Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.gm.403 S Galena.A5-90 - Guido's Swiss Inn
Guido's Swiss Inn GMQS Exemption for Change in Use and Special Review 2737-182-21-004&005 A5-90 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER Name! C-) / C(0 11f ^' fiv Address: l�� ox � 77 / -1j Check # J 7 Additional billing: 0 -00 SUBTOTAL TOTAL V 06 Phone: Project: 1 tj,,Gly Date: J #of Hours: ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113-63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 00125 00123 00115 County 00113 00125 00123 00113 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 REFERRAL FEES: -63340-205 -63340-190 -63340-163 -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63450-146 REFERRAL FEES: -63340-205 -63340-190 -63360-143 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113-63080-122 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATION9�( ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS))) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Q ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL Name: 01 t1 1C) +Ts-vl �1�v, - Address:1799 Check # Additional billing: Phone: S — r ' 7S Project: a�_, '�C� V� S �j�'l 1 1� S Date: _ C/U 5/7Fci4 *of Hours: V y w uu 7 Q f , I f �4 k rvofhk6t�rt,x�iP/arri�-- f 0 r NT F— r-L t LA%; �rT A uf-� A NI T L E V i. L "P LA NI N 0 5 � o zo so r f G. K � TA 1 l- L-T-=u E {_._ f'�A N ASEMIf- / ) L u ASP EN PE J g 1 �ovM� � Po KM f4x�4 fi_ 1 KF-T�\I L- I ""o UI]I�D�t�C�C OLD IRA, 00 t • a 5 10 2� 30 PLA.`�TL IJOl1G j-,Kj wo�2G To kkma Y= -rLKRA GVTTA 1-t,KKN C-Orra STt1Lc-o -- r [Do"s COLORADO l 1. MF-TnL Cq L, #%7 S f-L-OWF�ie xJDop - �u Sri Nq C:ooPC�-rsc sT. ��tf-vAT 1 0 q fLANT� CAI- ?.lA ST. LF- VT1 0{Z CvG T•k-; M - -r rr. AL1-EY F- -E V ",T I Cl 9 e.OTf A -RiM- T` fF' YXirE,S c.,v -''LA6TT�-K (ILASS -Wood to MA7c.n �k;sT�tac.i •f'l.As T�� • F L <. G s T o �.L� •PL�IT'�R MARCH Y-0199 D 15 Io 20 3D 1 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 1/23/90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-21-004 & 005 A5-90 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: Guido's Swiss Inn GMOS 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 APPLICANT: Guido Meyer Th V, 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 OPIES RECEIVED: 3 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Datea7Z 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. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other_ Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. �" � 4�< � INITIALS: DATE REFERRED: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL? City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: - 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. reviewed and approved by Planning shrubs, paving stones and exposed included in the open space areas. jtkvj/guido.close A landscape plan has been whereby planters, trees, aggregate paving shall be SNOWMELT AGREEMENT GUIDO MEYER, OWNER OF LOTS E,F,G,H, & I, BLOCK 90, CITY OF ASPEN, AGREES TO INSTALL AN ENTRAN SNOWMELT SYSTEM AROUND,;HE TRASH STORAGE AND PICKUP AREA PROPOSED OFF THE ALLEY. GUIDO MEYER 90 �)VNk\ww'f k rz�� mq-- mpvz\�t'o V L-p� � �`tJ�'S3 Tb K�J�P St�JdUJ � '�-►�J�� o ##323266 06. ,/9C) 15:01 Rec $15.00 ELK , PG 87 ` Silvia Davis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc $-00 OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT JUIN - 810 FOR AFFORDABLE RESIDENT DWELLING UNITS THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this fo P_�ay of SV U.)1E- , 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, & I, Block 90, City of Aspen, Colorado ("Real Property"), which Real Property shall contain thre DQFm Rooms, Dorm Room One being 148 net livable square feet at �1E Cooper, Dorm Room Two being 154 net livable square feet at Z �/2- E. Coo er! and Dorm Room Three being 149 net livable square feet at Z 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. #3.^_32?6 6/(-)6/9(--) 15:01. Rec $15.00 622 PG 88 Si.lvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.iii� 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: • #3232�66 06/0_ _ .00 15: 01 Fec $ 15. 00 BV" 62_ . 'G 89 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.0(-) STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ���.� , 1990, by Go, kv \4\ ✓� Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: goy . KA PPE.�,f I P.RY C, o N o t a --Pub ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. HOUSING)AUTHORITY OF/'HE CITY OF ASPEN AND FIT I N COUWi"Y� COLORADO BY: TITLE: I/ Ma\�d`�jitAd ress : 39551 HighwayU82 ;�Q�, •••• -�� Aspen, Colorado 81611 35TT`� '''�OLORADO ) • -4 -t- ) SS. £ r /n-%CPT.TKIN ) tj a fore o'ng instrument ack owledged fore me this day of 19� by o Witness hand and official seal. o My commission expires: c,�//y/3 Notary Public Um; • 9 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 04 BLEMS ARIS THEY WILL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER, �U DO EYER D E W RESOLVE THEM WITH BFI. % BFI VAGEN T NY AGNEUR GUIDO MEYER DATE: � � DATE: �r CIT-Y.04ASPEN 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-920-5042 Cit ` ' ncil 303-920-5199--nnistration 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 _his - -Or 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 INNSTALL SUFFICIENT DRAINAGE AREAS TO CONTROL RUNOFF DATE GUIDO MEYER STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF N ) THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT certifies that he or she h s een an employee of BFI Waste Systems during the period from 3 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 thq truck. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of �k , 1990► by WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: �c_C� N Not\ A , I3\0 MAY 2 3 W M� x I' � 1 LF I 7921 3 II � I j Ws �71'lVOiY � I x 7922.8 I I 1 I I PARKIN AREA I, i I 7925.2x I I • I I i d i J xL 7923.4 x 7921.3 08-0 110 W1 T!ZAN5F0(ZMER f�OX put --- > - 4G_OCATED A I CANT STRIP ! — Ta -X SY G-AS-E-E'R4, L.OGA71pN% - - - 4E_CCATEP 1 { �U t , � 'J T!� -- -- - - — — ' _ RD RIP R c w i�.'� i 4 G O o V. 7 1 i } I i au'�)0 5 I Cy N ---1 w .. ROOF ACLESS o I W 5 7A 1#2S A 5; G'G ' o --- - --- i _ 1 FLUE E ---- _ - =0R DETAIL SEE I` r � = h r-ANOSCA c V - --- - - �- SHEET •aCo.4 PkD Rn, 2p - i 6ZI-2,21i J58� Z)C'5 ADc:71Cl-! 3uSINESS �t_DG. r�yOVF4� ON al-os. RE.NcVAT,O! 4 COOPER AVENUE 0 _RAl- NO-_S V K.: Y A__ A- vd V, Issue: THE PUPT'OSE OF THIS Dl W G r OKT TO GRAiJY DEPICT THE GEWJM NAr„RE OF THE wDw T14 Cowl TOR 6 PEVV"IMI FOR COKMG D"B[.OIC, MO SEIECTM FA&MATION PPCCESM ND TECHNIOM OF A16ig1Ci%Xl THE Mp"IECT S44U SE NOTFHI OF Mry VA TOO FROM THE DNADiSM N CDNDn l6 F O^ SY ro* DR wm SITE PLAN `l[t' 7 1990 n01r:7ic.: Scale: %Bu ' 1- Ou CJ u `D. 5TR. 51-AR7 aE_7'4c.�25! s • 0 ` UP`ER 121fJGE EL.7`ld°I_�gl .._ : 1: 1-Del \ �DWcR RIDGE �L.7`igg (oil 1271 o'lIbu TAL`JTASEA LIGH•TS•, Y � t'IE�Ck� �EL'D, MTL, �. i I ZODF W/ STANDING MTL. BEAM M I! „I q. 4- 1r \ ! - -- - - - --. -_ \-- PV r1cS - - _ - _- - - - --- ------ -\ _ -- .NEW EEL- L y2 � Fj %7 UGC C f ill i � •� - ;' - � on �") � I �\/D. -TRIM-- � ' . I O j - — EXI�SG �� TC �EIW`Iri �m 1� G-PROF 0 O I A _�2 \ I -- --- - I-T a 0-,z Z 1 SOUTH ELEVATION -- -- - - i ADZ 3 1 I li - — — -- -- — -- -- — -- -- - --- -- -- --- -- --- — — -- — — — — — .— J _ <vu UW Ei_ 7occ II\-- - - � �_.A` A�. :Ni' v— �% \_ �!"` ADD� F"— •\A^ ` ._ Aee S =p� A \\\�r�—JA J 77 �i Y7- IrT,- -_ ec+ 'AGE EXIST. WItibW- /' •,-. I V/,�/I�\cW W'D. Wif\vC ' - •, _. _ .__ _ ; �� - - --_ -_ _ _ �:- \�,i I r Ji -- - _ r- NOT FC^ CC;:S T R'JCTICN -1 _L L I I s a- (VER;: !) NORTH ELEVATION I 0�4 a/a4 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO81611 TEL (303) 925-4755 Issue: ' OW.. THE PURPOSE OF THS DF Ar W. 6 OHLV TO GRAPHGIIIT DEPICT THE GF All MATIjE OF TIE WOW THE COOAAC TOR S RESPOI6 FOR COIlHOO D&RAISO , AND SELECTP43 FAMCATKA PFCCESSES AOO TEO46;K" OF 0014TROCTDH THE AROETECT 9 4L uE MOfiED OF AHT VAFIATM FROM THE DSE-SCM NO COMXrK) E SHORN IN THS DRAW GUIDO'S NORTH & SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Scale:' A3ml - WILLIAM JOHN FOSS hi i 1 1• 1 1! NT4 GG1'o11�rE�-- 0 ALLEY 1,G1 31 pll 1 II �j STALLS e B'-G° EA I �,_ pROp�RTY LINE 1T�o.45 , C ---- - - - F- 9 I5OLIAPO . L - ,ARcA - I, -� .-----------T--_-------� � I _ r 9GUpPER R.D. p GALENA 57RET ► ! ARA i II i EXI5TIN6 TIWANBFORMWjt OOX PAINTED ASPHALT f -- 57R I PS >6S SPECD o =o WHEEL STor mI'> (� -_r �_ - �- --- 0 �:A7C DECK BELOW � } i + RC) EXIST ELECTRICAL KELOCATE10 ft EXIST GAS METER`, RMLOCA751V n nn 32' I I �J O �. w �s OETaI Z RC7 R p 4 RD Z \1 o _ O ! r- 7� i f i`i _ t- ram_, 1 1 ROOF AC•L ESS I O a { ` IJ/STAI-RS A$ SMCC, _ Rt� ICJ - - 1 qb RIP pRO�'E TY ALLINE GU10015 AODITION BUSINESS i OLOG• RENOVArON 11 NEW 3LOG. RENOVATION AVENUE 821-2%2° 0^7P'"' " �M G-NERAL NOTES- 1. VERIFY Al-L hIMENeIONS I N 7!- IF,ELO. (D 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORA0081611 TEL (303) 925-4755 SITE PLAN Scale: '/�l!' 1--Oil Fj A1.1 'C' ,910 WIL LIAM JOHN POSS L R C LANDSCAPE PLAN (F-1441 • • s w -'0111•Lj7 �(> - /�' •1'�P�I-1�N�f✓Mh�f Goc<ii HE1.�11' 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPFN. C01 ORAD081611 it I (303) 92.5 4755 Issue: r ME PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWM IS ON 1 TO GMPH",, DEPICT THE GENERA NATURE OF TK WOW THE CONT UC TOO S RESPONSELE FOR COW"" DMFNSIOPS AM SELECTM FABPX:AT" PROCESSES A TEgNOUES OF CONSTFKX 1[MI. ME NRWIMCT SN dE HOTTED OF .Nr ,A Tlow FROM ME OWNSKM AND C ftjoW SHDNN RV MIS DRANNG I—] LANDSCAPE 10 PLAN il Scale: �.0 � �'-©�I Limi �n WILLIAM JOHN POSS Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 (303) 920-5090 Joe Wells Doremus & Wells 608 E. Hyman Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Guido's Open Space Dear Joe, May 15, 1990 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, !'�ZZ �✓l�t%Z� Kim Jo son Planner jtkvj/guido.letter ki IWIDOW,col �►l�Iilul 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 (5001) 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. Revisions incorporated through August 14, 1989 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission /4417 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 printed. -Mo.L 5qe, TAA,�, ------------------------------ ------------ pending at the time this emmoo� a STAFF COMMENTS: GMOS Exemption for changes in use: Section 8-104 B.1.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." C BFI prefers not ollection more to have trash areas enclosed difficult. The trash area as it makes proposed is a recessed between buildings, lessening visibility from across `2v~ 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." ,e 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 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 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 281. 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: "have a frontage on the street of one half of the lot line facing Sthe 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 c o o P E R q v E N U E a D OO ' S S u T E pUQa is, COLOR&IDO d-k'=.W" A"w 0A"LMLNT LLVLL TLAN RC TAIL LCVLL TLAN �fikAVAO-' SU ►W) W C,, C�MQDOO'� ASPEN', C®LM v C S T A J R A 1J T LLVLL T L A M MARC as F. let) ..� to .. VA ASPEN COLOR ADO � • b !o nAcc T—f TuK� I ®R Q D coo r c r ST. t LL`/^T I o " (� ALr-W A, 5T. T-- LEv A I o K ALLE-Y ELE vA T I G µ T 151ofdto] eis]aZilui TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 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 Aspen/Pi1 130 s January 3, 1990 a S p e Mr. Joe Wells Doremus & Wells 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Joe: ing Of f ice treet 81611 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. Sincerely, / Leslie Lamont, Planner cc: Amy Margerum Tom Baker Bill Drueding Roxanne Eflin f ilill :1111IB II�#AlIfV�I ����� III IIP�J'•fl IWIN1► 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 9 I II 1LL -- ---------- `--- i--� I I ... r„qc+ I 1 2 3 \ 2, 4 13 12 4 5 r- 5 L/-------- 6 2 II 12 - 7 * 1 8 �� ) 12 4 3 1 9 1 3 ;0 4 3 GILBERT ST 12 4 5 'I 13 JUNIATA ST, 9 5 15LA 5 1 14 9 3 15 4 10 10 6 '16 p HILL ST. 7 SNARK ST. i2 8 7 18 14 2 ; 19 2 IT if a-- H" 1 ♦ I ��, I 3 I SUMMIT ST. ; I ; 12 13 T ASPEN6PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM i To: Kim Johnson Planning Office From: Bob Nelson I Environmental Health Department Date: March 22, 1990 OR 2 319 lfi 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 water provided This conforms requiring such the municipal compensate the project. AIR QUALITY• There is no has agreed to continue to serve the project with by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code projects "which use water shall be connected to water utility system". Again the tap fees should City for additional expected water usage from the indication of the number of fireplaces and 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 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. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth, Engineering Department i, , 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 TING SQUARE F=AGE 0'S BUSINESS BUILDING Basement 5 Lodge rooms Circulation, Mech., & Storage Subtotal: Ground Level Commercial/Retail Circulation Subtotal: Second Level Residential 2 2-BR Units 1 4-BR Unit Circulation Subtotal: TOTAL FOR BUILDING: RESTAURANT BUILDING Basement Commercial/Bakery Circulation, Mech. & Storage Subtotal: Ground Level Commercial/Restaurant Circulation Subtotal: Second Level 5 Residential Dorm Rooms Circulation Subtotal: Third Level 2 Residential Dorm Rooms Circulation TOTAL FOR BUILDING: SUMMARY Commercial Residential Lodge Rooms Circulation, Mech., & Storage Total Non- Sq. Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable 1,677 ( 301 1, 376 1, 677 3,380 �@ , 71 -- 5, 057 910 4,147 1,677 4,672 4,672 - 4,672 385 385 -- -- 5, 057 5,057 - 4,672 2,147 2,147 - 2,147 2,744 2,744 - 2,744 350 350 -- -- 5,241 5,241 - 4,891 15,355 11,208 4,147 11,240 300 - 300 300 2,020 - 2,020 -- 2,320 - 2,320 300 2,245 2,245 - 2,245 130 130 -- -- 2, 375 2,375 - 2,245 1,515 11515 - 1,515 100 100 -- -- 1,615 1,615 - 1,515 468 468 - 468 45 45 -- -- 513 513 - 468 6,823 4,503 2,320 4,528 7,217 6,917 300 7,217 6,874 6,874 - 6,874 1,677 301 1,376 1,677 6,410 1,619 4,791 -- 22,178 15,711 6,467 15,768 ( FAR 1.05 :1) PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE GUIDO'S BUSINESS BUILDING Basement lrcu ation, Mech., & Stor. Ground Level Commercial/Retail Dormitory Rooms Circulation, Mech., & Storage Subtotal: Second Level Residential 2 2-BR Units 1 4-BR Unit Circulation Subtotal: TOTAL FOR BUILDING: Total Non- Sq. Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable .7 i 5,894 - 5,894 4,782 4,782 -- 4,782 / O 990 990 -- 990 2 494 494 -- -- 6, 266 6,266 -- 5,772 5,306 5,306 - 5,306 g/ 621 621 -- -- 5,927 5,927 -- 5,306 18,087 12,193 5,894 11,078 22 RESTAURANT BUILDING (Including Connection) Basement Circulation, Mech. & Storage Ground Level Commercial/Retail Circulation Subtotal: Second Level CommercialTRestaurant Circulation Subtotal: TOTAL FOR BUILDING: SUMMARY Commercial Residential Dormitory Circulation, Mech., & Stor. 2,686 -- 2,686 -- 2,009 2,009 -- 2,009 571 571 -- -- 2,580 2,580 - 2,009 2,316 2,316 -- 2,316 5 412 412 -- -- 7,994 5,308 2,686 4,325 9,107 9,107 - 9,107 /S 5,306 5,306 - 5,306 990 990 990 - 10,678 2,098 8,580 -- 26,081 17,501 8,580 15,403 DOMMUS & 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 s. Jose s, AICP JW/b cc: Guido Meyer Gideon Kaufman Kim Wyle 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866 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 q Doremus & weas an assoc,atlon of land planners i January 22, 1990 Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 i 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. I H.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. Sincerlely, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b 608 east Nyman avenue aspen. coiorado 81611 -- te!eprc^e 303 925-6866 t TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. GMQS Exemption for Change in Use 1 (58-104(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, Esc. 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 ( 3 0 3 ) 925-8166 Land Planner: Joseph Wells, AICP 130 Midland Park Place, No. F-2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-8080 I. GMQS 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 58-104(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 S8-104(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 Rousing. Using a generation 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 §5-301(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 buildina. 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 so ft. will be located on the alley side of the connection between the two 4 buildings for the project. 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 a reduction in open space, which requires a payment -in -lieu equivalent to the appraised value of the unimproved land, pendina final resolution of this issue. A reduction in required open space below the minimum requirement of 25% of the site 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 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 buildings. 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 parking 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. 0 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 57-404(A)(3). 0 B. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR REDUCTION IN UTILITY/TRASH SERVICE AREA Under the provisions of 55-211(a)!6), 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 P&Z by Special Review. In order to qualify for Special Review approval for a reduction in the service area, an applicant crust 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 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 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 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. oA.1- (f) Public Notice is not required for Special Review-ef- 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 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 subarade 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- Sa.Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable BUSINESS BUILDING Ba semen t 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 Commercial/Retail 4,672 4,672 - 4,672 Circulaticn 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 Commerci a 1 /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 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 FOC7TAGE GUIDO'S Total Non- Sq. Ft. FAR FAR Net Leaseable BUSINESS BUILDING Basement ircu ation, 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 Cormiercial/Retail 2,009 2,009 - 2,009 Circulation 571 571 - -- Subtotal: Second Level Commercial/Restaurant Circulation Subtotal: 70TAL FOR BUILDIlNS: Commercial Residential Dormitory Circulation, Mech., & Stor. TUrAL: 2,580 2,580 - 2,009 2,316 2,316 - 2,316 412 412 - - 7,994 5,308 2,686 4,325 9,107 9,107 -- 9,107 5,306 5,306 -- 5,306 990 990 - 990 10,678 2,098 8,580 - 26,081 17,501 8,580 15,403 • S �• 1. eo tsAsLM r-NT LEvLL YLAN `jaiy ID O 9 3 ASPEK. COOLGRi�P(D ?CLTAIL LLVLL TLA9 Ke STA Li KA QT LGvL I- PLASL l o 9 D A$E.Mr.. j o U�U IJllL�VUuV� RRAnC.H I ��9® �,r ; s P C �1 9 G ®d T lA D® . 5 ,o 2 so riA'sTv- Wno i1+ u�oo m MwT[h F4 Y -v G-I Tr-xK,\ Sruz� METAL a�wtiti rwl.r,c NAP i�leTFw GooPE>e ST. ELLvA,T 10 4 ALENA 6'r. T LEVATI D tL .- T1:H- TY+ AL.t--E- Y EL_E vAT I o µ C�n.-, vum. TYr. ToriS colTl CFCYrcl2.TAp LR) CK m* CS Te 11Aiui FtisTNc� fee ,Tout W,Mz+c COLORADO 1990 EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATICN FORM 1) Project Name GUIDO'S SWISS INN and BUSINESS BUILDING 2) Project Location 403 South Galena and 425 East Cooper Lots E through I, Block 90, Armen Townsite 3) Present Zoning CC 4) Lot Size 15,000 sf 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Guido Meyyer 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): Fl 8) Conditional Use Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Mountain View Plane Condominiumization Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Final SPA Final Historic Dev. Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Final PUD Historic Demolition Subdivision Historic Designation Text/Map Amendment GMQS Allotment X GMQS Exemption Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq.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 GMQS Exemption for Change of Use and Special Review by The Planning and Zonina Commission 10) Have you attached the following: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents --Y- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application RYPTRTT i 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, / Guido Meyer i GM/b 6 E�HIBIT 3 rG � 99 s{ a ,....�....... er ,..........._ ,r r.. ZDb Dccb, +y 1, w r �LiLt,-too 3r4 Vcrdaa =. �iarrd � ra.o.rarrltItia -4S.- (Ural. ra•r..lr. Outdo Tsul yfef r er o_v d IS tkla r err r cars, r L6 -..# P-: rtrlootaft Tu rr W P+ 7 r .t a s p.t •• r r rrcJ.... r a. r. r Soa dollara and other valuable eonsiderat:a-- --•-^Dctt:+d on r W. -6a P.4 i a. A- r I. t -A r+ ti e..Y rM 7 .• a. rya r..% a. -.W .r..a r 6. A, �.� ..a ►�.'�: v a r..'d ..a a ara 6..r► .G w � �•• •r W W r %. --a Fog. id: r' '•� Y b.. C.-Pk, l 1 tills ri a—.! Late i, I)• O on lloak GO In the e1tY and t*mslte of Asper" tosether with &" LaWrOTearenta :Demon. (�15,20 I}0euaent_7 etaapa atteohed and eeneelle4) TO Ziffi .trl .! ci Tarr ev rw....�....a .A....,......6�.... rr.a.a r u r.�..w•+..rK r i .6• ,.•.de. rd r...r.� .....dr W - - �� 6rr ...1 .••fir �i: er 1 r• yr �d� wl-. 6..rrl di .� _ • e6.a..� r b r/ ..r. � r a. !✓ � r.6t Y M r T4. , .4 -d r 6..6- 6.+vd r.erFa., -.\ .►• b--Ih,...e• .r .Aenrr W IIAY► AND TD SOLD .l. -W /-.. '6-•. 6r>~ w �Od rf r. S„ — ..•�w �. �' �'. rr0 r lk -A � di a 6r...a -Ap 1— Ad lb. r1 p,n J r �►. aea hLau elf , his ►+� .....� -d .+.�„+�. a- e ■ r,�.a aT.a ►.per r+ � "'dr.. J r.r..-.WL. h1/ w . +•� .W., ►.r_Ie. .�+a.�ad he 1a ..n_ ♦ 16. T.r�..b,• e.p.l, r r e.•l ra..t .bur ...f _ ,._ �... r r.++...� . 1.... f. � �J 1. / ri em%l 11 pw -1 I..N ..�/a �r�rd..-`.ts• •►. rr.. Y e*�rrr��!j'h1r� {).�µ-1 orKde. s• ri d. I— d Idall z�e} .d .alr py�.�r" 6.1Zar�.. yL aor«oMM LiebeY 17DP:JYLt'64b-�_T'`•9`' �e ao�Le�'^"iaS-'arty ei Sn w * le u ! t �r+u to 9q full aeeerdlaa to it'. taoor. SnDjeet to LaLpseat of Llsa Oertiflela of L Ty • 98910, Lot I. all, eLleh ler7 G-actor �w/ net rKeialae llao 'Op" 1!b! rase/. , 6-rrr• 7 1 a•-•� .-• hl/ >a�,.d ACC. 1w.•.n r o..6.. Grp �J v ..� r ur t ..� r� ram• .6..rf. v. J r- J r I'' ti p- .6.E w •i wA/a1R AND loe1TT1 DO•L\A 6 wl'7'>y 9uunir. TL rr p-i .J d..+a i.r. `. / b.r>• .. his M++ ..d rJ sr e.r r 7w r... v4ta AW.i and -4 Di-..d Y I%-- d dC rd DO !we A1J RaT/ ow omx&"O. t-•— 1 lar1. r i i1r. , 1 6.JJ 4 . K..- Y r.6a. r ..4 f. ..i .l. ..�.a, t.... r r r r 1. a.•�• w.-. -... rw.r+.r r nr '-� r.--'--- r rti ..e• a-"'..•Hr..... 4i. �1 rd J,6--4 .6. rL Yvr t r ..era r Ae, wl .r..r.. rl IRAL I...5. G-r rf. r 6W rl -t V• W a . A. D. If \) ^ A. J ' rr..T r,6a. KM or OCLASA/O. r O•'�e1 f rltida - - -.. a. 0. a 1. ¢ %.Wbq a...ee•+.� 6r.w e. 6i iTi a♦ 1 itilj A 0�1i/1 t. ■ear's , rok..-- 1 J+. go, 1W no" •ta or Jul, .A.ari! ,.%It* .r+ ?e IL /ed 1....+ 176 PG i77 - - - a 19$� r rr-�+a•r. r •em n. G r s� .....� • r o r... e� .� " -• �-� IV a►- ibi'_ r ••dwr- Mont ms.>. r,.. Law.r r..�s.r.W rrnm-two t...w 00AMR T. fart". a,.r r o+..ak r So a. ,w% and 4QIDO TAWW, t=e2 wn NAME", fb. M nn br e.l Is..rr..rr l a. — -f - . . Toa Dollars and othor ♦alcsbto eonsiderltioss - - - - - - ' ' ate 1. e. er 7 1 r r. N ► 6.s rim b a. mu ree y 1 u..r ... d •.'0 &..r a W." r+.r .d .A—.4.404 r a a••&A a.c�.L ry r1 ..- .+ b nr }-err• — d area• �� el .. ; .W -.a- e.i 6. � �. �, a. rer/ !� A f • W %. a r N&.rt ....ad 6a a . rr a 1 h-.l r...k Mc . 16m.s r s. a-, a n t rr sr.. 10 r.-.t Leta I & I in Rloek " in the City and Tr aasita of Aspoa. (Three Dollars mad thirty tents dwueectary stamps attached and sac=elltd,) TOO&T>a rr a .1 .r+, +. ►. '" - - ...t .rr.•4•^• a....r ►�r< . r rv-s+ �� ar r++...1 ..+iw ` ` r .w+r..ra r.r r1 p+. a.1l r1 a r.+a. r.ra Ab. r A ..d .rr...r r r r p- Y 1 r. !. M rr. r ►.."We. TO RAPS AXD TO VO D C. " F� i... b e bw . 4 6-4.4. d. •'14 r..r y r o. r d r.ti Ws 6i1 rt -do. sr.. Ad d. aA r.. y 1 o. a.. r.& O. himself, his ►a► rw... r1 .iW....� e. • s r�.-r_ i••A 1 r .. .rr � ..ae r..r P.M y / r rod >R li! s > r:..e ..k., ar . s. ar 1 a. — am -a & a..r r s- eo he Is ea dr r a6 p-w- b- r..q.l ■ 1 er4 ..r r...�..W r/ W..ir eer 1 �• - V L.. r V �V rr V d Vd daw- ha p— rJ L.lr rr.4 r r+h bar, A rd Is. w er rt it y.. a L... r .a. ry1.'r46� -Am tr...a,r.�.r..i 1.t•—MW or rw.:.r 216apt a Sartain teed pt tCpaS In haor of � Title Ooaranty Co. of 1T11 vallf, 1t„ Deer dnlo, ibr the eaosas of N,la'lo'Oh to recorded 1n T tiin County rseords en yaps gg53� a $40 !n Look 175 aad k— u document W 54 agr*Awent of rxmn asstDo�vweat M.12;. 1fooanteopak 175, Tla1. p w ��:jng an usl�aat of mats ,a1 ar .a... r.�..r r+r y. ..+ rr.u+•. r+� 1 rr..Y r.n y 1 r. r..1 pr\ his b+. r -do- Y+r + r+ ^.r ►.,lb +6•ae . r Ur �S . r- rw �'•{ �• ...Y ■•r y r ew ar. a...i r ..a 7A LKAX T AND soars= D4710m Dl rrrrwlM fmm/. n wW r..r y 1 a, e.. r.•+ to a r..r .t a. an .d r- ear i c ty„a s..r1 +1 D.a.�1 r Tyr a Oo rdae T. fee and sraAAl i OLAU PXAU l e.�•a w l O. t r�, b. Is. a..r IwrdL .. ►.+T 1 F' _ _ -MV D.d .er-e 60.. 1 r ar ae r rent r+ ••-••6wvd er ...J, ri 4 rJ s.a-.t S. r ..ram 1 7L U 1. r. r...r r.t— r...... 6..► 1 a v..r...r►,dr jai +.r iD» 1 >r O.-Air.+. r•i. .1. 0� » `' 'ti r 41 aaiao/Oasaaaa. r ar.ara !!title r<;. TM a.p•ka We,— — rla.er. �� ►r.... e.. ttal _ y r %� st AU IV :z+'.° Vyr�-~I wbar.►L.1.d OLAZI rt _ •-may _ _ ._ M....d ar lSth drr It. .. fit .Lis rs f Z .: 1r�S _ _►e=-11. j t ' "Qc-' Ai�' xr...�: ._�r�:..:.- - '-emu -ry--�_,r-, 1.p� --_tea-•�.`�p _ _ - ' _ .1 h .1� � � 7��. r�--•r ���. r � �' " wr�r-�1'.t2..^.�iW_ltsS'��� -=6� Y�6 s .. '• 4, / - nerrraed . G Ifteccr— No . .1 -- Record" 589 w-812 QUJTT CLAIM DEED �.! 10489 THLSDEED.Ndrdra ls!_ dayd April .1969. i bets f GUTDO PAUL MEYER Lzd GERTRULE M. MEYER SIIYIA DAVIS of d'r C, Pi tkin —4 st.r of PIT IN cNTT REco"ER Colorado. "am s k and GUIDO'S SWISS INN _-MITED PARTNERSHIP II IZ SS PM 31 a Colorado limit.!•'- %artnership, 1` 't' kc`I'ddmu 42- -!st Cooper Avenue Colorado 31612 ` Ccxur. c I � t'_ (pOf tic P i L k i r. and Srac of Col.rado• parrrcdsi M1� ? WTTNESSETH. Thm do jn~e,. a( &c urrrr of Ten and 00/100-------- _ __ t.: ------------------ r dr re"" rd safTrcrory d vbu a acd7 rkno.kdpd. W e rcwsed. rekased. aol1, wa ------ DOl1�S -J= i re+e pm cm, do Rmi.r. wioc r1_ o-.ry NW QI.Tr CLAIM wo aye `s red OL1TT CW1dFD. rd 6T ' 1.�41 awl•► its ►ein. ucaum .ne .,agft. :i. • � Anc.ct aTl 6C nSk, bdc. narrer� =ar and dcman[ rfci dr parr %) Vee r and to dre M&I property, ari6 I -�` S' iapro�earmrs, if any, ueuaac, h w s rap m dr Cora y d P i t k i n ow star a( 1i Cokxv . dacn�od a blb.z: o- �I _ I Lots H i : in Block 90 in the { City ant: 7vwnsite of Aspen li I r 11� I I ►—bye+-dmffbc*y ,-i East Cooper Avenue and/or I •� �._ 5outh Galena Street TO HAVE AND TO HOLD rM a.rr oprfrr wo a! and arap•Y do gVmwnanc , and pn.rkrn drmrnro bclonp�j or a w"ne dcmuro appcnw irp. am .v sr ester, nik. trrr. mwrr + and rtwm wharso,,,r of the panrorls► crther m lay m equity, ro the oily proper me. bercfir and bcr—w a ar prw%mjt its ►rn and _pm brescr. IN WTTNESS WHEREOF. The r—. , r ►a cs-WJ b deed — dw dale xt 4.th atx c r•.r•ia M. Meyer uy o Paul Meyer STATE OF 1—_6---D0 n Co yd - _ _[_^ The forrpcwnj iNwrMM .0 ac'iro. c;-_ x(cxr rrr ns ,� drl rd April . 1989 by Guido Pdul Meye:- - Gertr_de Y.. Meyer. +fy corrruron apm t1 - . . IY•� , W'nncss my her,: anJ dhc ul real. �•y ,� r rU ,G c .t �•� op c°`f ,ter Na t17, be. SMf. gm n oat team rr.. •..r.r sr .. � r �...r On Kcit _ r r t Ur I x 7911.2 I I" � � ��.J � � Q w' //6 0 • I 7921.3� I i i I i i Ge/�GY�s c�U/ems I I bi � I x 7922.8 x I � 7923.4 - I PARKINAREA I 7925.2x I I I -- I d�- x7921.3 x Aspen/Pi1 130 January 3, 1990 a S p e Mr. Joe Wells Doremus & Wells 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Joe: ing Of f ice treet 81611 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. f 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. Sincerely, Leslie Lamont, Planner cc: Amy Margerum Tom Baker Bill Drueding Roxanne Eflin 11 CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: ,,�� 44 MMARY �l �I 1. Type of Application: \,lw-�1i{ `� `�V, 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 4. Review is: (P&Z Onl ) (CC Only) (P&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: ES) �,_(NO), u� 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: / YO-LS S - 3cj 8. Anticipated date of submission: tj )) I C frm.pre_app x .4L (�� MEMORANDUM I TO: Leslie Lamont, Ci-ty-P-1-anher 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 buildings as open space. It is dumpster is in the front on the trash access and therefore, not that the site should be looked Commission. cc: Joe Wells consider the area between the two being argued that since a trash Cooper Street Mall, the area is open space. I disagree and feel at by Planning and possibly the .t . .., a. tk ... .. ...... ....:..:..onnt .yaic:..a ate.. ..... at�o:•: • .. , .... c•e......;.gUtX>:!...:.to:M::..........;: u..•y..1?f7p r December 2, 1989 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, 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 0 as non -conforming open space because it does not meet the minimum frontage standard. I the along Cooper Street meetslthe rmginimumtdepth roftants lorfeet.open space do not believe that the trash area compromises the open space Ibetween 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 DOMMUS &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 fron the street" (see attached Site Plan). Along Galena, this would require the two areas along Galena have feet and 14 feet. Along Cooper, are two areas with 62 feet and 5 continuous frontage of 50 feet; a frontage of approximately 22 75 feet would be required; there 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 hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866 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! 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. $egards, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b Enclosures i STATE OF-,°i����6 ) f� ) 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 _-Suysy_ \ ko b, to PR-FC z% -,y 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 �\ day of 1989, by WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary-- Pub c \meyer\tenant.aff STATE OF Co/ram ) 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 WW 1sT to Q ec__Vk 3T and has personal knowledge thati 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 \,,�,-_ day of 1989, by '<- �; _ C _ C- WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Not ry_-Pub \meyer\tenant.aff STATE OF 6;l �" ) p ) ss. AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF /fly ) 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 ���� vl to f� -(I 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 r day of 1989, by WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: �C \meyer\tenant.aff STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF AFFIDAVIT 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 I(� +-�" to PCt ,WART , and has personal knowledge that: w��TC�wT occopm<_"� 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\„Q ss. COUNTY OF cL ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this NL^ day of c , 1989, by '�\ x =.--\ WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary- Public-_ \meyer\tenant.aff Aspen/Pi1 130 s aspe Mr. Richard R. Arnold The Brand Building 205 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dick, SS .31 ning Office ti street i 81611 April 12, 1989 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 determind hgh a ptrioasp-._-__l —to-fe open space,- thenprova there is no require open space on the property which 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, Lan Richman, AIC Planning Director cc: Tom Baker Fred Gannett Bill Drueding Cindy Houben arnoldltr .. ASPEN*P11 N REGIONAL BUILOINC 130 South Oalana Aspan, Colorado 8IS I 9 BUILDING INSPECTION CHECK LIST Inspection Reinspection Partial Complete EPARTMENT 303/925-2020 //, �Sr 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 Sprinklers Air Cond. Final Foun. Insul. Kitch. Hood Zoning Found. Drain FIRE LIFE& SAFETY Accepted As Noted Reinspection Fee $30.00 Yes No I No. Bdrms. Rejected You are ordered to make the (lowing corrections on the construction which is now in progress. 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 my Time of Arrival Time of Departure Address fC� �- .�� Phone Job Office Subdivision Request Rec'd Date Time Contractor Request for M T W TH F A.M. P.M. Time _ Owner Date Insp. Inspector Independence Press, Inc. Name Rev.U88 it C-,-� - CA M�- -- -- -� �� � .y __`� �� -� -- -� �� f� ___ __ -- - - f� ��/✓