HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.iz.CDES Building 1020 E Hyman.1974 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL OAS COMPANY, INC.
P.O.BOX 2059 • ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-2323
z./ ..■ / II ' '' 77
a >
,
//
- 7 --) ,
4
22? 0-"----Z---------:---i -----Z-t2 ....--er•
62-7-,y---e
,
62
/t l_-)- -1--,' ;
7 4j • 2;721:7/6-2-126/1,-4 1
4
.1‘•
1) 17,
C Y...
aspen •.:1 box v
DATE: 2-14-74
Robin Molny
RE: 1020 East Hyman
Block 33 , Lots R & S
This is to say that in the context of the
existing system this area has adequate access
and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION.
Yours truly,
, , /
- - r
William F . Caille
Fire Marshall
TO : THE HEADS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
WATER AND ELECTRIC DEPARTMENTS,
THE FIRE MARSHALL, CITY ENGINEER,
HEAD : . - = ; , , g , 1
AND THE • _ :j , se ,
NATURAL COMPANY
Gentlemen:
I have been retained by Nick Coates, James Daggs and Dale Eubank and Dwight
Shellman to design an office building for their use to be located on the
northeast corner of the block bounded by Hyman and Original Streets.
We are scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission at 5:00 p.m. today
for preliminary approval and, as you know, are required to submit letters from
each of you commenting on the project. I, inadvertently, neglected to solicit
these comments from you earlier and would greatly appreciate your
handwriting them on the accompanying sheet.
Francis Plache, who is presenting this request to you, is in my employ, and
will answer any questions you may have.
S. cer-ly,
It to
0) /
Robin Molny
February 14, 1974
RM/sc
r I 1-4Vg/VG C'Vic' --eac%
—c j` '12p e: 11\—"Lit‘-'(- -rr -
\ 0.tt, ✓ ( ROBIN MOLNY
architect
box 96
Aspen, Colorado
81611
. —
THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Attention: Donna Baer
Box V
Aspen, Colorado
Dear People:
I am writing on behalf of my clients , Messrs. James Daggs , Dale Eubank, Nick
Coates and Dwight Shellman who own lots Q, R and S, Block 104, corner of Hyman
and Original , upon which they contemplate erecting a building in the spring
of this year. We are submitting this letter in conformance with the sketch
plan requirements of Ordinance 19.
The subject lots are located in the C-1 zone on the easterly edge or fringe
of that area designated "Central Area" in the Aspen Land Use Plan. The
proposed uses of the building fall directly within the indication of the plan
that, ". . .resident related commercial , residential , and professional office
uses, should be located on the fringe of the Central Area."
The building as presently contemplated would contain approximately 7000
s uare feet of professional office space for Messrs. Daggs and Eubank who ertified Public Accountants , 3200 square feet of professional office space
for Mr. Shellman, an attorney, 3500 square feet of office space for Mr. Coates '
Aspen Chateaux Properties Management and Real Estate companies , a 1000 square
foot antique shop and a 6845 square foot basement containing mechanical
rooms, storage rooms for the owners and rental space (probably a sculpture
gallery of approximately 4000 square feet) . At the time of this writing a
revision of the sketch plans of the building is being undertaken, which will
alter slightly the space allocations and square footages.
Maximization of the site has been ruled out by the owners; an attempt is being
made to provide, (a) open space in addition to that required by the municipal
code, so placed as to be of benefit to the general public as well as to the
owners , (b) keep the floor area above grade below the allowable, and, (c) to
preserve the view planes by careful locations of the higher portions of the
) building. Meaningful landscaping is a major consideration.
4 , The parking requirement for this project is 15 spaces. We feel that there is
IS(
no question that it is not in the best interest of the owner nor, especially,
the City that all of this parking be provided on site. Therefore, we propose
\
The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission -2- January 8, 1974
to provide five spaces on site and purchase the remainder from the City. To
do this would require a variance and we request of the Planning Commission
their favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment in this matter.
It is the owners ' intention to avoid the complexities of a partnership in
the building by condominiumizing it. Therefore, the building will be subject
also to the subdivision regulations.
pectful ly s b mi tted,
lk)A4/(V\'
Robin Molny
1r
RM/sc
January 8, 1974
ROBIN MOLNY
architect
box 96
Aspen , Colorado
81611
RECORD OF PROCr E[ U.. , 100 Leaves
' Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4 1974
Limelite Lodge Add.1tion Jenkins noted that this was a much les.:; dense use of
Conceptual., continued the land tL. it other buildings, and was less intense
use of the land. Iie further stated that a lodge
could not be supported with much less density.
Schiffer noted that another consideration was the
height and the bulk. He stated that he was unsure
whether consideration of this should be done at this
stage.
Johnson noted that this was the reason for his vote to
table. iie felt he was unsure of what they were talk-
ing about in respect to this project. Barnard sug-
gested going out and taking a look at this project.
Ms. Baer also asked what the Commission would want to
consider in regard to the number of parking spaces
for the lodge. She stated that 27 spaces would be
required, with the 2 to 3 ratio now required by the
code. Schiffer stated that this could be considered
• at another stage.
Johnson made a motion that the Commission table the
• Limelite Lodge conceptual presentation until June 11,
.1974. Seconded by Barnard.
Jenkins asked what was being considered in the motion
to table. It was stated that the only consideration
was to go see the site of the project.
di All in favor, motion carried.
CDES Building - Tabled at request of applicant.
Preliminary Reevaluation .
i
620 Hyman Building Ms. Baer stated that she had informed Kit Mason that
the board was not interested in hearing the same
building plans again. However, Mr. Mason had under-
stood that the board was requesting some figures and
comparisons with the adjacent buildings, which had
been established. Mr. Mason stated that they wished
to present this •information to the board for their
direction.
Schiffer stated that under Ordinance 19, if a project
was denied, the Commission could not reconsider the
disapproval now. The only way it could have been re-
considered would be if one of the members on the pre-
. vailing side of the motion, had .-ade a motion to
reconsider at that meeting or at the next regular
meeting. It was already past the point where the
original building could be reconsidered.
. Schiffer further mentioned that he felt Mr. Mason
• was asking the Commission what they would approve or
disapprove. lie suggested that he turn to the Planning
Office for direction.
Mason stated that he was willing to make some con-
cessions for a building that may• bc7; approved.
Barnard stated that this was the job of the Planning
Office.
-8-
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: CDES Bldg. - Preliminary Review
DATE: 2/19/74
2/14/74 the subcommittee (Smith & Harland) heard a pre-
liminary presentation under Ord. 19 of the CDES Bldg.
and gave approval, conditional upon favorable letters
from utilities , engineering and fire protection.
A model was presented.
Applicants asked about locating a cabaret in the basement.
Baer said the p.o. would be opposed because the bldg. is
in the fringe of the core where intensive uses and uses
generating considerable traffic are not recommended.
Molny, the applicants ' architect asked the committee what
they would think about glassing in of the courtyard, for weather
protection and to accommodate low intensity commercial use
(perhaps a sculpture garden) . Smith and Harland said they
were not opposed if in the future the area was not partitioned
off into a number of multi use, high intensity businesses .
RECORD_) fl1' id s � ,��I� 1�fi' i.ill 700 k...(avos
Regular Meeting Aspen P1ann ;I t ?on ! '; = 3 - — -
i ` 1974
on Thursday 1 ,e wo:r}. , i s s:ion.
• ..I'1�1r
re-
view rn��.,';,. 1 ��! , <,:: � , i, y
Vi.eV,l 01:: till_:.. },t i,l-j,_,�•4c , ... ,view
of
the uses and ey.eptione . y Vagneur .
All in favor , %.H th the , , who was
opposed. Mot. i ,n carr j e i .
CDES Building Robin Molny w a:•; present t ._ ; veloper.s .
Pointed out that t the Oro , t, the cor-
ner of Hyman ::nd . • ; ted plans
of the proposed building
Molny stated that he had .; 1, approval on
behalf of the owners t,]ic ._.ggs , Dale
Eubanks and Dwight Shelt:Jee . they had ap-
peared before the subcom ! ° , _c d the pre-
liminary plans and elevat:ie: >_;:'..i.tted a model
of the project .
Molny pointed out that the I : ,., included a
stair tower , mechanical erei H two handball
courts (proposing that tla-.e _�rship to 30
members) . Also a limited heal space, whic
would be offices with skvl i .;.e d that there
would be 4400 square feet. ;, . which does not
count for floor area ratio.
Molny further pointed out the ' r or_ area ration
allowable would be 18 , 000 see ee Stated that
the building would be some ,n 13 , 500 square
feet and 14 , 500 square feet. ...,
•
( Further stated that due to the - of the client' s
•
• program, need the lesser sc;:le. {tes on the first
and second floor, with the L. r :: ) on the third
•
floor, which gives the opper'::e : ` '_` provide a great
deal of arcade space at stret•'.. . ev . Stated that
each of the owners if provid e ; himself space for
expansion in the future.
Molny stated that the arcade e; ;., zld be 2400 squar
feet at street level .
{ Stated that the second floor e e : e identical to the
r ,
first.
Stated that the third. floor '•ompletely cov-
ered with a building 64 f e ' • . e l.Ch would be thE
Daggs - Eubanl; s space. Sits " flp licant wou:
almost undoubtedly treat the ,i_:' ferently in
the end than the model show: • . Let- Ordinance
#19 makes specific refereiv' arcades .
Molny stated that the open } '` ' I ° 'ed. Ls 2 , 125
square feet, and stated t}i,, t ' ,e ng is , in its
perimeter is r) , 400 square } -' , I 2600 square
feet of open f;p,a :e , in ad;1 i i , r,t; r,rc.:acle .
Molny stated t hat the owne", ft" r "'nervations a-
bout the arcade , due to wint ,H of snow and
ice which get t rapped i_nt() .St:ated that
they had cone lip with the i ��' I WI a
from a certai n point down , r/1j 1 ' !a ,; 1 he open from
-5-
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDMOS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting y Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19 , 1974
the bottom edge down in the summertime and closed in
the winter. Stated that the following idea , which he
is proposing at this meeting, is to glass from the
bottom half way up. Stated that this glass screen
would be permanent. Stated that by definition , this
would not be an arcade. Felt that if it was glassed
in, the owners would feel obligated to rent that space
to uses which are compatible with a professional office
building. Stated the reason they would do that would
be to justify the cost of doing the installation and
heating in the winter.
Vidal questioned what that proposal would do to their
Floor area ratio.
Molny stated it would still be under the necessary
• square footage. Stated that if approval was granted ,
the applicant would like to have the option of renting
the arcade space. Stated that total space, including
the basement would be 20 , 700 square feet or at the
most, 22 , 500 square feet, not including the enclosed
arcade.
Vidal questioned how many square feet would be below
grade and not included in the Floor Area Ratio.
Molny stated that that would be 7 , 200 square feet.
Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office would not sup
port a cabaret in the lower level of the building.
Further stated that all of the referral letters had
come in.
Chairman Gillis stated that at this location, would
favor no parking.
•
Molny stated that that was the position of the appli-
cant. Further stated that the owners would like to
purchase parking and would like the support of the
Commission in the application to the Board of Adjust-
ment. Stated that the owners are willing to provide
12 bedrooms off site.
Molny stated that he felt the answer to the parking
situation was the alley.
Jenkins stated that he felt it was very inconsistent
to consider something which is one block away from the
City Market as not requiring parking and a project
which is half a block away as being a completely dif-
ferent thing.
Vidal stated that he agreed with Jenkins , partially
because this building is further removed from the core
Feel that parking would be appropriate in this locatiol
Molny stated that he felt the automobile was respon-
sible for making Aspen a dirty community , and felt thai
it would be better not to provide parking and let the
problem increase.
Molny pointed out that the owners are willing to cove-
nant the uses of the arcaed space .
-6-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS i n Leaves
Regular Meeting --_Aspen Planning & Zoning IIebruary '_9 , 1974
Molny stated that the applicant would make & proposal
to the Commission about the uses which would be ex-
cluded or included in the arcade space .
Vidal questioned if the applicant was requesting ap-
proval of an enclosed arcade at this point.
Molny stated that that is what the applicant wished.
Eubanks stated that if they were required to provide
on site parking, would not be for employees , but for
clients .
Schiffer made a motion to approve this project at the
preliminary review stage subject working out the re-
view and covenant of the enclosed arcade uses and
that there be no on site parking and that the appli-
cant provide) 12 bedrooms of employee housing. Motion
seconded by Johnson. All in favor, with the exception
of Jenkins who abstained. Motion carried.
Schiffer stated that the reason he made the motion is
that it appears to him that the applicant has satis-
fied all of the pertinent criteria under Ordinance 419
Landry stated that the reason she voted for the pro-
posal was for the same reasons .
Vagneur, too, stated that those were the reasons she
had voted in favor of the motion.
SET PUBLIC HEARING Bartel requested the Commission set a public hearing t
FOR TRAIL SYSTEM consider an amendment to the Trail Plan. Stated that
PLAN AMENDMENT the first date available in which the Commission could
meet the publication requirement would be March 19 ,
1974 .
Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing on
the trail system plan amendment for March 19., 1974 ,
at 5 : 00 p.m. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in
favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing for the zon-
Zoning Code Amendment ing code amendment - 8040 Greenline.
8040 Greenline
Stanford submitted a map showing the surveyed lines .
Bartel stated that at the time the Commission made its
recommendations to Council on the downzoning of Aspen
Mountain, one of the things was included, also a re-
quest of the Planning Office, was that there be a
building permit review procedure along the line.
Bartel stated that the 8040 line does not fit each par
ticular ownership as carefully as it might. It cannot
take into consideration variations in slope, geology,
avalanche, access , etc. . .
Bartel stated that what they have proposed is that , a
part of the downzoning of Aspen Mountain , that there
be a building permit review along the 8040 line . ;Mat(
that the matters which would be considered as part of
the review are outlined in the ordinance , and this is
a follow--up to the Commission ' s initial recommcmdat:ioa
-7-
,
C 7 % ,
■H C- . .
nC):- feel
t.;;,! , 0, -e tra.
bae U tn, ir T
Felt- just like to look oh a
Lhey 6?eide to do with the let .
Paute.c state that v,'hatevc,r too applic.-..nt oeci cc '
do with that lc,t , would be willing to come befic-2c
Commission fof a piesentation .
that he did not understand oUr it
00000 2O0 . . he conditional_ on this aDnroval that
a'-.;p11.icast would be reguired to do something w: to t .
'vacant lot.
Ms . Drin-a,,l,,n ',-,tated that she had discussed with IL
City :!in...,'oectof the possibility of
occupan,, y of the ;.)uilding as it is brought up to
Stated L r.ering had ay reed that it would re o, - -
Ms . Baer stL'.. ed that the Engineering Department
like the .--.c,!,- cant to agree to join the future sie „ -
walk dis :-.ric ;--s , if the sid.-ivalk is put in or re-21-c.
around the Luijing .
Ed Del Duca, Assistant Ci.ty Engineer, estimated the
cost of the sidewalk to be $300 .
Johnson made a motion to approve the remodel with * h
stipulation, that the applicant does agree to join a :
future sidewalk improvement district and that any rJ
taurant within Inc project be fitted for gas-fire :- : -
' ter burners as reCommended in the Air Pollution S Li
and that a mutual agreement that the Commission vf.e .
hope that the applicant would come back before thc
Commission with any plan for the vacant lot. Mot-io:
seconded by Schiffer . All in favor, motion carries7 ,
CDES Building Schiffer stated that there was a possibility that
Conceptual would have a conflict of interest, due to the fact
Presentation that Jim Daggs is his accountant. Request the Com-
mission decide if this would constitute a conflict L .
interest.
General, concensus of the Commission was that a con-
flict of interest was not involved.
Ms . Baer located the site of the project for the ce
mission. Pointed out that it is on the fringe of
Central area . Stated that presently, it is a vae,.-n, .
lot.
1-Whin Folny , architect, was present representLig
Euhank , Coates and ;Thellman who propose to build --
office building on this site.
Nolny pojiftea out that th.,re were 3 lots with
-a . P..
lijss ; on , :deiett the rf: w-,s a Jo ' e
cini ,-( hy pt r 24 .
- 2-
H: .:;..-', „ . H • ' . .. ; • '., . - : :. : : .,. ::,. ..::
- - -
. , . ...„-• • ., . a•-•••. . .- • - - - .--„-- •-• :- • ••• - .
- • ' . - .
t...i..s h• tnn(....a. r‘. .:--,,....':n n ':„. .. .s vs.....-P .H.L- • -. n., .: i ' a..7.-,.!.:,5
1,,I..,I.•:„.„, ..'..-.:j ...... ...•,.' (...:.n . ti.e. t.,-.. e ,:. -,,-;,:: :... ..'..ca- -..". e L':•..-...H.L:t s ..• •i.
an . te• •• .i- -.,:.'• •',..H .. :-.-a .. - - , e:,t' : ,,:'. . ,-:- ;...- • n ' ..' ••• •Ha a -• ;
1 , ai et.. . :•A: :...,:l•e:.',.._ , n.h.e J.,••ne:J. ,I.:t.„,v ..i. ..3. te '::..;.: .. :.. .:,.. ....eri.
operatiai...
()Ti 1::. s---.,(„- -::!:::: -. ..i.-.-..,.„).-4:: , -r..:;o:..n .-:.id out the lic.-,cion (:.,„::. 12.. . .•f::1-j--,-1 -H- -7 f-; 77 :'i,' ,:, ',--.: i:H.:'' 1. ...HM.L -:: , l. CYF
Euba:n1 e, :.a2i. .. ..,i,'.,-n... Pol:qt.7.',i r.)ot nn..--:: .t.,n-.. ..A. ftoot7 ,
would ha,...•e .:-, r()of lin :. of_ al-:.,pr,oi:.!tately 3-2., ' ..
foil stal.:-..=7.(: tt T:cn cach e.7--, c , the ,-:-,..-nlicnt =
viCing exrannion op:-..ce which they J. , ,,r.la to 3.cc
the tim,7:,. being uLtii expansion becomcs 11.- inent .
poinL::::d ti,,---,1-. -t.:1.-a-. a , 1ablc flcor a.eca. ration is 1000
square feet abce grad.e and ail7c cnly
Stated that the open • -:':.pace icepn is 2 , 250 Sq . Ft.
but are prc7idinc 3 , 163 SQ . ft.
Molny pointed out that the Pl.ann-Hg. nffice recomIr2n. ,9,.
that no parking be provided on the si.tc. . I.,urther
stated tice Coates had inicated. thee he would prefer
to have pe ',.: i , Further sated that the basement use ,
as contemplated , is for s-toracac and. foe probably a
sculpture gallery or something similar .
Jenkins stated that at the conceptual stage , he had
no objections .
Schiffer questioned if the applicant would be sublect
• to subdivision regulations for condominiumizing.
Molny stated that it would.
Ms . Baer stated that first they would have to check
out the design requirements and then they would have
. , to return to the Commission under that , or they might
choose to subdivide. Stated it might be in the ap-
plicant' s best interest to do so. Further stated
' that if the design requirements are met, the appli-
cant could come before the Commission for an exemp-
tion to subdivision.
Bartel staLcd that he had discussed with the apolicant
the general housing problem, and stated that if we
cannot get some solutions to the housing problem as
we go along , eventually we end up with a situation
where, because the problem is so severe , the govern-
ment is forced into doing something about it. In-
dicated to the applicant that he did not feel 1...71 -th
the design of this particular building and the a] -. -
cation of floor space. that_ it was very well suited
for units within the building itself , but f.?.(..',1:7; that
the Planning Office had to conLinue to ad. r..:-.2. .,,s the
problem of employee houing -,Jhe... e we are creating n .,,,.7
office on retail space and ask that they i'ndicat,e
what they sleit they could do no that the Cotnis:-jon
could cosider a:.iide from u:':-:.inq a port-ion 01. the
actual hutilc.iing .
Barie] sin i(..t that. the concern i:-:-. net :.:.,o ;:.uch. with .;
thc, C(. ,-.'-(Ed.l. cncea. a? i',.... -.H:... to pl.cyd (ie ho.;Th.,,t.
and. letail si„ ee . 1 • , e
tel :-. laH S the hlu-in(j need fy.)t he in Hie eent e• ,; ,
-3-
tls-c,
SLater... iLat thy. au,-olieaL in
T. :_nd , and ir, thin pi: icn.Ln
case , it wa.s v(Hi inceffp,tible with c :
the ibing
Bartel r.,--,Led 4-1-1,,.t he did not feel that the C: t:'
e hou:,;-; s c ce; ,
but felt Cs-:t the aseDent floor , in this care ,
accnme:Ledate the sin unlimited units , and fools that
that is an a-2propriste number.
Moiny pointed out that the Daggs operation presently'
leases three ----,:iaiLments for their stafT , and are in-
terested in p.sra,-:s coming up with some ideas anyone',
their own pIToect .
Gillis stat,:d that as ten as the parking was concei-n-_-1 ,
after next ,,..edk the. Commission will have a better
reclion from the Council after the study session., and
would pze-..,T.er to hold that back as a condition th:
point , that the decision would be made at a later date.
Ms . Baer stated that the Planning Office felt , in eke
Central area parking should be put out on the streets
where it can be managed by the City. Stated that in
this case , it would be necessary to figure out how
much on-site parking it generated. Feel that the
number would be too great to provide on--site parking .
Would be undesirable for the City and the applicant.
Stated that even if the Commission did that , they
have not avoided the auto emmission problem and the
recommendation of the Air Quality Study .
Vagneur stated that she felt street parking was not
adequate.
Molny stated that if you provide off--street parting ,
that at best, the building occupants would be using
it.
Jenkins stated he felt the City had made a fundamental
decision when they bought the parking lot and would
not like to see on-site parking.
Johnson stated that he would like to see something
like a 15-minute zone parking .
Bartel stated that he felt: the Commission needed to
establish on the housing question , at Lhis point ,
it will not be on the premise .
Vagneur made a motion to accept the pre-ject in J -L; c(,,n
ceptuai presenLation , but Lhat the Com:Rission wil ]
poi and n(-} 1:-Tht r)11.
I)) Ial Ca:, , ( ■11
enkin- .
-4-
1, L71:3,1 s
,
EtH „
; -
tee ( ' , C ” . ,
Jr _,_ __________ _ ______
SNAP-A-WAY AND AIN YELLOW COP„:,Y. SEND WHITE AND PINK COP. WITH CARBON INTACT
GrayLine "Snap-A-Way" GrayLine "Snap-A-Way" GrayLine "Snap-A-Way" GrayLine "Snap-A-Way"
SPEED LETTER®
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ROM
Sanitation District
TO
Box V Box 528
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611
G D E S Building Att : Donna Baer
SUBJECT - —.—
—NO.9aIOFOLD MESSAGE Feb . 14 1974
DATE
. , . , • . 4 - . . . . . • - - . ' he t 4.1 - 4 . , ,
Plant and `trunk I,i nA capacity is of sufficient size to aciequratei y
provide sewer service _
SIGNED i t Sap :ri ;'' -
E—xec ire re ary
REPLY DATE 19
—NO. 9 FOLD
_—No. 10 FOLD
SIGNED —
F iyLthel SNA1-A-WAY roars 44-902 3 PARTS RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY 1272
WILSON JONES COMPANY •�; 126 •PRINTED IN U.S.A.
c ,t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
/ats sa C.0.N1CCNFL 9.9.!L.CS.
Regular. Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974
on Thursday for a work session with the Commission.
Schiffer made a motion to approve the preliminary re-
view of this project, subject to further review of
the uses and exemptions. Motion seconded by Vagneur.
All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who was
opposed. Motion carried.
VCDES Building Robin Molny was present to represent the developers.
Pointed out that the project was located at the cor-
ner of Hyman and Original Streets. Submitted plans
of the proposed building to the Commission.
Molny stated that he had gotten conceptual approval on
behalf of the owners Nick Coates, James Daggs, Dale
Eubanks and Dwight Shellman. Stated that they had ap-
peared before the subcommittee. Submitted the pre-
liminary plans and elevations. Also submitted a model
of the project.
Molny pointed out that the basement plans included a
stair tower, mechanical and storage, and two handball
courts (proposing that they limit membership to 30
members) . Also a limited amount of rental space, which
would be offices with skylights. Stated that there
would be 4400 square feet below grade, which does not
count for floor area ratio.
Molny further pointed out that the floor area ration
allowable would be 18,000 square feet. Stated, that
the building would be somewhere between 13,500 square
feet and 14,500 square feet above ground.
Further stated that due to the area of the client's
program, need the lesser square footages on the first
and second floor, with the most being on the third
floor, which gives the opportunity to provide a great
deal of arcade space at street level. Stated that
each of the owners if providing for himself space for
expansion in the future.
Molny stated that the arcade space would be 2400 square
feet at street level.
Stated that the second floor would be identical to the
• first.
Stated that the third floor would be completely cov-
ered with a building 64 feet square which would be the
Daggs - Eubanks space. Stated that the applicant would,
almost undoubtedly treat the roofline differently in
the end than the model shows. Stated that Ordinance
#19 makes specific reference to encouraging arcades.
Molny stated that the open space required is 2,125
square feet, and stated that the building is, in its
perimeter is 6,400 square feet, leaving 2600 square
feet of open space, in addition to the arcade.
Molny stated that the owners had some reservations a-
bout the arcade, due to winter conditions of snow and
ice which get trapped into the arcade. Stated that
they had come up with the idea of putting a glass skirt
from a certain point down, which would be open from
—5—
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
POMM 9 C.P.M'IFCKFI.P.8.8 L.CO.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974
the bottom edge down in the summertime and closed in
the winter. Stated that the following idea, which he
is proposing at this meeting, is to glass from the
bottom half way up. Stated that this glass screen
would be permanent. Stated that by definition, this
would not be an arcade. Felt that if it was glassed
in, the owners would feel obligated to rent that space
to uses which are compatible with a professional office
building. Stated the reason they would do that would
be to justify the cost of doing the installation and
heating in the winter.
Vidal questioned what that proposal would do to their
Floor area ratio.
Molny stated it would still be under the necessary
square footage. Stated that if approval was granted,
the applicant would like to have the option of renting
the arcade space. Stated that total space, including
the basement would be 20,700 square feet or at the
most, 22,500 square feet, not including the enclosed
arcade. •
Vidal questioned how many square feet would be below
grade and not included in the Floor Area Ratio.
Molny stated that that would be 7,200 square feet.
Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office would not sup-
port a cabaret in the lower level of the building.
Further stated that all of the referral letters had
come in.
Chairman Gillis stated that at this location, would
•
favor no parking.
1
Molny stated that that was the position of the appli-
cant. Further stated that the owners would like to
purchase parking and would like the support of the
Commission in the application to the Board of Adjust-
ment. Stated that the owners are willing to provide
12 bedrooms off site.
• Molny stated that he felt the answer to the parking
situation was the alley.
Jenkins stated that he felt it was very inconsistent
to consider, something which is one block away from the
City Market as not requiring parking and a project
which is half a block away as being a completely dif-
ferent thing.
Vidal stated that he agreed with Jenkins, partially
because this building is further removed from the core.
Feel that parking would be appropriate in this location
Molny stated that he felt the automobile was respon-
sible for making Aspen a dirty community, and felt that
it would be better not to provide parking and let the
problem increase.
Molny pointed out that the owners are willing to cove-
nant the uses of the arcaed space.
-6-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM C./.NOECNEL B.O.G L.CO.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 19, 1974
Molny stated that the applicant would make a proposal
to the Commission about the uses which would be ex-
cluded or included in the arcade space.
Vidal questioned if the applicant was requesting ap-
proval of an enclosed arcade at this point.
Molny stated that that is what the applicant wished.
Eubanks stated that if they were required to provide
on site parking, would not be for employees, but for
clients.
Schiffer. made a motion to approve this project at the
preliminary review stage subject working out the re-
view and covenant of the enclosed arcade uses and
that there be no on site parking and that the appli-
cant provide 12 bedrooms of employee housing. Motion
seconded by Johnson. All in favor, with the exception
of Jenkins who abstained. Motion carried.
1
Schiffer stated that the reason he made the motion is
that it appears to him that the applicant has satis-
fied all of the pertinent criteria under Ordinance #19.
Landry stated that the reason she voted for the pro-
posal was for the same reasons.
Vagneur, too, stated that those were the reasons she
had voted in favor of the motion.
SET PUBLIC HEARING Bartel requested the Commission set a public hearing tc
FOR TRAIL SYSTEM consider an amendment to the Trail Plan. Stated that
PLAN AMENDMENT the first date available in which the Commission could
meet the publication requirement would be March 19,
1974.
Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing on
the trail system plan amendment for March 19, 1974,
at 5:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in
favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing for the zon-
Zoning Code Amendment ing code amendment - 8040 Greenline.
8040 Greenline
Stanford submitted a map showing the surveyed lines.
Bartel stated that at the time the Commission made its
recommendations to Council on the downzoning of Aspen
Mountain, one of the things was included, also a re-
quest of the Planning Office, was that there be a
building permit review procedure along the line.
Bartel stated that the 8040 line does not fit each par-
ticular ownership as carefully as it might. It cannot
take into consideration variations in slope, geology,
avalanche, access, etc. . .
Bartel stated that what they have proposed is that, as
part of the downzoning of Aspen Mountain, that there
be a building permit review along the 8040 line. States
that the matters which would be considered as part of
the review are outlined in the ordinance, and this is
a follow-up to the Commission's initial recommendation
v.,
,
J r rq, I
%LA I
aspe ,C
DATE: 2-14-74
. Robin Molny
RE: 1020 East Hyman
Block 33 , Lots R & S
This is to say that in the context of the
existing system this area has adequate access
and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION.
Yours truly,
William F . Caille
Fire Marshall
i,
' kto.., AZ
,
S.....1.--a-- ---4_,1 "ez.# ,5z4.4,77(...0„ij 66,,
1 I ek€-:j,t 7 V-.•L.,
0090. 11
g e.--0-c -f--;t-et...e) a-,k_..6-i J /;„e_...-5,c_}‘
` l
/ I
. .-1./S--V-6'-- # PY7
9!)er-e--e,
/11) ag). 4,9
°°2/ 1 !!
32-
'• !,/(-1 .
__g-----
Li . < 1
•
4 ....Li s
I' • 4 ‘,c-
V - ' r
i�
II /i� g .
i
,i
June 12, 1974
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Application for Exemption from
Subdivision - CDES Building
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Application is hereby made for appropriate action of the
City acknowledging that condominiumization of the proposed CDES Building
will not require subdivision approval, in addition to the Ordinance 19
and other Planning Commission review approvals now being sought.
As grounds for this request, the applicant shows as follows:
1. Sec. 20-10 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Subdivisions,
provide for the granting of "exemptions from the
definitions of a subdivision" in such cases. Specifically,
Sec. 20-10(c) provides as follows:
"In a case where land being divided into condominium
interests has, prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, been platted into lots and blocks by plat
recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder, such subdivision of land shall be exempt
from the definition of a subdivision set forth in
Section 20-2(a) when, in the judgment of the Planning
Commission, such platted land fulfills all pertinent
design requirements contained in Section 20-7 of this
Chapter."
2. Sec. 20-7 related to design requirements for street, surfacing,
water lines, sewers, and other considerations such as lot size, physical
hazards, availability of utilities, curbs, gutters, bridges, and the like.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 12, 1974
Page 2
The applicant believes that all considerations of this type
are already in existence.
The condominiumization contemplated by the owners will enable
them to hold their respective floor areas in their individual ownership
in order to separately mortgage and convey their respective spaces. The
Condominium Declaration and Map will be presented to the Planning Commission
after the building has been constructed for final approval of the exemption
on the Map, so that the City will have an opportunity to confirm that
such condominiumization has occurred in conformity with the provisions of
Ordinance 19 Final Approval and Building Department plan approval.
Therefore, pursuant to Sec. 20-10, the applicants respectfully
request approval of this application and entry thereof in the minutes of
your body by motion or resolution duly adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
6 >(--- 4,1
Robin Molny
Architect (Owners' Representative)
CDES Building
(Shellman Building)
Louis R. Schoollnan, M.D.
Braddock Heights,
Maryland 21714
dctob er 7, 1975
•
Mayor Stace- Standley
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mayor Standley;
I have just returned from Aspenwhere I saw the excavation
and plans for the COBS Building. I was surprised and distressed
that the city authoriti esal1owed a building permit for this
high density,maassive and. view obstructive buildingwhich I
understand will be 371-feet high.I own and plan to retire next
July to live in my apartment at 800 East Hyman directly across
Original Street and fear our view of Sopris and the sunset
will be cpmpletely obstructed. To cap it all the Aspen Times reports
that the owners are asking for changes to permit !d racquet courts
instead of 2 and extension of the elevator to the roof to permit
the construction of a running track. This would not only increase
-the density population of the building and consequent parking
congestion on Original Streetywhich there is part of Highway
82,but also add further to the visual polution by a fence and
elevator protrusion on the roof.
As an immediate neighbor directly affected by those variances,
since I cannot personally attend a hearing, I take this means
of strongly objecting to any other variance which would increase
density or visual polution.I trust that you and other city
authorities will support my objections.
Sin rely lirs
L.F .S cho 0l main M.D. -"�
r
•
(t. i .-a..a�-
+ti. -tip 1. i: •c
e i
Memorandum to City Council Representing
Includion on the Agenda of October 0 , 1975
The GOES building, now re-named as the Aspen Athletic
Club Building, was granted a building permit under ordinance 19
in September, 1974. As approved , the building is located
immediately adjacent to the west property line , with a blank.
firewall anticipating a future building of similar height
and density to be constructed on the adjacent property at
a future date.
Due to financing difficulties experienced nationwide,
it was not possible to dilogently pursue construction until
the present time. In the elapsed time, however , zoning in the
immediate area has changed, reducing both building height and
density.
Without changing the floor plans or building orientation ,
it is the desire of the owners •to move the building five feet
from the west property line towards the east property line.
The accrued benefits are enumerated below.
1. The previously mentioned blank, firewall facing towards
downtown and currently one full story higher than
an adjacent building can be built and will be
enhanced by the addition of windows .
•
2. There is a large cottonwood tree immediately
adjacent to the west property line. The building
has already been designed with a cut out in the
foundation to accouuaodate the root system of this
tree but moving the building would further insure
that it can be saved.
3 . . If proposed zoning changes of the immediate area
are enacted, a minimum mid block open space of
ten feet between the office building and a future
development to the west will result .
Since the owners have made an agreement with the City
to complete a specified amount of construction by December 1
of this year, it is important that this request be given your
earliest attention.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: CDES Building - Conditional Use of Athletic Facility
DATE: September 11, 1975
This is a request by representatives of the CDES Building for expansion
of the athletic facility located in the basement of the CDES Building.
The CDES building has been issued a building permit which included
an athletic club. The applicant wishes to expand the athletic facility
by 1600 feet and thereby eliminate the basement office space.
The applicants letter is attached, and building plans will be available
at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
The recommendation of the Planning Office is to grant the request for
the expansion of the facility as it simply replaces rental office
space. However, due to the delayed construction of this project and
resultant extended occupation of City street space we would recommend
conditioning the approval on construction of 10% of the value of the
building within 120 days. The Building Code presently does not
stipulate what specific construction is necessary for keeping this
additional requirement to be in the best interests of Aspen residents.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: CDES - Ord. 19 Final Review
DATE: 7/2/74
Conditions of preliminary approval:
1. Covenant uses of the enclosed arcade space.
2. No on site parking.
Bd. of adjustment has granted a variance to buy out
parking.
3. Applicant agree to provide 12 bedrooms of employee
housing off site.
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: CDES - Ord. 19 Final Review
DATE: 7/2/74
Conditions of preliminary approval:
1. Covenant uses of the enclosed arcade space.
2. No on site parking.
Bd. of adjustment has granted a variance to buy out
parking.
3. Applicant agree to provide 12 bedrooms of employee
housing off site.
/ j_
/ Vi--c. L tr--....-4--/7
&.yee 1,,,,,t 2,—, ,
..„4., ,L-6 -(_(._<.). e--( `—‘(-,<___ ,f2-e /-z - --n...-(---T-Z-----(-(
' r , e--1,--C,-) ifr /-
(7'' C.!�e �r,,/),___4(_,,' :/ 7 '--,)Z /1-.1 �--C--
-
_,..2c_41-1
i
•
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: CDES - Ord. 19 Final Review
DATE: 7/2/74
Conditions of preliminary approval:
1. Covenant uses of the enclosed arcade space.
2. No on site parking.
Bd. of adjustment has granted a variance to buy out
parking.
3. Applicant agree to provide 12 bedrooms of employee
housing off site.
Aspen (!It1 ateau x (1I ozdw mtnium arntaisk Jur.
731 E. Durant P.O. Box 4949 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1400
August 28 , 1975
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RE : CDES Building: Request for Conditional
Use of Athletic Facility in Basement
Gentlemen:
When the CDES Building was originally approved, the plans
showed an Athletic Club with two handball courts in the basement .
In addition, the basement contained 1600 square feet of office space.
The originally approved plan is attached as Exhibit A.
Subsequent investigation of the feasibility of a downtown
Athletic Facility has revealed that it would seem to be more
advisable to expand the facility to include a squash court and a
weight and work-out room.
Therefore, we have submitted for your approval a revised
basement floor plan (Exhibit B) eliminating the 1600 square feet
of office space and expanding the Athletic Facility to take in
virtually the entire basement with the exception of a mechanical
room and a small storage area.
We feel that approval of this conditional use is in the best
interest of the city as it will enable us to offer the local
resident a more complete Athletic Facility. In addition, elimination
of the basement office space which would normally employ 12-18
people and replacing it with an Athletic Facility which will employ
no additional personnel will result in less traffic and congestion
around the building.
CDES BUILDING
Nick Coates
Jim Daggs
Dale Eubank
Dwight Shellman
NC/feb
Chateau Roaring Fork — Chateau Eau Claire — Chateau Snow —Der Berghof
Aspen Block — Seasons 4 —Inns of Court