & Storage 3,380 609 2,771 --
Subtotal: 5,057 910 4,147 1,677
Ground Level
Comnercial/Retail 4,672 4,672 - 4,672
Circulation 385 385 -- --
Subtotal: 5,057 5,057 - 4,672
Second Level
Residential
2 2 -BR Units 2,147 2,147 - 2,147
1 4 -BR Unit 2,744 2,744 - 2,744
Circulation 350 350 -- --
Subtotal: 5,241 5,241 - 4,891
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 15,355 11,208 4,147 11,240
RESTAURANT BUILDING
Basement
Commercial/Bakery 300 - 300 300
Circulation, Mech. & Storage 2,020 - 2,020 --
Subtotal: 2,320 - 2,320 300
Ground Level
Commercial/Restaurant 2,245 2,245 - 2,245
Circulation 130 130 -- --
Subtotal: 2,375 2,375 - 2,245
Second Level
5 Residential Dorm Rooms 1,515 1,515 - 1,515
Circulation 100 100 -- --
Subtotal: 1,615 1,615 - 1,515
Third Level
2 Residential Dorm Rooms 468 468 - 468
Circulation 45 45 -- --
513 513 - 468
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 6,823 4,503 2,320 4,528
SUMMARY
Commercial 7,217 6,917 300 7,217
Residential 6,874 6,874 - 6,874
Lodge Rooms 1,677 301 1,376 1,677
Circulation, Mech., & Storage 6,410 1,619 4,791 --
22,178 15,711 6,467 15,768
/ono 1 nC. l 1
PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE
ADO'S Total Non -
Sq.Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable
BUSINFSS BUILDING
Basement
Circulation, Mech., & Stor. 5,894 - 5,894 -
Ground Level
Commercial/Retail 4,782 4,782 - 4,782
Dormitory Rooms 990 990 - 990
Circulation, Mech., & Storage 494 494 - -
Subtotal: 6,266 6,266 - 5,772
Second Level
Residential 5,306 5,306 - 5,306
2 2 -BR Units
1 4-BR Unit
Circulation 621 621 - -
Subtotal: 5,927 5,927 - 5,306
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 18,087 12,193 5,894 11,078
RESTAURANT BUILDING (Including Connection)
Basement
Circulation, Mech. & Storage 2,686 - 2,686 -
Ground Level
Cbmnercial/Retail 2,009 2,009 - 2,009
Circulation 571 571 - -
Subtotal: 2,580 2,580 - 2,009
Second Level
Oomnercial/Restaurant 2,316 2,316 - 2,316
Circulation 412 412 -
Subtotal: 2,728 2,728 - 2,316
TOTAL FOR BUILDING: 7,994 5,308 2,686 4,325
SUMMARY
Commercial 9,107 9,107 - 9,107
Residential 5,306 5,306 - 5,306
Dormitory 990 990 - 990
Circulation, Mech., & Star. 10,678 2,098 8,580 -
1U/AL: 26,081 17,501 8,580 15,403
_
r
0
P
a
•
66
@D
IC
•
63S W
J
= .
w _
3
Y
Z
N r . W
. LI J
L-
J dd
C
4111 3
. 7 g k I ti...
! , A
— .'
I
1'
o d °
Cg
ll
a
r s $
• A o a ° lag
IW
mt i 0 a
L 1
0 az
OO
al
'fir • O
0
1 3 3 ?1 J. 5 • 1 N 3 1 V S 1—=1
g
M n
GL,
0 a
•
MI t
i
E.
. ® 9
0
. P
0
H
in:IIIIII - .Ii.
1111111/ 4
r ....... 1 a 0
w J =
r _ — � J
J Q
-4 4 0
P , CS
F
4
I v f
L F
F •
] U
i u
u
1
4
F
e
II
�j11111111 •
— 1 iiiiliil — - _ : ,
11111111
11111111
• - im,' t I N
I--
I 44 r --
I 1. J
J
• I K
r■ ;
I Ii I
x "
i 1
•
I -I� IMINs 9t Pc
11111111 1111111 � , !
n z .
• uma 11 J 1 1Z <
J
..� • 111117
1
0
F 1 W
S 1 J
i I
i i ,1 I-
-
•
Z
J
E
Q
is
• A
0
ac
o ..d
- 0. 0
1 e i n
11 ii11, I _- .- - - - - -- d g
111
�4 Ca
s � {.
.a1L;
,i( ii
i t
r
l n E 0:646: a r _ 1
• II , 1 d
1
i) 111111 _ °
�j
1 ..
11 a.
.01 • . .
,1 .,. 1
.r •
-1) tj .
u
•
i t •
•
J
r
E
• u
1.
•
•
•
C IIIIIIIII! 111 "1111 R9 — _. a. 111111111/ ,_____,
IIPII1� 1 . t. 1 11111 . ,
.1 .. T ull : •----- E Er . . 0 a
c •
E
8 e B
} 4-1
j=1 i g
i t - LL � i.' 1
I m �®
= J ,! r o0
$ a 1 d El
1
L- ,r : :
0 1il
w -
p
8 ,
1
_____I
,Ti CI
-- 1 ; ifji }7 • `7''11, tI 0 I 3 10 k !I
f I J
d r al .
r
C a
n
0
0
P
A
ea
0
µ g
fF LL L 1 @ O
F y , 4. Y 11 a N F CS
4 H
i o } 9 i , °
1 3 l 1 0
FFF 1 , .2
r ° 2
— eai. t L.� U
• till
Ai mi_ h.
4.
mei i J r
U 1
_ _ : .....:- bitii
' Sall !
Fa
Mt.. w
t
i _ i Al . ",:' , :N
IND - ;:.r\:‘ , a , 7 ` ' 4ibY.4 '
��4 5. � 'f ,,
q ic..
..._ fi:' i
i Mini 11 F A ..
1m -- siiil 4 ' . . : : . ?..,..":: liall 1: • .,ANN ...,. ,
��
, : - -; ,, Z t7
— '; Yl
I � � h 1
:: d Will
allii 4
L v y
� a�ee a'�`,1 _
, ice i r __ I _ �l < _ ...
�
Y � �. �I1 4
s
;
k y 1•11 I
ila
. 5:..X:1=1{ , I 5:..X:1=1{ • i14
Ai* LA Ifwt illkiti u •
X i' L a 1��: ,�, if _
is ; __ LI
n - ' In
r1. °` �
t
° o
g cat
11 1 R
o ti 0 L
M 1[
P r • Al..,, O
Imo
z
la
rrip
EXHIBIT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1) Project Name GUIDO'S SWISS INN and BUSINESS BUILDING
2) Project Location 403 South Galena and 425 East Cooper
Lots E throuah I, Block 90, Aspen Townsite
3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 15,000 sf
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Guido Meyer
425 East Cooper Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells
130 Midland Park Place, No. F -2, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -8080
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): •
Conditional Use __ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev.
X Special Review _ Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD _ Historic Demolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
Condominiumization Text/Map Amendment _ GMQS Allotment
Lot Split /Lot Line X CMGS Exemption
Adjustment
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro-
ximate sg.ft.; number of bedrooms: any previous approvals granted to the
property) .
Basement Commercial & Accessory Space = 7,377 sf
1st Floor Commercial & Accessory Space = 7,432 sf
2nd & 3rd Floor Residential & Accessory Space = 7,369 sf
Existing total square footage = 22,178 sf (15,711 FAR sf)
9) Description of Development Application
CMQS Exemption for Change of Use and Special Review by The Planning and
Zoning Commission
10) Have you attached the following:
X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
-- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
Yry I
EXHIBIT 2
January 15, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum, Director
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Amy:
This letter is to confirm that I am the record owner of Guido's
Swiss Inn and Business Building, Lots E through I, Block 90,
Aspen Townsite. We have requested that the attached application
be prepared on our behalf.
Joseph Wells will be our representative in Aspen during the
City's review of this submission.
Sincerely,
L4-0 Px-exeL-
Guido Meyer
GM /b
r
LL ( 4
{ V E B 3' •
ill a s 49340 rw aaaes r on ir•e. Is .a at - i�.
� a.p.•a W rtn t pal I o t a• .yo ]re Gordon T. raun M
ale it ti I •r[t.q�ntkL IM ma r w Oita Sir r •.a r
...,...,,• n a i m dD 7aul , as r et Oa.a Wd^: s
wIifs .Vb Os ma pn 7 .. R r p•it•.4...a.a..••∎ a
Tea dollars sad alter n1Wl. aenald•ratlona 4 / Sli w a awe. l
r ... 'Para a..'Para r a. r la I. 1V F. by a al r.. 7 .( a. sod SS aM .rd O.N.O. i� Sit • tote ti• `
.J} 5 '- . W ea r.— r w r and. del rqb t. w r lain an W W t.7 d!• r4 /Colas. I i.
I W a.r. 1...a .l W 4iri s-nta kH .real I LK i�.it ='se as 1. a. M. t°
Leta 3. 4/d 0 an bloat 90 to the .117 had tosaita at Aspen;
together aitb ail tapror.aant• thereon.
1 r
I 1113.:0 Do.sa.ntar7 •tugs ettaabad aoa aanw11N1 d
' k.a
} j`
tOGZ�a .M.1 ra sir s YLasa.a...w.1.... a.a• ww.r.. wr..w.r.a"..'a lit ..era p1t— .rrr
a f lambda as am Wp . a n d • a dog w.YMI old, S . 6i elAsa.wr..r d 6 ad on 7 ♦ is r pot at.u.M
..ry .-.,. _s: - .ta.a.4.a-.a..�.p.+at •ti M• w..F..al• -_Sian•__ aal
.t . s '- - N I..VI[.IID • W wr.— aaAare W.wwt —a. yam--- •-a... 1
s.. rhC K p4 •r aaa1 1. bit 6.--4 sak..... rear
z.ct pa err wi r MLaalt. Ida IS moral ...sus a. as ..... e..t San..
.c. w .r mils --
'..'t:!,-.7- Z r .. .a• 7 dW�.. on, PIS t o n W.,di, tW ati..l at• -a+.•. Ira is •a rah
i .: i • t - j?L� 4 Oa per. Jn. a.a.l ra.lt a awl. Mors* wYara r 4 swam. a b.. a r t.l .1 ...& .fJ . .a w.r
(l .1J 4n MIS aroar r a al • haw e.• .w—.
t n s.wra.:....1 i.(..1 wz .rd — a.'a.. alt
.� e arn a r1� \ a��a[k� {t�.1. S.��L. ft�t 4 •C auli tr76L ..� ri *l t . • a`
t " a ..:fa.,-- }aaera aoaa 1 Y N
• C ee' 11 to Y
z c - noting part agrees to in toll aoaerdl to it a toter. ta1iaat to 4a t o Sion a
,z.£ :nest r;.14 /pOi:L. Also Oartitle•te or Urn 7 90910. Lt t. 017. enteIs 1••7 Cantor dole set reeve's.
Also .Sint Let tuna.
"=r' l• .•. - r as e.a r pans /sang W... p. 7 a Wes.-. bit 1s..a wb + j' .a tam., .. . is-m-4. - r� � .at— a w da Swan . .l h Y. . is .a w. 7 aWe.. on ai r .e e.LLLLtr An Town DTI i \L
'. . u mm romur.n al lay a r r pa- Ea Sian .a bit ..r Si r So do r T- maiso
t . - i a 7 Ss SS ma Da•.r bassi
cordon T. suN a...
ay Sin
- ' ; 4• k
• (SW
a^ . RMOOidaaaq r �.
l' ~ 1 c......, 1 %.t l.N. w.Iw -a a>•V. S S. Am. 4amt l W jr•a •
alto r
a y sir apw.r...M{.1 ...a: .a..d Man W aid ].w...w.1 wan r a w....l.....r•wl
YV Sr r a Sill.. bi. arC
Ia.tl ya
Xf t .+y ISM Mania r - - Win. Ts Soo ward
to Coss mos
�.. 4 r � e .yw rums t a s Kw r Ile SOW .a.oa ayAapC W *Si
art
ale hl? . . . laPd
•
' � � r i 1 a6' � Wrlydad ..
r •i4 1' .arras JMtop 1544 Jiii Jura t lien M r+.
`z
7 , - _— tq dr• .sari! .alln 1a.t 7• 1L ,
v dbdr.ada:
•- _ - %L. C• ttdJlstds sai
< -,
1 - K N.
, .r � ' ..�
a.
B/ /76 i .�7 - .
F..-11521.---.. r••- •r••I i- 1Ye.1.!SEW Pat Y..as C• r. .a
.!tom$ Qilstab. at MA _'.. - r.: - --td- 0•6••• - .r "ad r led rrarr.W ,
lit --" Se
•Oa as ! la -- , ritt .roasr gr MI 'MIS OUTDO YAM. ECM
.. .- T MtlrlM ..e Was • Da..r• doon.l an:
'— • •tt.7tttt.w•..rlan 7 r b as art b r as _okra • as oar
• tsaDollan aMd ether natant toeeliantteet
-, . . au r an 7 r b b a w l lad pli W SOLI pat 7 of r la b r y
eel l aw•l tea aaa► J al a..+d.tY 3 brat -
%a:St.r.t-..•.t.ttlti tilt pa lap; • rra .r r r IV 7 r r ✓•'Ida a Id. t
.N.4...
... r bata4 a.m..a.m../ Y • a S r a OS a\
. S. .t.. r..sb .Maas• It w .+ \
.r as • Ma. -.1•
bets 1 • 7 In noel 10 In the City sad Tr.Melte of Lepers. . .
(ttt't. Dollars and thirty .opts aenawnttry .tine attaoh.d as ..n+'.ilod.) -
- lI
-.. _ _ — - - _ - - —_- _ - • •
I -
•
.y
- = Iwr<sm we r r —1. t- _.._ ' .l ...e•.r•r.a•••+ar. • a .v-.. w+• •a r !.eras. r ..rte .!eras
Swim a r air/west r • •••• SO bra, r+. r ear .was.. *Moat. pa 7 d As as art tie • be or rteo
a alb r a... Staid r•.•
.a.. b t._ _ __- r •w•__• !eras
� 3 ` s _ 70 WV IMDIO 1D b�l rte. Moo a�I .t•..a.l .a... w•w�.. r. _
Y s < an 7 rr ✓at MO ta.r..+.ar.. *rasa -
Msi•st +- -- - any !!Cesar N.uolf. his hoe ..ar.,.ral...w a.. amt. bas ► w ar .r r dl •�.
♦r In let bit tar r ..ba e•• b ar• a. ~ass r dawn t!eras D. la "al !br .....t . 0 pet — le.d. a•6.. r •••••• r raa..r.a a.. bare./.. r be t pot 4t hi panel art. ,-
.+rt r opea w.+r. son/ ••�,:�.rl.0&nag. r aw n.... .. r beare r Inn al /Is aa 1 .S ,
S. S ae . '
Ink rase \.d u..y.rd Adam MI IT ' w•■:r.r fli.vp4Lm s r tryst Lafaeor of
Title ONatant! ee
Co, of 1n1 Calif. It., Dever, d ..1e. m 19.166.70 W 1. sA
..
!anted 1. Plata Coact) Heards en paps 571 • Stea 0 to tea 175 - od /.ate as doe+s.nt #9t5. e- -
e
t *deb deed of treat gran tee 4Ef."a .' to pal 1p fells Mai •c..pt1 a !r
ae as sea of ate 1
,• 'ix ; y- •h anut teen as treat_ 7ne565, beet 175. fad• 561.
ti # r safe saes amebas. b .e. r .....r a••• r Sall a .t • rbr.. to bl lb r sot*. woe • r wee --1 -
^r . r a. Lady aa a in e■ W rak or r••••••• S me any rS TAtaaax AND 1W111 MOM .'...P
r
a .n+m aamern. es M 7 •Skan la • Sera Us se; d•.1 r to set sae :.+'!;- °•'ik` -.
„.'5„5-;_-...-: !.eras. K' y
+;t ' i.-. , - awl. Ail al Darr ►rte.• Sena T. Cara W ,,y
4 eMtu
,-e-,_ R
• •.,:"..e
-� trms ewatw L r
4 -- t • ...r ea.. ar.. .t D.rl.rS t•. r..a.a.+. F . rq' .
.
- - raab\r�•l.o••\4e.r beet ..rt+..rbraa.rr.Hat. a. r..l..rrw .
• 311-.1J INS. a r..n....r.....t ..LPs.
Masai. t W r r. e\ be!
t.O�w. base. .LPN { .
...,; . . Paws leer -.3
s s �� .. �i :.
{ • ". t • - war! mum ' la
. ' ._ •'� LYaw4..rrr•a.r.lalaa..rMa - tD•d . eras! Cann a ta 5t4 s
.. n_ - • Osrdea T. B oard - . - .
� s � { - w trill - _. _ - -... ,�
1 - - S c:
r £ . • , 1�a - , irerr l.. wa rear. ._■ • A - — •^ __
•e.v
v _ ,afM R S1S eat T.2.". t . .;
$ v� Mere :._ � /YYU•iY SD - rid fRp..
fi r"
"i • Pe t - _ .n. -I•'J ..�J Y - +;
__ }. .#_ _ ___ - •tea -w_�.. w . �.�- 1r�1�'r2. �- -aYdC
Recded• e
or . can __ 14 :
"
Reap °" No RecmduBQIR 589 1 9 , 118 1'2 it -
QE:1R CLAIM DEED
1048
TMIS DEED. M.a, as 1st:
beluga wy d April . nB9. .
GUT DO PAUL MEYER e4 GERTRUDE M. MEYER SIIVIA DAVIS •
of the 'C^w• Pitkln .14 Sard 1 IN CNTT RECORDER
- - , ' Colorado, gramon 4 W sY app
N
GUIDO'S SWISS IN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 11 12 SS P11 77
y • Colorado limit -' ?drtnersCip,
la
f that SI .s. ddlea,, d<_ st Cooper Avenue
� Ci Asrx =, Colorado 91612
r
.. "r ` d as County c Paase(.E 1: J
c. � Pitkin a nd S ts of Columba.
-
_ WITHESSETH. TAN ale aramm.. tr ted a c vubro d gie w d
se„; Ten and 00 /100 - - ---- DoLAtS
U ore so and dk'
.-.1:. _ � � a a+ nd . el m .ece�a sold. assegai nod QUITCLAIMED,
-1 these do eas ie.sa y a m t OUTMAN M the use y�lel iDS n.l pommy. Io W rips, i! 1 mane. Mac se:
.,,, laaprvaati Y m n y..asre. Iran. a tem more Coall WO • and a ore sat pommy. y, H S U .la 1 . .
• y • •
� �, Colorado, denoted a mows: I.
Pitkin oration et I . -
!1
i�
1
� I it • Lots N : : in Block 90 in the 1
t.' 1 ' City and hvnsite of Aspen li ` y
1 ..
1 1
I IIPR I :°
: 1 ; ? -
• 1 . a1.o Energies gem add owners ,.: 4:5 East Cooper Avenue and /or
t 4:3 South Galena Street .':+4-
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the use carte was d red web, the appvewra s and privilege+ darewm belonging or es -.
anywise t etruno appermieirg ane.v • name. ogle, sir. ern / sideburn whatsoever. of the gnMor st either w law wet/op. to i.
as only roper r te
• . be*. r bateau r r
d - we purees its hews ant swim lamer
M WM
TESS WHEREOF. TIN rawer • .s n cau al
l dm deed re e date seat Earth 'km ^•-
"'Dr.-rude 17 Meyer r Guido Paul Meyer / f
- .rte'.
- " y o STATE OF -1_a.VO
}a . { l
c._..7 The begang imtrumret was scene..a•x me en lg... drs or April .1989. :4s
'-'
by Guido Paul Meyer t -.1 Gertrude M. Meyer. - 1-
- - bil,mdentuann arson l7 -. 5 . n•r: , Wweu my brat• and canal seal
1I a \
i
z • f ., ?- : cis
rise ` ` n l.
44p,.n.i..rs r . A _ -
. tofco`t cam:
_ c -4 " . . :. N.. RS&Os1! par cuss: o® -r•--. c vev. a to .mru —,sa :sown
¢.4 � c ti.
r s,
t `
EXHIBIT 4
TH
N
\ • 7-
N. X
1
`
T
•
j
1 7
ON _ Y N \L
C� * / f �Irn F
\< / L ; , ...?
ET) � \ N r___________,5,r
Fl
____ a; . 1 i ,,i
Q N rC
I 6 I I I
Q m LI
o
f
a
t.t .,,,,__ ,
, _ :----,, oc, N { „Li:
• Ai I YI I
CC Q v
a
I I A 1
t; i I
1 t
i I
.- - a - -
'rte --. .—`,\!M" # 7 C
4
Aspen /Pit 1, 0, ping Office
,.. ;
130s i''�`�
ct
January 3, 1990 aspect ^z '1 ` �L;� t 81611
a
e .
Mr. Joe Wells
Doremus & Wells
608 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Joe:
This letter is in response to your letter dated November 21,
regarding Guidos Restaurant and adjacent building, requesting a
staff interpretation of the Land Use Code. As I understand the
situation, you seek clarification on three issues: areas which
are considered open space, off- street parking, and the common
lounge above the restaurant.
Having reviewed your letter and Bill Drueding's memo, and
completing a site visit with Bill, I have the following
interpretation.
1. Lounge Area - Thank you for the affidavits from current and
past tenants. I shall disregard the one that begins June 1989 as
the moratorium was in full swing by then. However, the others
are documentation enough that the lounge has not included a
"kitchen" for many years.
2. Parking - Yes, I agree that the twelve existing parking spaces
are non - conforming. I also concur that, excluding the trash
service spaces, there are 9 legal spaces. A rough calculation, 2
spaces /1000 square feet, indicates that 10 spaces are required.
I am not clear as to the future redevelopment plans of the two
parcels. Off- street parking is required for the increment of
expansion occurring on a site.
There are two mechanisms that enable a reduction in parking:
a) Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission -
parking may be reduced if the applicant makes a one -time only
payment of $15,000 per space required.
b) The HPC may reduce required parking for Historically
Designated parcels, however this parcel has not received landmark
designation.
3. Open Space - According to Section 3 -1 of the Code, the
definition of Open Space is: any portion of a parcel or area of
land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to
the sky...and similar areas which provide visual relief from the
mass of buildings.
It is the staff's opinion that the open space on the property
meets the code's definition and is, therefore, non - conforming
open space. This includes the area between the two principal
buildings. While this definition does not preclude the
construction of the proposed entrance connection, it does require
the property owner to mitigate lost open space through cash -in-
lieu. The lost open space includes both the area which is
developed and the area which no longer can be viewed from the
street.
There are 2 processes to reduce the required amount of open space
on site:
a) the Board of Adjustment
b) Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission - if it
is determined that a reduction in open space is appropriate than
the applicant shall make a payment -in -lieu.
As a recourse to this staff interpretation you may seek a
Planning Director's interpretation and follow that with a request
to the Council.
I hope this has answered your questions. Please call me if you
would like to discuss specific points of my interpretation.
S),ncerely,
CL /Qiiej
Leslie Lamont, Planner
cc: Amy Margerum
Tom Baker
Bill Drueding
Roxanne Eflin
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: C V, cc-'" g
1 ` I
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: yt S - - Q k/
�J Q /�
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
(l
OWNER'S NAME: 31) ; (L&) hte,t 2 n
kU UMMARY i � I
m I
1. Type of Application: 1 ` �� �j :.�L. �� �;
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
11 E _IA AAAk& : . !t .r &e! —. . ► I 1
i - O W .` iA $s kin.aa
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
. .. -
, OPAC r C9u-0-,. 4
4. Review is: (P &Z Onl ) (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: ES) (NO)
6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: z4
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: / r7 f.cS 35
8. Anticipated date of submission: 1J 1)f q` it )
9. CO u ENT U4 QUE C +NCE' j.: 9
frm.pre_app
�k r� 1. ,`
V.2,„ V�
MEMORANDUM i
TO: Leslie Lamont, Cj. er
ow—
FROM: Bil, Drueding, C ty Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: November •, 1989
RE: Guido's Swiss Inn
On October 11, 1989 and October 13, 1989, I made a visual
inspection to determine the number and classification of units at
Guido's Swiss Inn, 403 South Galena and the building at 425 East
Cooper Street. The following is a summation of the current
conditions.
GUIDO'S - 403 SOUTH GALENA
Ground Floor - Restaurant, bar, dining room, etc.
Basement - Prep area, storage, mechanical, etc.
Second Level - Three lodge rooms
One unit currently has a living area, on office, and two
bedrooms. This unit obviously also had a kitchen and would,
therefore, have been considered a dwelling unit. It still
contains a refrigerator, a kitchen sink and kitchen
cabinets, but no stove. The stove has been removed.
Under the current moratorium, this would constitute an
illegal demolition of a dwelling unit by removing the stove
in a multi -unit building. I am unable to determine whether
this unit was technically demolished prior to the
moratorium. The applicant has provided affidavits stating
that there was no kitchen facility, not stating the time.
Someone has to decide whether this is sufficient proof that
a dwelling unit was not demolished during the moratorium.
Third Level - Two lodge rooms with a common bath.
425 EAST COOPER
Twelve lineated parking spaces, not necessarily to Code.
Basement - Five lodge rooms and storage for the upper
commercial space.
Main Level - Commercial space.
Second Level - Two two - bedroom dwelling units, one three - bedroom
dwelling unit and one lodge unit.
In looking at the site, I would consider the area between the two
buildings as open space. It is being argued that since a trash
dumpster is in the front on the Cooper Street Mall, the area is
trash access and therefore, not open space. I disagree and feel
that the site should be looked at by Planning and possibly the
Commission.
cc: Joe Wells
w.. ✓ �.� es' ✓ - V ICJ (
die--e0 ti
December 2, 1989 W1\,C-12■
Joe Wells
Do & W
Doremus & Wells
608 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Joe:
This letter is in response to your letter dated November 21,
requesting a staff interpretation of the Land Use Code.
As I understand the situation, you seek clarification on three
issues: areas which are considered open space, off - street
parking, and the common lounge above the restaurant.
Having reviewed your letter and Bill Drueding's memo, and
completing a site visit with Bill, I have the following
interpretation.
1. Lounge Area - Thank you for the affidavits from current and
past tenants. I shall disregard the one that begins June 1989 as
the moratorium was in full swing by then. However, the others
are documentation enough that the lounge has not included a
"kitchen" for many years.
2. Parking - Yes, I agree that the twelve existing parking spaces
are non - conforming. I also concur that, excluding the trash
service spaces, there are 9 legal spaces. A rough calculation, 2
spaces /1000 square feet, indicates that 10 spaces are required.
I am not clear as to the future redevelopment plans of the two
parcels. Off - street parking is required for the increment of
expansion occurring on a site.
There are two mechanisms that enable a reduction in parking:
a) Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission -
parking may be reduced if the applicant makes a one -time only
payment of $15,000 per space required.
b) The HPC may reduce required parking for Historically
Designated parcels.
3. Open Space - According to Section 3 -1 of the Code, the
definition of Open Space is: any portion of a parcel or area of
land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to
the sky...and similar areas which provide visual relief from the
mass of buildings.
Using the test of minimum frontage and depth, as you have
suggested, I believe defines the open areas around the restaurant
t
as non - conforming open space because it does not meet the minimum
frontage standard. i would argue that the restaurants open space
along Cooper Street meets the minimum depth of 10 feet. I do not
believe that the trash area compromises the open space between
the two buildings for two reasons: first, the trash area clearly
is tucked next to the restaurant under the second floor balcony -
type overhang removing it from the open space and secondly the
trash area for the restaurant is non - conforming because trash
areas must abut the alley.
There are 2 processes to reduce the required amount of open space
on site:
a) the Board of Adjustment
b) Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission - if it
is determined that a reduction in open space is appropriate than
the applicant shall make a payment - -in -lieu.
In the case of the connecting walkway and elevator shaft as
planned between the two buildings, the payment -in -lieu will
reflect the amount of open space that will be lost to the
development.
As a recourse to this staff interpretation you may seek a
Planning Director's interpretation and follow that with a request
to the Council.
I hope this has answered your questions. Please call me if you
would like to discuss specific points of my interpretation.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lamont, Planner
cc: Amy Margerum
Tom Baker
Bill Drueding
Roxanne Eflin
Doremus &weLLs
an association of land planners
• — ❑
November 21, 1989
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
My letter is to provide you with information regarding the Guido
Meyer Property to try to resolve with Planning Staff certain
issues remaining unresolved following Bill Dreuding's letter
dated November 14, 1989 (attached).
Bill inspected the two buildings on the property in mid - October.
During that inspection it was clear that we disagreed with Bill
on three issues. These issues have to do with areas within the
site which are considered open space, with the existing parking
provided on -site and with a bar area in a common living area
above the restaurant.
1. Open Space
Technically speaking, it is doubtful whether any of the open
areas on the site meet the strict definition of open space
because of the two tests for minimum frontage and minimum depth.
If these two tests are applied together, none of the existing
open areas both "have a frontage on the street (the mall, in this
case) of one half of the lot line facing the street or 100 feet,
whichever is less" while being "at least 10 feet in depth from
the street" (see attached Site Plan).
Along Galena, this would require continuous frontage of 50 feet;
the two areas along Galena have a frontage of approximately 22
feet and 14 feet. Along Cooper, 75 feet would be required; there
are two areas with 62 feet and 5 feet of frontage along Cooper.
Overlooking the frontage requirement for the moment, other areas
within the site cannot be called open space because they are
presently used for off - street parking and trash service areas
which are specifically excluded from inclusion in Open Space by
definition (Article 3). These are the areas to the south of the
business building and the area between the two buildings.
■
608 east Nyman avenue 0 aspen. colorado 81611 o telephone: 303925 -6866
•
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
November 21, 1989
Page Two
A dumpster is presently provided outside the restaurant kitchen;
trash pickup can be handled either from the alley or the mall,
depending on the crew handling pickups, as the area between the
buildings is paved.
The dumpster for the business building is stored on the southwest
corner of the site, on the westernmost of the sub - standard sized
parking spaces.
Since the existing project is non - conforming with regard to the
amount of open space provided, the issue is whether the area
between the two buildings is open space.
The owner plans to propose a corridor to connect the two
buildings, to improve the service function for the project. This
would not be possible if the area between the two buidlings is
defined as open space, as such a proposal would worsen the
non- conformity.
We suggest that it cannot be called open space, however, since it
is clearly used as a trash service area secondarily the area
fails the test for minimum frontage along the street.
2. Off- street parking
A total of twelve off - street parking spaces are presently striped
to the south of the business building. As noted previously the
westernmost space is used for the storage of the dumpster for the
business building and the easternmost space is used from time to
time for trash pickup. In addition, the spaces are
non- conforming as to width; they are 8 foot spaces and the code
requires spaces to be 8 1/2 feet wide (Section 5 -302).
Excluding the two end spaces, only 9 legal spaces can be provided
in the present parking area.
3. Bar area above restaurant
Above the restaurant, there is presently a common living area
which serves as a lounge for the bedrooms on the second and third
floor of the restaurant building.
As Bill acknowledges in his letter, there is a sink and a refri-
gerator in one corner of the common room, but there is no stove.
The tenants of the building, who are generally employees of the
7 b
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
November 21, 1989
Page Three
restaurant, can store perishable food in the refrigerator; they
are also permitted to use the cooking facilities in the
restaurant at certain times of the day.
We have provided Bill with several affidavits (copies of which
are attached) from tenants in the building extending back as far
as 1977 attesting to the use of the common room and the absence
of full kitchen facilities as defined in Article 3.
We are seeking confirmation that the affidavits are sufficient
evidence for staff to conclude that the lounge does not include a
kitchen.
Give me a call at 925 -8080 as soon as possible if you need any
additional information, regarding any of these issues. We would
like to get a ruling at Staff level as quickly as we can; this
has been under discussion for some time.
e gards,
/ Joseph Wells, AICP
JW /b
Enclosures
C7- ❑
�� mr
STATE OF ead` )
Y ) ss. AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF )
THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT certifies that he or she was a
resident in the building known as Guido's Restaurant, as
delineated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, during the period
from 3uW� 1 a 1 to e 4c.2 , and has personal
knowledge that:
1. The second -floor room at the southeast corner of the
building was used as a common lounge area for the use of all of
the residents of the rooms on the second and third floor of the
building.
2. There was no kitchen facility, except for a sink and
refrigerator which was available for the storage of perishable
items by the residents of the building.
3. The residents were permitted to use the cooking
facilities in the restaurant, during specified times of the
day, when they wished to prepare meals.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
STATE OF C �A��.. k -. )
ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
VNY" day of meAe - -,rf , 1989, by v.\c-a4
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
N ar c X `
\meyer \tenant.aff
STATE OF C-0,' )
�D ss. AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF /' )
THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT certifies that he or she was a
resident in the building known as Guido's Restaurant, as
delineated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, during the period
from 1003 \Vr \`l0� to ?ttX2 C , and has personal
u.
knowledge that:
1. The second -floor room at the southeast corner of the
building was used as a common lounge area for the use of all of
the residents of the rooms on the second and third floor of the
building.
2. There was no kitchen facility, except for a sink and
refrigerator which was available for the storage of perishable
items by the residents of the building.
3. The residents were permitted to use the cooking
facilities in the restaurant, during specified times of the
day, when they wished to prepare meals.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
gLett
STATE OF C.Th\ c r. )
ss.
COUNTY OF z44 )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
\ -' of `:r\h,r- , 1989, by c_ C.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Not iy_Pub11ic NN
\meyer \tenant.aff
. �
STATE OF 64 )
�
/� ) ss. AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF /' / )
THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT certifies that he or she was a
resident in the building known as Guido's Restaurant, as
delineated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, during the period
from 31/t/ S> to /9t'�`/I 8, , and has personal
knowledge that:
1. The second -floor room at the southeast corner of the
building was used as a common lounge area for the use of all of
the residents of the rooms on the second and third floor of the
building.
2. There was no kitchen facility, except for a sink and
refrigerator which was available for the storage of perishable
items by the residents of the building.
3. The residents were permitted to use the cooking
facilities in the restaurant, during specified times of the
day, when they wished to prepare meals.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
STATE OF )
ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
\'t day of r,V (- , 1989, by \1,,:, 5,As?v
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
9 is \ �,;
\meyer \tenant.aff
STATE OF a/c/ )
7- ) ss. AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF �f�G )
THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT certifies that he or she was a
resident in the building known as Guido's Restaurant, as
delineated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, during the period
from RR to PCB- €s—''r , and has personal
knowledge that: t @4 a\t(?wt occoptl*c '-?
1. The second -floor room at the southeast corner of the
building was used as a common lounge area for the use of all of
the residents of the rooms on the second and third floor of the
building.
2. There was no kitchen facility, except for a sink and
refrigerator which was available for the storage of perishable
items by the residents of the building.
3. The residents were permitted to use the cooking
facilities in the restaurant, during specified times of the
day, when they wished to prepare meals.
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. AA AA II
STATE OF C ,A-,s— K )
ss.
COUNTY OF C ,\ e
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
\�k day of , 1989, by CX , c N . x,
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary ubti S
\meyer \tenant.aff
Aspen /Pitk %� , �;_ ning Office
130 s iL j T t 4 k ? a l , �:;. street
c 2,p
aspe � 81611
crs
April 12, 1989
Mr. Richard R. Arnold
The Brand Building
205 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Dick,
This letter is written in response to your letter dated April 6,
requesting an interpretation of the Aspen Municipal Code. The
subject of the interpretation is whether Lot C, Block 88, Aspen
Townsite constitutes required open space for the Collins Block.
The situation you have described for me is as follows. The area
in question has been used in connection with the Aspen Supply
Company for many years. It has been used for merchandising,
storage, parking, service delivery and trash. Affidavits have
been submitted certifying some of these uses since at least 1969
Section 3 -1 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations indicates that open
space areas shall not be used for any of the above purposes.
Therefore, I find that the subject area does not meet the
definition of open space. However, the finding that this area
does not meet the definition of open space is not conclusive as
to whether there is an open space requirement on the property.
For me to judge whether the property has an open space
requirement, I would also have to know whether or not any land
use applications have been submitted for the entire property
since the adoption of an open space requirement in the Commercial
Core zone district. If so, was an open space requirement
established at that time? I suggest that when you submit a
development application for the property, you provide written
verification of whether or not any prior land use actions
established an open space requirement for the property.
If you can demonstrate in your application that no area of the
site . either meets the definition of open space or has been
determined through a prior approval, to se — open space,__"then
there is
there required open space on the property "whicc must be
replaced. In this respect, I agree with your position that the
lot is nonconforming as to required open space and this
nonconformity is permitted to continue. However, I believe the
Commission must require open space to be provided if an
application for development of Lot C is submitted.
I find that Lot C is an undeveloped portion of the entire
property (except for any structures which exist) which has been
used in conjunction with the principal use. Should development
be proposed on Lot C, 25% of the undeveloped area must be
provided as open space, or a fee in -lieu of this requirement must
be paid. Otherwise, given the increased land development, the
property would`increase in nonconformity, which is not permitted
by the Code.
I hope this clarifies the staff position for you. I regret any
incorrect signals you may have received from us in the past.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Flo //n
lan Richman, AIC
Planning Director
cc: Tom Baker
Fred Gannett
Bill Drueding
Cindy Houben
arnoldltr
•
ASPEN *P11 IN REGIONAL BUILDING )EPARTMENT
130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 91611 303/986- 2
/0/1/ 1
BUILDING INSPECTION CHECK LIST
Inspection Reinspection Partial Complete Permit No.
STEEL _ ELECTRIC _ PLUMBING _ MECHANICAL _ BUILDING
Footings Temp Underground Rough _ R -Frame
Cassions _ Underground _ Waste &Vent Flue(s) Insul.
Wall Swim Pool _ Water Pipe F.P. Flue(s) — Drywall
Wall Cores _ Rough Gas — Combust. Air — Special
Struct. Slabs Service _ Final Final Mobile Home _
Damp Proof Final _ Fire Air Cond. — Final _
Sprinklers
Foun. Insul. Kitch. Hood — Zoning
Found. Drain FIRE LIFE& SAFETY —
Accepted As Noted Reinspection Fee $30.00 Yes No No. Bdrms.
Rejected You ai ordered to make the •Ilowing corrections on the construction which is now in progress.
r
l/ - jV ( ,. / It I .ii L le- w LA A ..
i
Instructions to Inspector
Kitchen Tub_ Shower_Lay. W.C. Ice W. Bar Tub /Shower_ Jacuzzi
Bidet Hose Bib Laundry_ Clothes Washer_ Hot Tub_ D.W._ Jacuzzi w /Shower
City_ C /q .inty Time of Arrival Time of Departure
Address f(19 Sr i -t/L1e( Phone Job Office
Subdivision Request Rec'd
Date Time Name
Contractor Request for M T W TH F A.M. P.M. Time
Owner Date Insp Inspector
Indanandanca Prans Inc Rev. 7/88
•
2 C i s
� w s=ue
•
d -
\
C Y\ I A A4 r ;
g cs tirr
✓ j
n (\
1 � T-- V
4
c 0'1
ei Div
c#1
CcA
ll
I S f . /Pfira ChtvvivWe(,j
it(A/4
i
1
■
S
1
\ , ,.-.,
c . ) e —x }
2 / A ' @i'LG
lb
ri
qP-fifivi- ,
1 / �
1,9 ael ,
I ,
t `_ l
6 14.4. 16 1
C
r e
_ 1‘ .
Hz T
La A (3 _ _ 1 _
S t
S
4
t .
Or
as
1 r
X /CI
"11.1111111111111111W .
. r tb
z
i
•
9. �f . , .
. •
Lop. , :
, .
glatc,
..
_ - ^W- _ . -
_ , 1
4
.- �: � .
r- ' , .. ••.: i • iii " . .. - ' -;P741 - " 1'.
9
1 - '7,.. . S .! r' s ° r
i
.
—.1114411 imillo
Y
Si:
Z Z8I - LCL�Z Ma ?nag
asn uT a usuD .zoj -
uuI ssTms s
I