The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.iz.RBH Building.1974 • • 1:.10;;0 O. t i:lit;i'<<_L'i ,'L a 100 Lta;v, s A.spc•n Planning and Zoning July 16, 19; .Wocerndle - i 1 for a pump station, the ditch and a trai 1 . The . Plat and Final. Develop- water situation hD6 t,;.,t, 6cdica•- merit Plan, c ~:t i nued ti on being made to the ty, 'Schiffer closed the public hearing. Collins made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for the F9oerndle Subdivision, Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Janet Landry who abstained. Motion carried. RBH Building - Parking Applicant was present to find out what they were • Solution required to provide as far as parking was concerned. Johnson stated that the parking subcommittee had recommended that off street parking requirements on all property be retained with the option of lease from the City or providing on site. The committee recommended further that optional parking buy out or lease from City be extended to include the entire commercial area. The applicant could either supply parking on the site or lease it from the City, or a combination of the two. Ordinance 19 Reviews - One of the owner' s of the building was present at Poncho Ski Repair, the meeting. There were six units in the building. Exemption This project was the expansion of one of the units, coming out under the overhead balcony. Ms. Bear stated that the grounds for exemption were that the project was of insignificant impact. Barnard made a motion that, based on the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office, the project is of such • a small scale as to be clearly outside the purposes of Ordinance 19; and to grant exemption for this project. Vagneur seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Schwartz Duplex - It was noted that there was no final site plan for Preliminary and Final The project available. a requirement. rescheduled. Vroom Building - Final Ms. Baer stated that the final plans were in order. Schiffer asked about the conditions for preliminary approval. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant had received a variance to buy out parking.. However, applicant does not know how many. The lower floor • uses have not yet been designated; the applicant was willing to comply with the engineering depart- ment recommendations. The brick samples would also need to be submitted to the H.P.C. The -1 plicant was willing to comply with all cond.ition.;. Ms. Baer stated that one of the engineering depart- ments conditions was that if the alley has to be changed to make it accessible, it would be at the expense of the applicant. The Planning Off ice wa. recommending approval of the project. • -7- - T RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning July 2, 1974 Length of time of the extension was discusses:. Johnson felt that they should apply for enough time so that another extension would not be necessary. Schiffer felt that a schedule should be set of study sessions for dealing with the zoning maps and that these sessions would look at individual neighborhood. Janet Landry suggested that a pert chart be utilized until problems are resolved and they could come up to a new zoning chart. Schiffer suggested that Planning put together such a chart. Johnson moved for a resolution for an extension of 6 months of Ordinance 19 with adoption oe density, F.A.R. , and parking recommendations. Seconded by Jenkins; all-in—favor. • • Exemption from The Ward duplex is an already built duplex definition of located on Cemetary Lane. He is requesting subdivision; an exception to the definition of subdivision. Ward Schiffer stated that he did not qualify for an exception in that he did not fall under the special circumstances for an exception. He did qualify for an exemption. Barnard moved that an exemption be granted from the definition of subdivision under Sec.20-10 (c) in that the property is on platted lots and blocks and that it does satisfy all the design requirements of Sec. 20-7. Jenkins seconded. All in favor. RBH Building Applying for an exemption from the definition of subdivision under Sec. 20-10 (c) because they are on platted lots and blocks. J Vagneur is abstaining from discussion and vote. • Donna Baer stated that they met all the necessary requirements except that of access. She stated the possibility of access from the Rio Grande around the back of the Court House between the shed and into the alley from the west:. The Planning Office would suggest exemption with the condition that a deed of easement be submitted for Planning files before a building permit be issued. . • • • Johnson moved that an exemption be granted under Sec. 20-10(c) because the property is on platted lots and blocks and did satisfy design requirements on the condition that they obtain an access easement from the County and present a copy of the Deed of Easement to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Barnard seconded. All in favor except for Collins who abstained. -3- . • - a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning July 2 , 1974 RBII Building Conditional conceptual approval was given with employee Clarification housing and parking to be given further consider<:tion. of housing & P1 Cililll ng'a rc coLn ,e ;iti on at this fink2 was that the Parking housing requirement be dropped and that buy-out would Requirements be the solution to t: e parking requirement if the NI developers so chose. In solving their housing and parking problem, it was pointed out that all the employees are permanent residents and already have housing. Also the Trueman property is only 132 blocks from the proposed building and they would be willing to lease--out parking from the city. Barnard moved that the board delete the condition of housing 'from the preliminary stage. Johnson seconded. All in favor except Collins and Vagneur who abstained. Ord. l9Reviews J The Popcorn Wagon which would be situated on the old Snowmass Pavilion site. It would include a patio Popcorn Wagon and an extension onto the Mall. Tables and chair Exemption. would be on the Mall with a fence on one side and planters on two other sides--no permanent structures. It was Planning's recommendation that approval for exemption be granted because of minimal impact. Collins moved that the Popcorn Wagon be granted an exemption from Ordinance 19. Johnson seconded; all in favor. • AEM Apts. The owners thru their attorney Marty Kahn request Request for that some modification be made to the deed covenant Modification binding them to restrict rental periods to at least of Deed 6 months. It was their hope that the covenant would Covenant not run forever and that it could be changed by the board and imposed for a reasonable period of time, a time period to be decided by the board. Both Barnard & Jenkins stated that in their background in requesting approval of their 8 units they were always discussed in an employee housing sense and that it was not right for them to come back at this time and request a change. Kahn said he thought that conditions , ould change in employee housing needs and that it was, not fair to impose a permanent covenant of this type on the property. Donna Baer stated that if an when zoning changed in the area of the property, review of the covenant could be considered. Collins felt that when changes did occur in the area, that it would be at that time that they should come and request a review and possible change. Schiffer felt that from a legal standpoi* that an agreement with the City would suffice. -4- LS3 . , , Regular Meeting Aspen City Council. June 10, 1974--- _ __ i TRANSPORTATION REPORT i grans. Budget 1 Mr. JamesAdams was present and submitted proposed budget in the amount of $13,500. i Budget includes day to day operations as well as some long range planning items. i Funds were never appropriated for this purpose. 1 11 I Mr. Adams outlined changes which have been madefor better utilization of present equipment and maintaining services. Arrangements include providing service for j MAA and Highlands cooperation. H Council questioned if the County were putting in any funds. Also stated their concern f if any of the funds outlined in the Budget were g going to the Weiss study at the airport: 1 It was pointed out that the City in years past has spent money to run busses for the i recreation department outside of the City. ll Councilman Breasted moved to approve the budget as submitted, City Manager to work out the appropriate funding. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried. Council request an activity report be submitted relating to the transit system. FOOD HANDLERS Restaurant Inspections Jim Roark gave a report to Council of activity of the Sanitarians office over the last six months. Further stated to Council to get into a training program would cost about$500 and would devote about one hour a week for the program. Recommend a $1.00 fee be charged to all who attend and require all food handlers to attend at least one session for which they would receive a card, which would be good for one year. Council pointed out regulations to impose these requirements would have to be made by the County. Council stated their main concern was on enforcment of restaurants. 11 Suggest the training come in at the time of inspection and be done on the job. 1 City Manager to follow up on this concern and see if it is reasonable for more in- spections to be made. ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 1974 Councilwoman Markalunas moved to read Ordinance #17, Series of 1974 on first reading. Model Traffic Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. Code Amend. ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 1973 EDITION OF THE "MODEL TRAFFIC CODE FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES" WHICH REPEAL WILL ELIMINATE i THE PROHIBITION AGAINST PARKING WITHIN TWO FEET OF A WALKWAY LEADING TO A RESIDENCE WHERE NO SIDEWALK EXISTS was read by title by the City Clerk. Councilman Breasted moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 1974 on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Roll call vote - ouncilmembers Walls aye; Pedersen aye; Breasted aye; Markalunas aye; Behrendt aye; Mayor Standley aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 1974 Councilman Behrendt moved to read on first reading Ordinance #18, Series of 1974. Stop Work Order: Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7-7OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN WHICH AMENDMENT MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBES WHICH VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN WILL AUTHORIZE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO ISSUE STOP WORK ORDERS AND -FURTHER PROVIDES THAT EACH DAY ONE SO NOTIFIED FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUCH ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE was read by title by the City Clerk. i Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 1974 on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote - Councilmembers Behrendt aye; Markalunas aye; Br asted aye; Petersen aye; Walls aye; Standley aye. Motion carried. f LENA STREET EXTENSION VACATION REQUEST Galena St. Clos { _ ure Commissioner Joseph Edwards and County Attorney Leonard Oates were present to request either vacation or closure of the portion of Galena Street to the west of the Courthouse and the 16' wide portion behind the Courthouse that was conveyed to the City in 1958 by way of the East Aspen Townsite Patent. Map of the proposed was reviewed by the Council. Council stated their concern for alternate access for those businesses etc. , affected by this request and also approval from those that would be affected. Mr. Edwards stated they would still have access of the alley into their parking and out onto Main Street by using a portion of the Galena right-of-way. Exit would be by way of the Rio Grande property. Councilwoman Markalunas stated it will be difficult, especially in the winter time, to have an access route from the west into the alley for the drive-up window at the - First National Bank. Steep incline off of Mill Street into the alley. Mr. Bartel, City/County Planner reviewed with Council the proposed pedestrian path and stated he had no problems with this request. Councilman Walls stated he had a conflict, clients building in that area and removed . himself from Council table. Stated his clients had no objections as long as an . alternate access is provided. 1.I Regu lar Meeting Aspen City Council June 10, 1974 Galena St. i Councilman Behrendt moved to approve conceptually the County request; County pursue Closure the application for vacation or closure. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Council request waivers be obtained from the adjacent property owners and more �' detailed plan be submitted. ` 'Ili I All in favor, motion carried., Councilman Walls abstained. Ii Councilman Breasted moved to have the Planning Department prepare a complete plan o 1. on this. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, EXCept for:Codncilman +l Walls who abstained. Motion carried. ;I ii TRAIL PLAN 11 I ; Rio Grande Mr. Edwards submitted plan prepared by Al Blomquist for pedestrian trail thru the Trail . Rio Grande property. Mr. Edwards stated the plan requires major improvements and would be costly; do not agree with the plan. Commissioner Edwards stated he felt the trail should be at ground level. �. Ii Councilman Breasted moved to authorize the County to pursue the tenative alignment for the trail thru the Rio Grande Property, at grade. Seconded by Councilwoman o Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. , a RED ONION, MALL EXTENSION II Red Onion Lease i; Lease agreement was submitted. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to consider Red Onion lease on the agenda. Seconded by Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Breasted moved to approve the lease as submitted. Seconded by Council- 11111 woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. 11 h COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS II RNAA Councilwoman Pedersen moved to nominate Councilwoman Markalunas to serve on the RMAA of COG as the municipal representative. Seconded by.Councilman Walls. All i; in favor, motion carried. ,1 1 l I �� Proposed resolution relating to Senate Bill #S-1361, cable television was considered. ', Council concurred not to take any action. h Councilwoman Pedersen moved to put land usetransfer tax proposal on the agenda. fj h Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. 11 li 0 Settling Ponds Mayor Standley reported PARK and Trout Unlimited are willing to donate $500 for landscaping of the settling ponds once they are constructed. ,, Ambulance Councilwoman Pedersen informed Council the hospital has given permission to have the ambulance stored at the hospital, they will also provide a structure for the h ambulance. Funds for ambulance service will be applied for in the near future from EMS. II Grading ', Council request the City Manager have the grader go thru the parking lot at Rubey Park. o '0 Rio Grande Councilman Breasted stated that if more work were done on the Rio Grande Property, Property feel more people would utilize the parking lot. Councilmembers stated they could jI not see the need for the expenditure at this time. City Manager Mahoney stated i the Esco Trucks have been moved to the City's filter plant. Council stated they felt the parking lot should be cleaned up, Esco trucks should go to the dump. i' "' Councilwoman Markalunas moved to continue the meeting to We.nesday, June 12, 1974 !' at 5:00 p.m., Seconded by Councilman Wal All n_,favgr, motion carried. !i mac/ 11 Time: 8:45 p.m. ( i-�' �' uEv II r Lorraine Graves, City Clerk l Aspen City Council June 12, 1974 Adjourned Meeting P y -- I; Meeting reconvened by 5:10 p.m. . Councilwoman Markalunas chaired the meeting with 'i; Councilmembers Jack Walls, Jenifer Petersen, James Breasted and Michael Behrendt i. present. Also present City Attorney Sandra Stuller and City Manager Dr. Philip Mahoney. ' !, ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 1974 Councilman Walls moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 1974 on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 1974, AN ORDINANCE MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY_FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($34,500.00). DOLLARS TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND OF THE WATER PROGRAM; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT was read by title by the City Clerk. Councilman Walls moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 1974 on first reading. Seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Manager Mahoney stated the criteria he used in determinging the availability of funds 11 was based on last years projections, budget and actual expenditures. Budget for this year is $480,000 and to date have taken in $241,000. i' Roll call vote - Councilmembers Walls aye; Petersen aye; Breasted aye; Behrendt aye; Markalunas ave. Motion carried. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rams w c I.Nn(C+n e. u1ar Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Further stated that the upper floor will be probably some shops and possibly an office or two. Stated that there would be 8 shops altogether, or -8 spaces. Ms. Baer stated that these were the recommended uses in that area. Johnson made a motion to give preliminary approval un- der Ordinance #19 to this project conditioned on working out the parking and employee housing problem, that the applicant demonstrate his option on the remaining 6 lots of the block, that he agree to participate in the un- dergrounding of electric utilitites for the building, and that he agree to restrict the uses to tourist-related uses. Motion seconded by Landry. Yank Mojo stated that Marcus had submitted an economic impact statement. Stated that he was satisfied with both the parking and employee housing if Marcus will agree to the City's decision when it comes up for final approval. Stated that he has calculated the parking im- pact and the employee impact and it is up to the Commis- sion to decide what they would like to do with those numbers and then impose whatever decision they have on the developer. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. RBH Building I Vagneur stated that she was abstaining in the discussion and vote on this project due to conflict of interest. Ms. Baer stated. that this was preliminary review. Stated that the building was given conceptual approval at its last presentation conditioned upon a report from the HPC and a later discussion of housing is part of the ap- proval. Applicant stated that they would have to get a new tap. Submitted preliminary site plan. Architect Jack Walls explained site plan to the Commission. Also submitted schematic design drawings and building elevation. Statec that their lot area is 6750 and they are under the floor area ratio, have excess open space and are under the al- lowable height. Walls stated that the Commission had recommended that the applicant not provide on site parking, therefore, the basement would be used for storage. Stated that the large lawn area is being preserved and the trees that are there now are being preserved. Stated that the masonry would be tied in with the color of the Court House and the Church. - Engineering Department comments were as follows: The proposed project should not create any access or cir- •culation problems on Main Street. However, since the site design utilizes service access to the back through a contested alley, the owners should acquire a written agreement from Pitkin county stating that the County will provide alternate access if the alley is closed. • The opinion of Pitkin Title Insurance Co. was that the alley did exist. Replacement of the existing sidewalk to current standards is provided for in existing ordi- nances. Drainage should be in compliance with the Ur- ban Runoff Managemc n t Plan; the roof and the sunken court should provide retnetion capacity tor the site. RECORD OF PROCEED!, > 100 Leaves FORM L O.F.MOEf IfL!.F.S L.[M ReguLar Meening Aspen Planning & Loning April 16, 1974 Walls submitted the elevations for the Commission. Stated that some of the trees on the lot are dead and are not of any consequence. Other trees will be saved or trans- planted. Stanford stated that the HPC thought this building would be compatible. Massing similar to the Church and right across from the Church and blends in with what the HPC felt was the primary criteria of maintaining the promi- nence of the Courthouse as being the most significant structure on both sides of Main Street. Walls stated that the recommendation of the HPC that the fence be continued would be a little bit of a problem. Stated that to fence in the open space is against the ordinance. Do not feel it is worthwhile to fence it. Have planters to make transition from the iron fence around the corner and into their courtyard. Stanford stated that the HPC felt that it would be a good opportunity for a new building to show how a con- temporary wrought iron fence could be continued and could be compatible with the existing fence. Walls stated that he felt it was difficult to fence an area in and then expect the public to use it. Johnson stated if the transition from the courthouse lawn was made good enough going around the corner down to the courtyard, did not feel the fence would be that necessary. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned the applicant as to whether or not there would. be signs on the building. Walls stated that there would be signs but they will be cut out of metal letters. Concerning the HPC recommen- dation on the windows and lighting, stated that just concerned draping on the inside. Do not feel that there will be any problem since they would try to standardize the draping. Schiffer stated that there was a problem with the access. Walls submitted the following letter from Al Blomquist, County Manager: "Dear Jack: The County can now give a temporary access easement to the rear alley location on the east County property line of the Pitking County Courthouse. The giving of this permanent access will be conditional on the City of Aspen vacating the alley behind the Court- house, closing Galena Street for use as a mall and ex- tending Hunter Creek Trail via the Truoman Property and vacating the access easement across the slop:: from Ga- lena Street to the Obermeyer Building. " Walls stated that in essence, what they have is that they have worked out a plan for access. Stated the County was just using that letter as a lever to get something else out of the City. Further showed showed • map of area and access to building. Further showed which land was owned by the County. Stated that accor- ding to Blomquist, the annex behind the Courthouse is going to be removed. -17- RECORD OF PROCEED! 3 100 Leaves MIN N C.I.MOECK EL 5.I.!L.CO. -- - -- -'---- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Ms. Baer questioned if that alternate access could be . the permanent office. Walls stated that as far as employee housing and parking was concerned, at the last presentation, Ms. Reed, one of the owners indicated that there was no problem in that area and that they would supply it. Stated that the housing would not be supplied in this building. Have not arrived at a number in regard to what the City would like to require in the way of employee housing . Ms. Baer requested that the applicant meet with Mojo to discuss that problem. Jenkins stated that he felt some type of impact study should be made. Jenkins made a motion to give prelimary approval under Ordinance #19 for the RBH Building conditioned on work- ing out of the parking situation, that the applicant get together with Mojo and work on the employee housing situation and arrive at some sort of agreement and that the applicant work out the access problem and obtain an agreement from the County stating that the County will provide alternate access if the alley is closed. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor with the ex- ception of Vagneur who abstained. Motion carried. Stevens - Ginn Johnson stated that he would be abstaining on discussion Building - and vote in this project. Final Approval In a memorandum from the Planning Office, states that this project conforms with approval given at concep- tual and preliminary reviews. Conditions: (1) A use agreement has been submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney and the Planning Office. If new zoning is adopted, it will apply to this site; (2) Project re- , ceived all four requested variances from the Board of Adjustment; (3) Trash management plan should be submit- ted; and (4) Covenant should he submitted to restrict apartments to long term rentals. Schiffer questioned the City Attorney as to whether or not she was satisfied with the last paragraph of the a- greement. Ms. Stuller stated that essentially what it is saying is that they are afraid that if they start construction thi summer and the zoning is changed on them mid-stream, they might have entered into some leases and made com- mittments that they might not be able to honor later on. • Ms. Baer stated that the previous agreement indicated that zoning applied at the time of occupancy was to pr.e- vail. Stated that the only reservations she has is that the City is so close to a rezoning proposal and -possible action that hesitates to commit to something which might be in conflict with it. Architect Larry Yaw stated that the. appl.icant feels that the agreement reflects as much the nature of the times, the interest of the City and the interest of the owner . Feel it is a fair and not burdensome request on the City because it does take care of the immediate range - long term interest. If the use is legislated against by —18— .. C.F.Fl •.'.l B.P.h'_. '. __ _ __ - Regular Meeting As penPlanning & Zoning_.._ February y 5 , 19� l ^ Vidal questioned if under the old zoning, for this type of use, would the ration still. be 1 to 400 . Bartel stated that that was correct. Schiffer stated that maybe the Commission could condi- tion approval on the working out of an agreement with the City. Schiffer withdrew his original motion and Johnson witie drew his second. • MAIN MOTION Schiffer made a motion to give the project conceptual approval, conditioned on working out the housing pro- blem between the Planning Office and the developer, and working out the parking problem. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. RBH Office V Applicant explained that the project consists of space Building - Concep- for three residents of Aspen who have been here for tual Presentation some time. Stated that the businesses concerned would be Reid Realty (7 employees) , Cliff Brelsford, Aspen Agency (8 employees) , and Reece Henry, CPA (3 employees) . Stated that these businesses would probably be using over half of the space available in this project. Stated that would constitute approximately 6 , 500 squ.arf feet. Applicant stated that the other 6 , 000 square feet are available for rent. Chairman Gillis questioned if they had gotten any kind of indication from the Historic Preservation Commis- sion. • • Applicant stated that he had not been approached by that Commission yet. Stated that they realize they are in a sensitive area as far as the Court .House is concerned and the Church across the street. Ms. Baer stated that one condition would be to submit the drawings to the Historic Preservation Committee and ask them to address in particular the height and bulk of the building , -with the purpose of maintaining the Church, the Court House and other historic sites in the neighborhood. Ms . Baer stated that secondly , would like to see the landscaping remain a natural transition to the Court House sideyard, and have discussed this with the ap- plicant and this is also their intention. Ms. Baer further stated that they are recommending the no parking be provided on the site. Stated that there is proposed underground parking of . Stated that there is an access problem, of which they may need to take note later. Ms . Baer stated that they also feel some provision should be made on employee housing , on this si tC or on another site to CCCO!I,II?Odate the additional_ need in housing . -13- RECORD OE ROCE' # ` `'• GS MO Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning £ Zoning February 5 , 9 7 = Applicant agreed. that there was a problem with access . Stated that they have been negotiating it with the County , who are in the process of trying to vacate the alley behind the Court House . Stated that about the 1st of January , the applicant began necgotiating with Al Bloomquist and he assured them that the County would come up with some solution to maintain their access if they would not protest vacation of that al-- ley. Applicant stated that the question now presents itself: the East Aspen Townsite line, goes approximately on a diagonal through a corner of the Court House and across their site. Stated that part of the contention , is that the East Aspen Townsite was never provided with alleys , therefore , they have no reason to give the ap- plicant access . Stated that in checking it further, in 1893 , there was a permanent easement established through this area for electrical power lines and other utilities. Applicant stated that if the access does become a pro- blem, would like to accept the recommendation to not park any cars on the site . Do not forsee this issue, at this point, as becoming a conflict. Stated that they would prefer to park their cars on the site, but would be willing to do otherwise. Applicant stated that as far as the housing was con- cerned, one of the owners of the building is in the real estate building and has management contracts on • several long term rental units and have agreed that these facilities, in some proportion , may be made a- . vailable to satisfy that housing requirement. Further pointed out that, as far as the applicant could see, was not adding any people to Aspen. Jenkins questioned what the Planning Office ' s position was on the area of the building in relation to lot size. Ms. Baer stated that it was allowed under existing zoning. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office had asked the Historic Preservation Committee to comment on the bulk of this project. Vidal questioned if the applicant had done any mass- ing on this project. Applicant stated that they had, and stated that as far as they could see , would be entirely within what would be considered good Victorian massing. Applicant stated that one reason they would like to have parking on site is that one of the businesses is a real estate business , and they have a higher turnover of cars. Stanford stated that this wDuld be coming before the HIstori.c Preservation Comui ttee, end they would he ad-- dressing themselves to things such as height, bulk , and setback as it relates to the other structures in -14- E7.c0:> c 1110CFED,NGS 00 Leaves Rcc1u l ar Meeting tinc Aspen Planning & Zoning February 5 , 2974 in the vicinity , particularly the Court House and the Church across the street. Stated that they would pro- ti comparing all three buildings tocTether to pro- bably be con.j�a�__nc; a three , maintain the predominance of the public structures . Bartel stated that the Ordinance #19 map did show the site as public and the reason for this was to save for the County the opportunity, if they felt there was a need for it, to include it in the Court Complex. Stated that it was not shown to mean that it should be a public site if the County did not need it. Stated that the County has not expressed a need, and the of- fice use would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Ordinance #19 map. Schiffer_ stated that he had some concerns regarding th, parking, in that if the Commission does not allow any parking, might find them parking behind the Court House since there is a lot there. Expressed concern that this might create interference with the actions of the Sheriff ' s Department. Applicant stated that since they were so near the Ci_t_v parking area, were not disputing the parking issue so much. Jenkins made a motion to approve the project under the conceptual presentation, conditioned upon the report from the Historic Preservation Committee, and would discuss parking and housing later. Motion secon- ded by Schiffer. Ms. Baer stated that as far as housing is concerned, the Planning Office could probably come up with a for- mula within a week for this building. MAIN MOTION All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis stated that the meeting would be con- tinued Thursday, February 7th at 5 : 00 p.m. . Meeting adjourned at 7 : 15 p.m. A Fs`•FC 1., Casey ?Vmstrong, Secretary J AC) ( Peacock Exemption Mr. Dallas Peacock was present to request exemption from Ordinance 19 review. He had previously come before the Commission on April 16 , 1974 to request exemption and at that time exemption had not been granted. He proposed an addition to an existing duplex; the total addition was an additional 900 • square feet. His referrals were in order, he had obtained letters from neighbors on the West end of town in his favor. Planning ' s recommendation was positive as they had no knowledge of plans contrary to an addition of a duplex and everything was in order for an exemption. Collins and Barnard had reservation as to that large of an addition to that lot size. City Attorney Stuller explained that as the code is written, no position could be taken against additions as the structure was already a duplex and allowable in that zone. Barnard moved that an exemption be granted from Ordinance 19 review. Johnson seconded. All in favor except Jenkins and Schiffer who voted nay. Motion carried. y Temple Allen Exemption Plans for the Temple Allen building located on Main Street & 7th and adjacent to the Hickory House are for a refurbishing job only. They plan to replace the asbestos shingles with wood planelling and convert the old house into an office building. Planning ' s recommendation was for conditional approval. There were no objections to these plans and felt that refurbishing the eyesore would be a welcome change " Johnson asked about the parking situation. Schiffer asked what kind of arrangements had been made for park- ing. Parking was available behind the Hickory House with ' access through the alley. Collins moved that an exemption be granted from Ordinance 19 conditioned upon the H.P . .0 designation of the building and approval of the plans and that 4 6 parking spaces be provided for use by this building. Barnard seconded, all in favor. Motion carried. RBH Building Jack Walls of the architectural firm of Walls & Sterlin �f was present to represent the RBH Joint venture in their plans for an office building on Main Street next to the County Court House. His request was for a show of support in the form of a letter to the Board of Adjustment for a variance request fortback ;on the proposed building. He explained that they had gone before the H.P .C . and received their support. in their quest for a setback variance. • -4- Lot 3 , Castle Creek the 'crc2n1da until now when she had submitted the plans on rd. • Schiffer said that they had found something wrong in the design requirements and even if the Commission gave approval they should make it clear that in no way can they get final plat approval if the zoning recommend- ations are approved to go to Council and Ordinance 9 takes effect. • Motion Barnard moved to deny preliminary plat approval based on the failure of the plat to satisfy design require- ment 5 (d) and Vagneur seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Exemption Request was made to grant exemption from the definition Pabst & Morse of subdivision since applicants had a joint venture which they dissolved and both submitted affidavits stating that neither had the intention of avoiding subdivision regulations when the dissolution occurred. Attorney for Mr. Morse, John A.F. Wendt, Jr. argued for his - client that the proper quit-claim papers were not drawn up "due to advertance and neglect of_ • counsel . . but that both parties had effectuated its provision in that each party had treated his respective interest as his own . " The City Attorney, in a memorandum to John Stanford, stated "that the contention that the partitioning of the land under the circumstances testified to by the applicants does not come under subdivision review is a valid premise , . . . The City Attorney and Mr. Wendt discussed Colorado and Municipal law regarding joint ventures. • Collins wanted to compare the size of the House Care building against the property owned by Mr. Pabst and rented to the City but members did not feel this to be a valid point. Barnard said he could see no difficulties but that if any more parceling of land occurred, they would have to come before them under subdivision regulations. • • Motion Barnard moved to give positive recommendation that the dissolved joint venture be given exemption from the definition of subdivision under section 20-10 (b) . Vagneur seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 19 REVIEWS: Collins abstained. Vagneur question if she had RBH final conflict any longer but it was determined that ._sace she not longer worked for any of the interests , tHere was no conflict. Architect Jack Walls represented the building an aid that only a few changes had been made . They had c.ded an elevator inside the building and the alley sL.uation had been dropped by the County so the requirements for the alley access would be as they had been before. Mojo said that the Engineering Dept. was going to require that the roof and sunken courts provide retention capacity and drainage . Letters and various agencies were in order. Walls said that the only other condition of their approval was that they obtain a variance from the • • -4- • RECORD or PROCEEDINGS 10. Regular_ Meeting___ Aspen Plann,i nq & Zoning October 1 , 1.9 RBH final, cont'd Board of Adjustments to buy out parking spaces w n they had obtained. Jenkins questioned the numbe. i� spaces the P & Z had required but minutes presen were not specific in the number they had to buy L. Walls saia til•at he remembered asking for a definete number for their plans and he was under the impression that they were to buy out under the old code which the variance was granted for. Schiffer felt that since they had done what the members had asked them to do, obtain a variance, there was not much they could say. Barnard also felt that the situation was ex post facto and said that since they had given RBII an out,it had been taken . . Schiffer said that he remembered discussing with members the problem but did not remember ever giving a number. He felt that the tapes would problably show that they had said to buy out under the existing code . Jenkins made the point that the P & Z should check into the problem since they had shown no consistency and this was unfair to people like Roy Vroom who bought out under the new code. Barnard pointed out that Vroom had volunteered to do that. Motion Barnard moved that they grant final approval under Ordinance 19 to the RBII building and Vagneur seconded. All in favor except for Jenkins who voted nay. Motion carried. Limelite conceptual Mojo said that this was an application for a two story addition to an existing lodge and that the developers , taking into consideration previous concepts denied, • had come back with a plan consistent with the zoning for Lodge 1. The property would add an additional 13 units with the applicant retaining 12 parking spaces required for the previous buildings plus designating 5 rooms and 1 bedroom apartment for employee housing . The parking will provide 1 space per each new unit. Mojo also mentioned that he had talked to architect Don Ball about employee parking down at the Rio Grande property and that this would be a good experiment. No view plane or corridor would be obstructed. Dr. Barnard asked if the Planning Office was recommend- ing the plan and Mojo replied in the affirmative. Motion Vagneur moved to grant conceptual approval to the plans and Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Post Office exemption Mojo explained that this was an application for exemption from Ordinance 19 to increase the size of the loading ramp, install an electrically operated hydraulic lift and extend the roof to cover the present and proposed deck area . He said the Planning Office recommendation was that the project was so small in scope as to be within the exception provision of Ordinance 19: He also mentioned that the current zoning is CC and proposed to be C-1 and that the use is consistent. with :zoning . Motion Jenkins moved that they exempt the Post Office from • TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT : Baildin, - Ord . 19 Preliminary Review DATE: /416/7/: 13, 500 SQ . ft . office building on 6 , 750 sq. ft. of lot. Con idtions of Concoptur, t Anprova] : _____ 1. Report from Historic Preservation Commee 2 . Later discussion of housing & parking. Referral letters : Positive, with the exception of Rocky Mtn. Gas Co . moratorium and Metro San reserves right to review hook up due to recent problem with sludge disposal; Also see attached Engineering Dept. memo. Considerations : Economist requires more information re. use to determine empolyee generation . Historic Preservation Commee recommends approval with the following comments : 1. Masonry be compatible in color & size with brick used on bldgs . in the area; 2 , As many trees as possible be retained on west court; 3, a wrought iron fence to join the one around the Cou-tholu-e be built and made compatible; • page 2 RIJB Bldg. 4. The paving for the court_ blend with the brick used; 5 . The method of signing be small and�7 ane unobvious ; 6 . That the windows control the amount of light and have a standard window covering. Parking: anticipated auto eneration g 45 spaces Building is in C-1 and according to the existing ordinance must provide approximately 11 on site parking Spaces , or request a variance to buy out parking (in terms of revLsed agreement) , or await the outcome of possible P&Z action relative to parking. Alley access existence of public alley must be established or an agreement with Pitkin County for rear access must be submitted , TO: ' DONNA BAER . PLANNING OFFICE FROM DAVE ELLIS CITY. ENCIN-ER • RE: RES Joint Venture Office Building Ord. 19 Comments Date: March 20 , 1974 The proposed project should not create any access or circulation problems on in Street. However, since the site design utilizes service access to the back through a contested alley, the owners should acquire a written agreeent from Pitkin County stating that the county will provide al- ternate access if the alley is closed. The opinion of Pitkin Title Insurance Co. was that the alley did exist. - . Replacement of the existing sidewalk to current standards is provided for in existing ordinances . Drainage should be in compliance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan; the roof and the sunken court should provide retention capacity for the site. • . . . . - - . • • • . • • cc: Jack Walls • • . . • - • C lirrY -,74' s e .r`� � v 4 1 ban.jFb°t:a p.tai Fa. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: RBH Joint Venture DATE: November 11, 1974 The RBH Joint Venture is 16,012 square foot office building located on 21/2 lots east of the courthouse on Main Street. The present and proposed zoning for this site is Commercial Core with an allowable floor area Ratio of 2 to 1. The major difference be- tween the old Commercial Core and the New Commercial Core zones is that under the new zoning all gross floor area not devoted to under- ground parking is counted, whereas under the old only that at or above ground level was counted. The floor area ratio under the new zoning regulations is 2.4 to 1, and under the old regulations is 1.78 to 1. The storage space in the basement was originally intended for use as underground parking. The applicants applied for and received a variance to buyout parking. The parking required under the old zoning code is about 12, the requirement under the new code would be between 24 and 36 depending on the mix of uses . The project received Ordinance No. 19 conceptual approval on February 5, 1974, received preliminary approval -April 16, 1974, and final approval October 2, 1974. The applicants have received an exemption from subdivision so as to condominiumize the building. Memorandum City Council November 11, 1974 Page Two The Planning Office cannot recommend approval of this project based on the inconsistency of the proposed building FAR with the recommended FAR of the new zoning code. • ,., IIfr walls 8a sterling architects aspen, Colorado members a.18./p.o.box 22 zip code elell/phone 2024325-3218 October 1, 1974 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Post Office Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: On behalf of our client, RBH Joint Venture, this office wishes to submit for your review and approval the final presentation phase under Ordinance 19 of a project the Venture is contemplat- ing building in Aspen. Enclosed you will find two sets of prints, as required by the planning office for your consideration. If you desire any further information, please contact me. . OA \1 �Al ,..__ J a c 9 M. r,�"1�;1• :•s, u_.Kw. y JMW/cw i walls az sterling ar=:?lz-zt:. r its aspen, oolorad o members sin./p.o.box 28/zip code 81sll/phone 303-:�2°i-3218 )005'5 March 18, 1974 Thomas Maddalone Aspen Electric Department City of Aspen P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Hadda 1 one As a requirement of Ordinance 19, we are to contact you for your comment, prior to the preliminary design presentation to the P&Z, with regard to the availability of electric service for our project. The name of the project is the RBH Joint Venture Office Building which is to be located on Lots Q,R and westerly 7.5 feet of Lot ;' Block 92, City of Aspen; and Lots 11, 12, and westerly 7.5 feet of Lot 10, Block 19, East Aspen Townsite, in the City of Aspen. At present, this location is supplied with electric service. T would appreciate having your written comments at the earliest possible date so that the preliminary design presentation can be made to the City of Aspen. Jack 1. - i s, Jr. j /if) `/ I f i ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. :.- P.O.BOX 2059 • ASPEN,COLORADO B1•11 • (3035 925-2323 III I , i 1 i I To Whom It May Concern: Re: R B H Joint Office Building Block 92 Aspen, Colo. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co. has a moratorium in effect at this time and will be unable to serve any new services until it is lifted. However, when this moratorium is lifted we will have an ample supply of gas and will be happy to serve your project. Sincerely, c./l .4 Willard C. Clapper Distric Manager WCC/ec P. S . Presently being served by 3/4" service and would be able to serve a portion at this time. 1 •i walls 86 sterling a,roliltec L: 3 aspen, colorado ' members E.1a/p.o.box Be zip code 81611/phorie 303-585- 218 Larch 18, 1974 James Markalunas Aspen Water Department City of Aspen P.C. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jim: As a requirement of Ordinance 19, we are to contact you for your comment, prior to the preliminary design presentation to the P&Z, with regard to the availability of water service for our project. The name of the project is the RBH Joint Venture Office Building which is to be located on Lots Q,R and westerly 7.5 feet of Lot AT Block 92, City of Aspen; and Lots 11, 12, and westerly 7.5 feet of Lot 10, Block 19, East Aspen Townsite, in the City of Aspen. At present, this location is supplied with water service. I would appreciate having your written comments at the earliest possible date so at te preliminary design presentation can be made to the City of Aspen. Y` iii t �' Jack ". Via 40 i ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 Box 300 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard W. Lee tel. 303-925-2972 superintendent of schools 20 March, 1974 Mr. Jack Walls, Jr. Walls & Sterling Architects Box 29 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Walls: After reviewing the proposed RBH Joint Venture Office Building Project, it is apparent that there would be no impact as far as additional students or transportation problems that would affect the school district. Therefore, the school district has no objection to the project as proposed. Sincerely yours, Y.:--- --'''''''---1:- ---e-----' '. ,,/ . ,./!_, (,(:Z6-f Z "' C, ichard W. Lee Superintendent of Schools RWL:lb • CITY r' ` S P 1 I 7 box. IT 'f DATE: March 20, 1974 . Mr. Jack M. Walls, Jr. . Walls and Sterling Architects . PO Box 29 Aspen, Colo. 81611 RE: RBH Joint Venture Office Building This is to say that in the context of the ex?.sting system this area has adequate access and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION. Yours truly, - William F F. Caille Fire Marshall cc: Planning Dept. TO: DONNA BAER - PLANNING OFFICE FROM: DAVE ELLIS CITY ENGINEER '�.�!--- RE: RBH Joint Venture Office Building Ord. 19 Comments Date: March 20 , 1974 The proposed project should not create any access or circulation problems on Main Street. However, since the site design utilizes service access to the back through a contested alley, the owners should acquire a written agreement from Pitkin County stating that the county will provide al- ternate access if the alley is closed. The opinion of Pitkin Title Insurance Co. was that the alley did exist. Replacement of the existing sidewalk to current standards is provided for in existing ordinances . Drainage should be in compliance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan; the roof and the sunken court . should provide retention capacity for the . site. • • • cc: Jack Walls • • ASPEN MET.tOPOLITAN SANITATION DISTRICT March 20 , 1974 Walls $ Sterling Architects P.O. Box 29 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention : Mr. Bob Sterling Dear Bob : The Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District was asked under requirements of Ordinance 19 to comment on the RBH Joint Venture Office Building. It is within the boundaries of the District . Plant and Collection line capacity is adequate . The Board must review and either allow or reject all top applications until our present sludge problem is resolved. Sincerely , / /2 , ;/,- - Clint Sampson/ Executive Secretary CS : dh Box 2810 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303/925-2537 C I T t _f _ ASPEN r�vy as en o i box v MEMORANDUM '! t� TO: City of Aspen Board of Adjustment FROM: City Planning and Zoning Commission SUBJECT: RBH Building Setback DATE: August 26, 1974 The present Aspen Municipal Code, in Section 24-7, requires that in the C-1 zone, "No building or structure shall be constructed higher than 25 feet above grade within 10 feet of the front or rear line. " This requirement has been deleted from the proposed new zoning code currently under our consideration. It is the unanimous opinion of the commission that this requirement is unnecessary and in some cases detrimental to the architectual harmony of the community. The commission, therefore supports the applicants in their request for a variance from this setback re- quirement. (303) 925-3771 REESE H. HENRY JR. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT .Box 1166 an, eolo¢ado 81611 • Aspen Planning And Zoning Commission Aspen, Colorado August 15, 1974 Re: RBH Building Gentlemen: In discussing our project with our architects, it has come to our attention that our project is in jeopardy because of proposed changes in the zoning code to be adopted by the City this fall. It is our understanding that three major changes will take place under the new zoning: 1. Height limitation will be reduced from 374 ft. to 32 ft. 2. The use will be changed from office commercial space to one floor of offices, the remaining upper floors multi-family. 3. Floor area ratio-mill be reduced. It is our further understanding that if for some reason the project were delayed past the time the new ordinance is put into effect, it will be necessary for us to conform to the new ordinance. The RBH Joint Venture has spent the last 8 months going through review under Ordinance 19 in an attempt to got approval for the project. Concurrent with this review procedure we have attempted to procure financing for the project and to date, have been unsuc- cessful. It now appears that circumstances over which we have no control may result in us forfeiting 8 months of money and work and we must object most strenuously. Under the circumstances, we must request to be exempted from the provisions of the new zoning and further request that we be reviewed under the existing ordinances. This project was begun by the three members of the joint venture as a long term investment. To force us at this point to re-design the building could very well ruin_ us financially. Sincerely, / The R iH Joint' VentfAre Reese Henry TO: Pitkin County Attorney FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: RBH Building - request for variance to pemmit buy out parking in the C-1 zone. DATE: July 26, 1974 RBH Building is a proposed new office building to be located directly east of the Courthouse on 6,750 sq. ft. now occupied by the small, yellow house (smith Brothers) . Aspen P & Z has approved the project conditional on restricting service access to the building from the alley only, and has recommended no on site parking. The applicant has therefore requested a variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow for purchase of parking from the city. The building will be 3 stories wnd will contain approximately 13,500 sq. ft. of professional office space. It is estimated that the uses in the building will generate approximately 45 automobiles. COUNTY ATTORNEY PITKIN COUlpb7 P.O. BOX ,i / ASPEN.COLO. 81611 July 25, 1974 HAND DELIVER City of Aspen Board of Adjustment c/o Ms . Lorraine Graves City Clerk City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 74-28 Dear Mr. Dukes : The above-numbered case, involving an application for a variance by Messrs. Walls and Sterling on behalf of the RBH Joint Venture will be heard today at 3:00 p.m. Notice of the variance hearing was mailed to the County by letter postmarked July 19. It was not received by the County and forwarded to me until Tuesday, July 23. Under Section 2-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, that is almost the minimum possible notice. More importantly, the notice arrived so that there is no intervening meeting of the Pitkin County Commissioners , who meet, as you know, on Mondays. Therefore, I must formally ask on behalf of Pitkin County that the hearing be continued, on the ground that the County has no sufficient opportunity to assess the ap- plication and its possible effects upon Pitkin County's interests. I gather from talking with Sandra Stuller that the application could affect traffic flow in the vicinity of the Pitkin County Courthouse. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to review the application in detail and to raise the matter with the Commissioners on Monday, July 29. It is of course possible that the Commissioners will not object to the variance as it is, and hence that this request for a con- tinuance might seem needlessly to inconvenience the applicants and your board. On the other hand, all can easily understand that governmental bodies need additional notice time, especially when the governing body meets only weekly. In order to avoid such possible insufficient notice and inconvenience to applicants and your board, City of Aspen Board of Adjustment July 25, 1974 Page 2 I have suggested to Sandy that the City consider amending Section 2-22 (c) (1) and (2) to provide that in the event the adjacent landowner entitled to notice is the United States , the State of Colorado, Pitkin County, or any other governmental or special district body, the notice period shall be at least 14 days if by mail and at least 10 days if delivered personally. Sincerely, CLARK, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH County Attorneys By COPY us�NLJL J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNM/b z cc: Joseph E. Edwards , Jr. , Esq. Dwight K. Sheliman, Jr. , Esq. J. S . Baxter, M. D. City/County Planning Office MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: JULY 2, 1974 RE: R. B. H. Building, Preliminary Plat, Ordinance 19 After reviewing the plans submitted for R.B.H. Building I recommend the project be approved contingent upon the applicant obtaining an access easement from the County of Pitkin. Said easement shall be primarily for the purpose of trash collection and shall be located east of the County Court building and west of and parallel to the land owned by Stanford Bealmear . Said easement shall be of adequate width and allow for necessary regrading of the County' s property to facilitate trash collection. It is further recommended that the applicant enter into an agreement with the County of Pitkin for a joint trash storage site. Ed Del Duca MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: JULY 2, 1974 RE: R. B. H. Building, Preliminary Plat, Ordinance 19 After reviewing the plans submitted for R.B.H. Building I recommend the project be approved contingent upon the applicant obtaining an access easement from the County of Pitkin. Said easement shall be primarily for the purpose of trash collection and shall be located east of the County Court building and west of and parallel to the land owned by Stanford Bealmear. Said easement shall be of adequate width and allow for necessary regrading of the County' s property to facilitate trash collection. It is further recommended that the applicant enter into an agreement with the County of Pitkin for a joint trash storage site. Ed Del Duca walls & sterling architects aspen, Colorado members p. box 29/zip code 81611/phone 303-925-3218 13 June, 197 +' The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado Dear Sirs, On behalf of our clients, the RBH Joint Venture, we repectfully re- quest that our project, which is more particularly located on Lots Q, R and the westerly 7.51 of Lot S and Lots 11 and 12 and the westerly 7.51 of Lot 10, East Aspen Townsite, be exempted from the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, and that this matter be placed on the agenda of the next City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for consideration. Our clients have expressed the intention to subdivide the building into condominium spaces. Since the above mentioned property was platted into lots and blocks and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder long before the effective date of this or- dinance and since it exists within the present boundaries of the City of Aspen and thus fulfills all pertinent design requiremdnts contained in Section 20-7 of this chapter, the property should be exempted under Section 20-10 (c) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Respectfully submitted, OF rot MT ,A Robert Sterling, Jr. enc: Plot Plan cc: K. Reid C. Brelsford R. Henry TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: RBH Building - Ord. 19 Preliminary Review DATE: 4/16/74 13, 500 sq . ft. office building on 6, 750 sq. ft. of lot. Conditions of Conceptual Approval: 1. Report from Historic Preservation Commee 2 . Later discussion of housing & parking. Referral letters : Positive, with the exception of Rocky Mtn. Gas Co. moratorium and Metro San reserves right to review hook up due to recent problem with sludge disposal; Also see attached Engineering Dept. memo. Considerations : Economist requires more information re. use to determine empolyee generation. Historic Preservation Co1111ee recommends approval with the following comments : 1. Masonry be compatible in color & size with brick used on bldgs . in the area; 2. As many trees as possible be retained on west court; 3. a wrought iron fence to join the one around the Courthouse be built and made compatible; page 2 RHB Bldg. 4. The paving for the court blend with the brick used; 5. The method of signing be small and unobvious ; 6. That the windows control the amount of light and have a standard window covering. Parking: anticipated auto generation - 45 spaces Building is in C-1 and according to the existing ordinance must provide approximately 11 on site parking spaces, or request a variance to buy out parking (in terms of revised agreement) , or await the outcome of possible P&Z action relative to parking. Alley access existence of public alley must be established or an agreement with Pitkin County for rear access must be submitted. TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: MI Building - Ord . 19 Preliminary Review DATE: 4/16/76 13, 500 sq . ft. office building on 6 , 750 sq . ft . of lot . Conditions of Conceptual Approval: 1. Report from Historic Preservation Commee 2 . Later discussion of housing & parking. enrol letters : Positive , with the exception of Rocky _ Mtn. Cs Co . morc.t-orium and Metro San reserves right to review hook up duc., to recent problem with sludge disposal; Also see attached Engineering Dept . memo. Considerations : Economist requires more information re. use to determine empolyee generation . Historic Preservation Commee recommends approval with the following comments : I. Masonry be compatible in color & size with brick used on bldgs . in the area; 2 . As many trees as possible be retained on west court; 3 . a wrought iron Fence to join the one around the Coufthouse be buLit and made compatible; • • page R1i13 Bldg. 4. The paving for the court blend with the brick used; 5 . The method of signing be small and unobvious ; 6 . That the windows control the amount of light and have a standard window covering. Parking: anticipated auto generation - 45 spaces Building is in C-1 and according to the existing ordinance must provide approximately 11 on site parking sppaces , or request a variance to buy out parking (in terms of revised agreement) , or await the outcome e of possible P&Z action relative to parking. Alley access existence of public alley must be established or an agreement with Pitl:in County for rear access must be submitted. TO: DONNA BAER - PL2\:NNING OFFICE FROM: DAVE ELiIS CITY ENGINEER RE: RBH Joint Venture Office Building Ord, 19 Comments Date: March 20, 1974 • i The proposed project should not create any access or circulation problems on Main Street. However, since the site design utilizes service access to the hack through a congested alley, the owners should acquire a written agreement from Pitkln County stating that the county will provide al- ternate access if the alley is closed. The opinion of Pithin Title Insurance Co. was that the alley did exist. - - _ Replacement of the existing sidewalk to current standards is provided for in existing ordinances . Drainage should, be in compliance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan; the roof and the sunken court. should provide retention capacity for the site. . . • ' • • • s -. - • • • cc: Jack Walls . . . . . , tir BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • P. O. BOX 4096 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE: (303) 925-5232 P I T K April 15, 1974 I N Jack Walls P.O. Box 29 C Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 Re: RBH Joint Venture Office Building UOrdinance 19 comments N - TDear Jack, 1 The County can now give a temporary access easement to the rear alley location on the east county property line of the Pitkin County Court House. The giving of this permanent access will be conditional on the City of Aspen vacating the alley behind the Court House, closing Galena Street for use as a mall and extending the Hunter Creek trail via the Trueman property, and vacating the access easement across the slope from Galena Street to the Obermeyer Building. Above is conditioned further upon the city committing to complete the Galena Street mall between Main and Durant within three years of the present date. ' (IA.-- 457 Allan Blomquist County Manager AB:n CITY S PEN aspen ,cp ci.'311 box v DATE: March 20, 1974 • Mr. Jack M. Walls, Jr. • Walls and Sterling Architects • PO Box 29 Aspen, Colo. 81611 RE: RBH Joint Venture Office Building This is to say that in the context of the existing system this area has adequate access and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION. Yours truly, William F. Caille Fire Marshall cc: Planning Dept. I _.. ,Vl... • 1 6-)-1 an 141,1 .„0...2ti .-‘6.) e,_,._, e) (a2,-cte2_, .2 ? ) 1 . 6- 1 , •ci, 1 06,-67z) 5il--i_La__Lv._ _..zze.) , 17 , °\7:--- - -r, 11 1 ---.4-- --7 ..)a-e..--6....e.,;- ......4 i ..., . . , I 1 / r J6---214- 71-(---Ze) / 4---1,--- i 4 P--'f 46;,,....- 4.."417/411•Wilidp,........... ,_. 2,eA if ziz. __.-e---,--- II ./....e.) ,. d.), .. r .j II .,.._ .... . , _ _ r - ---• / 'I r I i e "V r re e _ k) 11 \-\-) 1 2 B.I. li-Ur .Nic• . ,,i' , z:,,,ZT=C:' ..." ._.:,'. •-,aT:s.-1:7? 11-J CITY OF ASPEN - COUNTY OF PITKINF ' COLukADO . ,-, ADDRESS 534 Th3st, 'TP.1.1". Street GENERA: I rl OF JOB s' en, Colorc.do CONRUCTION LJ PERWT rt. - . WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK: NEW a] ADDITION 0 ALTERATION 0 REPAIR CI MOVE 0 WRECK 0 OWNER P.O. Box 1166 NAMF --TZT-7 tT o i n t 7rent-m-se ADDRESS . -,-.'"'; . '01_07'. 7Ar) PHONE .- _ -- VC LICENSE LIC!=-NSE 0 0_ NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUME3P. 0 At it ADDRESS L 0 SUPERVISOR tj E3 NAME ___ _ PHONE _ 1, upA.,,,,:- DATF_ CERTIF Erm__ LEGAL 1See L ,-.5,...,..,.:.._s DESCRIPTION LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION SURVEY ATTACHED fl DESIGN A LIc BY -! . _r-.c, ,,,,,,,n,-- --,-,n0,-,,1 . -'C I S. :3 1'1 4.r 7 9 :,''C:-..1 '';e C, ADE No ' ...- AREA IS.F.) HEIGHT NO. TOTAL I OCCUPANCY AT GRADE i520 f• (FEET) -7)7, -F.2,.t,STORIES -7, UNITS n GROUP -2_7 I DIV, I FIN El I SINGLE E ATTACHED 7[7.0TAL I TYPE I FIRE BASEMENT GARAGE LINEN 0 DOUBLE 0 DETACHED Fl ROOMS I CONSTR. 7-7 I-7, 7 --. , ZONE ') 1 —..-_-=-,_-------.-,_.-..-------.E-_--p DEPTH SIZE :PA,:;r,-(.., S-A 1 AUTkPRIZ'::' FIRST BELOW 11 AGENCY 1 ' — " 1 DATE BY Z GRADE FLOOR O VI i ' 4 ,ie/LIPP G 1 . EXTERIOR VI i" FOOTING CEILING SIZE 0 11 ZONING 13 Z EXTERIOR CONC. El D FON WALL ROOF PARKING O THICKNESS MAS'Y lia. THICK ri CAISSONS r-i ROOFING PUBLIC HEALTH 1 ! SLAB L-I &GR.BEAMS t--I MATERIAL 1 I 1 i MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING I I -1 l' x.rgRloR THICKNESS tv ALL STUD SIZE 8 SPACE 1ST ELR, ABOVE 1ST FLR. 2ND FLR. ABOVE 2ND FLR 3RD FLR. Nril,R. I i .. REMARKS 'n1,:,7 ,9 7:1 c,-1(3, weF.:terly 7. 5 feet c .-:: Lot 5, - 1;0 Ck 92, Cit7- of .".srer..; r3nd Tots 17 12 '3 rd , ,veste.r.lv 77. feet of -rot 10 1731oc!: 19, .- .-.,t .srcn . _ ...ti+,,.:::a. ■_!.':::• Professional Office Space Only 1 NOTES TO APPLICANT: FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925-7336 FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION dl, COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY ZONING 324, 300.00 ING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OF WORK 4 APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL FEE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. FILED T P go . REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SMALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOUBLE CHECK [11 2.25.`lb 0. ' ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE 0 CASH Ei $ 676• 20 THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.0 BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. SIGNATURE 7 , 1 'APPLICANT: C ,„4// tl / V-tli. 4 4,J/ litz, ,'(--*, Li-PC APPROVAL BY DATE THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE 4 RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT WHEN VALIDATED HEREN . 1— -i Lt -3 2- 1 q • • _... .. . walls & sterling architects aspen, Colorado members aia./p.o.box 29/zip code 81211/phone SOS-926-821S Jru!.,..ry 16 , 197'.:1- The E,-- -er 1- rin,if nrd -,onill ' Com'ilii3Fion :-- o.7t ( F'f-Ice o : er, !olo ,Cio -'1611 2e! -f.. -jr:: : '..:n b -lf of or,r cli,:rt:,,,, thr, I -. Joint 1entl:re, tlis office w-L--,1h-,, ,-; tn -,-..,: ii:it for yrr re7:_,--..--: —,,,j. -'--rov..,-J te conceitu::-1 pre-H-).cr,.t!---,tior :.7,h '..-.,e rn3i.:-.1' ..,),ru2 111103 ly of 5.7,... 3113)ject the ,-er:t1,--e i:-. coritc--.- ]. - tir: 'ir :_-_-,or . 7:1-le ro ic c-t 'vro fe.' .-:,f o,:tf,-.J7 ::-.)--fi e H.-. '1 i":....r,I. 30 ;-..zerJe -= :-. ,-s.r -JJ'rdLt rnrter : for tree lon -tir,le s :or ▪unesses : Heid ±,- 1t,7,-; th,,-- ,-.:.. :e-s..c.:7, 2..... r.:::_rce fi rm.; ,.-,r.(J ,.--..,,c. . e 7 er r:7-, r.:1-,,,, .--=.0 co2lotc tf,,, :roect under thy n-...--,le Th.e • Joint en3 1,-.1.'e . lEt i.e the inte!rtio of 0ccu-:5 " ;- -:,--rori.Einte -:: I =j1f of the ':-=„r:-.-ce ill th=.2 -huildinz, I . the re '.:.ill(ie of the :--.1:: - ce ,, -; -,- ,-;,1 to ot7Hor ro!'eir-.)r-1 firtls. 12:11(..re if: ro -intertir.r 1)L.,- Cevotc elly of ti'',e 37' ce . t 3:13 ,2 t-_---..c.- tn rot, i: ,:-.1-(..: ::-, ,---, tet -2: ' reLiJ2es - 3(1 floor Ey- 110 -3 1)-1 ,7 occL.: j 11033 (.. r t11 .73 ',.±: n - t,' .e o ' ',TT:: ::---..,,.--7. oz... -:, •.,-':,; -.!:' o..; 0301130 -. ,..1 :- -7i- tc-1.---:_ t. 1.:f-33 • u - t.T,: ':-1.- ,." -., --,- ,'.):.. -',11 r,--,!--t: '-J7 - ,--. c ="' ' " fi., 71,:-., ,.-1 f,,e. 1. . nnin 11(d .....c(;..: Tr: .70:•••i .,•..Inn. %y 16 , 17,4 - ..-: •, 9 _. .. .._;,., .•_.. . / . _ „. .., „ , .4. . . ._ ,,,..., feet. :. ,u !. . i.., _7,-L dA,.. ie .,-: "L ', en -r- t- H . ": 7.: e(31.-, ,,_ rfhe?•.e ie a 3-5--L ,71 .,-c:fl-fiThr(.!e •-•••itu:. t,-..7 or7-77. -:71te . ',Me cont-riact: . (DT 1.,] ::•.. .. rol, i17 nce:-Ti-'6 , 4:: -211,•-• ..,.. -_-10v1 of t'-'.i .:.H 7-c. ..:iece. Ihe :::dt 1 7: e--..rii lr..v;:1 Eevr, -1. 1,,I. tr.' ■-:.;3M.:'! :-.:eCi ecilAr...,u.: .`:::..- .;-- , -.;o7:-. of L - .: tl-if, \Tet COL.i.Y.,t COUrti:iGte -2iir±:., ty. L'hef,i .:;i'e ei::-_.7: 1 .. -ze , = .TL CC)ttc).n-o0 t-f ;.:; ,--:,:fjc(=t 1.. the we:rt roe rt-z- linL .-nrj 12.. 7-et, , erl t7r). weiA 7-rcifert: liyIE and te Cou-rt'liou.:-,e b.id16.i.n 7he t--.!-.. eP :.--fc' 1----,T . 1.77,.. he totfl :7 und-irbfr:4J 1):7 tE..-: conte-m:J -te 'revior-i .t. lo the or .- t of to to tere i::3 := i7r.:.21 ,. fni7111::: .roZ (-.,erce .:1c.h. 7- s 7ii.71n t--,,:,,J;•ou-.'e t0 t7'.-.e -,,,,.7t :::,-2-16,_ .1.1.i7.1, the-refo-:.- , he 71JT'relu 1-Irffecter:: ':- : the Thc -.1te _71 orered ol-, t7:e 1-c -t.', b2..., l7- ',.*.ich '3E.Jrve':.; veicrc.ir (..-!ce (-.:, t;_-c, ite -T. -..i o .--. t7y, 7.-:•:-: 7'-flir. •-.. treet. 2,( 7- 7...7._;-:727-1:: 7- : 7.:7,..-a ent zorin::: on tll ni-te is in Classifi_cten C-1. 7e,..:ev,-..,r 4-;1-. e 1973 ._ per.. rnd ......7e -:.. :1n idertifis 1..-1- -1.t .: tr.-1 be 1 !Th 70:,Thie Tnnd . Ti land ..2. Tre:let.7 :- 1,rdc...r 77riv-te cr,..rers-',-ii, nnd • hs beer intended for cone time for c.-i.evelolnnent Talon:::: the lines irrosented here . There is no indication at this time that the County is in rosition or h.p,s the desire to nurchase this site for ens- nsion of it ' s facilities. The location of the site also conforms to the intentions of the Land Use -Plan of h'..wiriF nrofessiope1 buildinzs locted of the fri2.-1 ;:e of thoo771-friereil tre,,.'... In addition. Tiy--Tte of it ' s 16TJint-er7it7 - could serve aS or i6eal buffer between the Courthouse ,-,inri, the hi -h intellit-,.: the e iluati-famil: zoninH directi:" t the est. .:'.. ew h :i-Idinz • ve beeri corstrilcted nver the 1-, few :,-,-(. ..rs Li ti ;:--3 -...-ref., -,..2.1': ever effort 7.1 .-3 'ceen. '..'Y.,.!.(.1e for these 7:-.; iloirs to 'Le CO--'..". atibe ,:,rit . tI.-1(-) exL:,,tir Cort: Co-urthoue -.(1,±1 t . ' ...r-:,. ' s (...:',at7:Tolic Churc',].. Lt iS , 1:-...m the .tai tic of t ..i , ' roject thrni...1L* the ue of -mtci,.:.1 1-.'d .17-o,fer scale to rc'pieve this comtib-ilty. lh i- tune cf the f-:,ite irci.ictc t'Lt t.) 'nu.ii,.-7. ilij: 'i'old T:....-77 .7, nol.).t':'. %nd 111-1,2 Ern. 74 ()n '7 tr., 't.4.1/: cot --, Tho L. f -14 (`"? 47ed t . t 1 " . ft. ) of tr.) e- t t cyr toot t t-re. (irf". To.o , to ffmy 1,2 e orrIc . er 'Sre -■,c)t o(:r E-T. trHto L re eet . t :3 "-5 " t;, tretoc , it t —5 7 of O .-- 71.(7, t 47 r--"4 t 22:27 ' cort . ' '(57: ' 47; 1,, a f r; r 2 o ! t ro • • (;) i MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council DATE : 10 January 1974 RE : Request to do title search of alley in Block 92 City of Aspen (behind Courthouse) At the time of the petition by the County to encroach on the alley behind the Courthouse , a request was made for a title search to determine (1) the existence of the alley and (2 ) if it existed , the present ownership . The County volunteered to pay for the search and has done so. The search was made of the alley lying in Block 92 of the original townsite and in Blocks 19 and 20 of the East Aspen Addition. In addition, the all a�- , as it ex ends into the vacated Hunter Street, was searched . It was concluded that the alley has been platted and record title rests in the City of Aspen. It appears that when Buchanan replatted the East Addition (1958) , the alley was designated. The described alley was superimposed on privately owned tracts then occupied . To rectify the situation a mayor ' s deed was issued to reconvey the City 's interest in the alley to Callahan in 1959 (who later reconveyed a portion) . However, such conveyances are not effective . Section 140_1_28 (of Chapter 140 which is concerned with the initial platting of townsites) reads "Whenever the title to any such lands shall be vested in any judge , he shall, convey to the proper or legal auth- orities so much of the land as is or shall be laid out by the town authorities into streets , lanes , avenues , parks , public grounds and commons . . . . When the title to such lands shall- be held by the corporate authorities of any town, all land used, laid out or designated for public uses by such corporate authorities , as streets , lanes , avenues , alleys , parks , commons and public grounds , shall vest in and be held by the corporation (town) absolutely, and shall not be claimed adversely by any person or persons whomsoever, and it shall not be necessary to execute any conveyance for the same to the corporation or people of such town. " • page 2 Consequently, the County is now considering petitioning the City to vacate part or all of the alley. At the time of any such request Lenny Oates and I will go into this further with the Council. Sandra M. Stuiler City Attorney SS/sd cc : Dave Ellis Mick Mahoney Herb Bartel