Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880419 . AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 19, 1988 - Tuesday 4:30 P.M. Old City council Chambers 2nd Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING ------- I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff II. MINUTES March 8, 1988 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 700 E. Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD B. McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review C. Ritz-Carlton Hotel GMP/PUD Amendment (cont'd.) IV. ADJOURN MEETING MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Nancy Caeti, Planning Office RE: Your Next Agendas DATE: April 12, 1988 Following is your schedule for the rest of April and month May: April 26 - Special Meeting: Rio Grande Conceptual SPA May 3 - Regular Meeting: 334 W. Hallam Historic Designation - PHI Carley Designation Use and Condominiumization, Christian science Society Conditional Use, Hazen Stream Margin Review May 17 - Regular Meeting: Martin Condominiumization, Little Nell SPA Amendment A. NEXT MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office RE: 700 East Main Residential GMP Project/Preliminary Plat DATE: April 19, 1988 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends approval of the Preliminary Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review, Special Review for 2 (4) bedroom units, condominiumization; confirmation of the exemption of an on -site employee dwelling unit, and partial approval of the proposed "clarification" to the conceptual PUD submittal and GMP application. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANTS: Fine Associates. REQUEST: 14 residential GMP allocations, PUD Approval, and exemption from the GMP process for an employee housing unit. LOCATION: 700 East Main St. (Lots 1-18, Block 21). ZONING: RMF/ PUD . WATER: Aspen Water District hookup. SEWER: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District hookup. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located at the northeast corner of Spring Street and Main Street. The parcel contains 60,016 sq. ft. Currently, 2 houses and a barn/shed structure are located on the property. In addition, the applicant has provided document- ation from the Building Department that a third unit was demol- ished on the property. The site contains mature cottonwood trees along the portions of the south and west perimeters of the property. The property also contains several mature evergreen trees. The area of the property along the Roaring Fork River is covered with dense vegetation sloping down to the river. This vegetation includes low lying bushes and cottonwood trees. The natural topography of the site slopes gently upward from Main Street to the northeastern portion of the property. The steep slopes on the property border the Roaring Fork River on the eastern edge of the site. No development is proposed on this portion of the site. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed 700 Main multi -family project is surrounded by a variety of uses including the Eagles Club, adjacent and directly to the north of the site; a residential condominium project to the south across Main Street (Original Curve Condominiums) and a mixed use building to the west, the Concept 600 building which includes office space and residential condominium units. The Creektree condominium units sit adjacent to the back (NE) portion of the property while the eastern portion of the site is bordered by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The 700 Main application proposes construction of 14 free market units and one employee housing unit and a reconstruction of 3 existing units for a total of 18 units to be located in 3 multi -family buildings. The proposal includes 41 underground parking spaces and 4 ground level spaces. Recreational amenities include a swimming pool and a recreational building. On February 22, 1988 the City Council approved conceptual review of 700 E. Main with conditions. These conditions were the same conditions imposed by the Planning Commission with several additions. The Planning Commission is now reviewing the preliminary plat submission. At this stage the Planning Ccmmission must determine if the applicants have complied with the conceptual review approval. These conditions are listed below with a response indicating the applicants level of compliance. Condition: The applicants shall provide detailed information regarding the size, layout and features of the proposed employee housing unit at preliminary submission or this may be approved by the Housing Authority prior to preliminary plat - submittal. Response: This has been accomplished and approved by the Housing Authority. Condition: 2) The on -site employee unit may be rented to an employee of the project with no occupancy guideline requirements, however, if the unit is rented to someone who is not employed by the project, then the unit must be rented at the low-income guidelines. Response: K The applicant agrees to this condition. Condition: 3) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with commitments for mature trees on site. Verification that the site can sustain these plantings shall be submitted at preliminary submission. Response: The landscape plan was submitted illustrating mature plantings, however, there is no verification that the site can sustain the proposed plantings. This shall become a condition of final plat approval. Condition: 4) The corner park at Spring and Main Street shall be accessible to the public and shall include benches. Response: The applicant states that this condition is a misunderstanding and requests to clarify that the corner is not intended to be accessible to the public. Condition: 5) All sidewalks and curb and gutter designs provided at preliminary submission shall conform to Engineering Department specifications. Response: The application does not comply with the Engineering Department's requirements for sidewalks. The Engineering Department has evaluated the proposal and developed conditions of approval. Condition: 6) Detailed energy conservation information shall be submitted at preliminary submission in order to determine actual savings. Response: The applicants have submitted this information which has been reviewed by the Roaring Fork Energy Center, however, no detailed guidance has been provided by that referral agency. 3 Condition: 7) The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department regarding necessary stabilization of the banks of the Roaring Fork River along the applicant's property lines. Coordination of this work shall be accomplished prior to preliminary submittal. Response: The Engineering Department is satisfied with the applicants submittal and feels that the concerns have been mitigated through the stream margin review material. Condition: 8) The applicant shall submit a stream margin review plat at preliminary plat stage pursuant to the Engineering Department's memorandum dated January 28, 1988. Response: This has been accomplished with the exception that the high water line on the plat must be redrawn pursuant to the Engineering Department's approval. Condition: 9) The applicant shall provide additional information regarding the number of existing available parking spaces along the property lines of the project as well as provide information on how many spaces will be eliminated due to the development of the project. Response: The applicant has supplied this information. There are currently 9 spaces available, four of which would be eliminated by the project without modification to the proposed preliminary plat. In summary, the applicants have generally addressed the conditions of conceptual approval, yet additional conditions will be required to adequately address new concerns which have been raised. The following indicates the changes which have been made in the application since conceptual review: 1) The Main Street elevations. 2) Additional balconies on Main Street. 3) Additional parking information requested by the City Council. 4) Public seating on Main Street at the overlook park. 4 5) FAR. The Main Street elevations have been modified since the Conceptual review to reflect separate peaked roofs for all of the units that front Main Street. The conceptual submission showed several of the units under one peaked roof. The preliminary proposal also now proposes balconies on the third level of these units whereas before these units only had balconies on the second floor. Both of these changes appear to add bulk to the building, giving the building a larger facade with identical lines for each unit. Additional balconies, which do not count in the FAR calculations, also add bulk to the building. In reviewing the conceptual plans it is difficult to tell how the applicant planned on getting all of the proposed units inside of the elevations which were shown on Main Street. Therefore the changes to the roof line (peaks) on the Main Street elevations of this building may be necessary. However, the additional balconies are not necessary. The Planning Office recommendation is to accept the Main Street elevations as proposed but eliminate the third floor balconies. An additional condition which was added at the City Council meeting was the condition that the applicants verify how many parking spaces would be reduced along thepublic right-of-way by the development of the project. The applicants have worked with the Engineering Department in order to determine the number of existing spaces and the number of remaining spaces after the development is built. The existing number of spaces along the right-of-way is 9 . The development will delete 4 of those 9 spaces due to new curb cuts. However, if the applicants accept the Engineering Department condition and redevelopment of parking along Main, only two spaces will be lost (see Jim Gibbard's memo attached; maps will be available at the meeting). The Planning Office recommends that the entranceway to the surface parking on Spring Street be redeveloped in order to provide two more on - street parking spaces. The preliminary submittal shows that the overview park area along the public right-of-way does not contain a bench for seating. The preliminary proposal shows that boulders are to be utilized for seating. While this may have a more natural appearance, the Planning Office feels that if this area is to truly be utilized by the public, a bench should be installed along with boulders to offer the public an option and to make it clear that the area is intended for public use. At the conceptual review, the applicant stated that the project would contain approximately 40,000-42,000 sq. ft. which is under the allowable floor area of 50,497 sq. ft. after slope reduction and areas under water are deducted. The exact floor area proposal was not known at the time of conceptual review since the 0 method for calculating FAR in the RMF zone district was recently revised, and new calculations had not been submitted. However, the preliminary plan submittal indicates there will be approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area above the maximum proposed at conceptual. The Planning Office believes that the project should not exceed the square footage as it was represented at the conceptual stage. 1) Engineering Department: The Engineering Department submitted several memorandums regarding the 700 E. Main project. These memorandums mention the following issues: a. The submitted plat does not conform to all of the requirements set forth in Section 20-12 of the Municipal Code. b. The Stream Margin Review plat that has been submitted does not have the high water line in the right location. C. The submitted design shows a trash access gate and two wall or fence structures which encroach onto the public right-of-way. If an encroachment license for these is requested, the Engineering Department will recommend against it. It is the understanding of the Planning Office that the trash area will be within the setbacks but will not encroach into the City right-of- way. The Planning Office does not have a problem with this proposal since there is no structure above grade. The trash will be lifted from the garage level to the surface through doors which are flush with the surface. It is the understanding of the Planning Office that the wall or fence structures can be modified to a form acceptable to the Engineering Department. d. The proposed five foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets needs to be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. e. We would also recommend that the sidewalk curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street be designed so that parking there can be maximized (see attached diagram). N. f. The proposed location of the easement for the transformer/utility pad is acceptable to the Engineering Department as long as the dimensions of this easement are at least 101x7'. g. The proposed sidewalk on the north side of Original Curve needs to have a guard rail installed on the north side along the area where the bank drops off to the river. 2) Environmental Health: No additional comments. 3) City of Aspen Water Department: No additional comments. 4) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: No additional comments. 5) Fire Marshall: 7) Housing Authority: In a memo dated 4/14/88, Jim Adamski of the Housing Authority, states that the plans for the one bedroom employee unit are acceptable. 8) Roaring Fork Energy Center: In a memorandum dated 3/24/88, the Roaring Fork Energy Center reviewed the preliminary detailed proposal. Steve Standiford of the RFEC commends the applicants on not using any woodburning devices and notes that the proposed hot tubs will result in increased energy use. He recommends that foam covers be used to prevent stand-by evaporative losses and that the tubs will use high - efficiency heating systems to provide hot water. 9) Roaring Fork Transit Authority: No additional comments. 10) State Highway Department: In a memorandum dated April 71 1988, the State Highway Department noted that permits are required for the curb and sidewalks and for landscaping in the public right-of-way. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS SUBDIVISION/PUD: The 700 Main site was designated as a PUD site because of its proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the concern that valued green spaces would be preserved. In general, the proposed site design retains the valuable public elements of the site with regard to views and buffer vegetation. Specifically, the site design preserves the vegetation corridor along the Roaring Fork River and its banks. The easterly view plane to the river area from Main Street is partially preserved as an undisturbed area. A sunken pool area and a recreational 7 area will be located on the eastern front half of the parcel. The preliminary grading plan shows that there will be approxi- mately a 51 elevation gain from the Main Street view which will block any direct view of the swimming pool area from the public. This will provide an open, undisturbed view to the wooded banks of the river. Another open space feature of the site is located at the corner of Spring and Main, where a relatively level view from Main Street will be provided into a pocket park containing approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of landscaped green space. The conceptual submission stated that this area was for pedestrian use but did not offer any detail with regard to providing seating areas within this space. The Planning Office felt that this area provides a visual break from the proposed front structures and massing of the development. At the conceptual review before City Council and the Planning Commission, the Planning Office requested that the use of this area be clarified. The Planning Commission supported the Planning Office recommendation that a condition of approval be made stating that -"the corner park at Spring and Main shall be accessible to the public and shall include benches" (see attached condition #4 of conceptual review approval). The applicants are now stating that the intention was never to allow this area to be accessible to the public and that benches would be supplied on the public right-of-way. This position is in direct conflict with what the Planning staff represented to the City Council after review of the conceptual submittal by the Planning Office. Our memorandum to the City Council stated the following: "In addition, if accessible to the public as passive park space, the area would be very valuable to workers in the area for lunch breaks, etc. In order to make the area accessible and encourage its use, benches and passive use spaces should be provided by the applicant". At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant represented that the park is intended for public use and that outdoor furniture would be provided. The applicants are now requesting that this issue be clarified. The Planning Office feels that this is not consistent with the conceptual approval and that the applicant must comply with the conditions of conceptual approval. However, if the Planning Commission would like to entertain a revision to the conceptual and growth management approvals, then PUD amendments and growth management re -scoring are required. (This is covered in greater detail in this memorandum under PUD/GMP amendments). An additional public benefit of the 700 Main site design is the addition of sidewalks along Spring, Main and Neal Streets. The applicants propose to landscape within the public right-of-way and provide a river overlook and public seating area at original Curve. This will extend the open space feeling of Herron Park. The bulk of the project is placed to the rear of the site 8 adjacent to the Eagles Club. As noted in the discussion regarding the site design, the applicants use a clustering of structures and parking facilities in order to preserve the most valuable views on the site. The architectural design of the structures take advantage of the various views towards Aspen Mountain, Smuggler Mountain and Independence Pass. The scale and height of the buildings are consistent with the surrounding area and the mass (largest of the buildings) of the development is placed at the greatest possible distance away from Main Street (approximately 165 feet). In summary, the Planning Office adequately addressed the PUD exception of non-compliance conditions of approval which recommendation. feels that the applicants have section of the Code with the of several subdivision/PUD, are reflected in the proposed EMPLOYEE HOUSING REVIEWS: Section 24-11.2(F) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides_ an exemption for employee housing units which are deed -restricted in accordance with the City's housing guidelines. This Code provision states that the review of exemptions of units from the development allotment procedures must determine the community need by considering compliance with adopted housing plans, the size, number, and location of the units and the rental/sale mix of the development, as well as the proposed price categories. e applicants are requesting that a one -bedroom rental unit whi ch will provide housing for up to (2) employees be exempt from the growth management procedures. The applicants contend that this size and type of unit is needed in the community and that an exemption is appropriate. According to the Housing Authority, this type of unit as well as the location is consistent with the goals of the Housing Author- ity and the Housing Authority guidelines. At their meeting on February 22, 19881 the City Council granted the applicant's request to rent the employee unit to an employee regardless of that employee's income. However, if the unit is rented to someone who is not employed by the project, the unit must be rented at the low-income rental guidelines to a qualified employee. In addition, the City Council made the determination that the exemption of the .employee housing unit could be determined by the Housing Authority final approval of the unit design. In his memorandum dated April 14, Jim Adamski states that the proposed unit design (attached) is acceptable to the Housing Authority. Therefore, the Planning Office recommendation reflects the approval of the exemption for the employee unit. 9 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: Condition #8 of the conceptual approval reads "the applicant shall submit a stream margin review plat at preliminary plat stage pursuant to the Engineering Departments memo dated 1/28/88." The applicants have submitted a plat which is generally acceptable to the Engineering Department, however, the high water line illustrated on the plat must be redone to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The Planning Office recommends that final approval of Stream Margin Review be reflected in the Planning Commission recommendation with the condition that the high water line be placed on the plat to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR 2 (4) BEDROOM UNITS: The applicants propose 2 (4) bedroom units. The existing Code notes that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is set by special review for units over 3 bedrooms in size. The proposed Code requires 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area for a four bedroom unit, and this is what is proposed by the applicant. The Planning Office recommends approval of the Special Review to allow 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area for 2 (4) bedroom units since this is consistent with the proposed regulations. CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The applicants are requesting condominiumization of the 17 free market units in the project under Section 20-22 of the existing Code. The criteria is as follows: a) Existing Tenants Shall be Given Written Notice and Option to Purchase: the only tenants who are displaced live in a single-family residence at 120 N. Spring Street and have waived their option to purchase a newly constructed unit. b) Six Month Minimum Lease Restriction: The applicants are requesting a waiver from the six month minimum lease restriction. The application states that the project is located in a neighborhood containing similar condominium developments without 6 month minimum lease deed restrictions. The existing Code does not contain criteria for determining what areas are appropriate for waiver of the six month minimum lease restriction, however, the Revised Land Use Regulations includes the following four criteria. Section 7-1008 (2) Residential dwelling units in the Residential/Multi- family (RMF), Rural Residential (RR), Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), and Office (0) zone districts shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases, 0c with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year, unless the applicant shall demonstrate that: a) The immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for condominiumization is characterized predominantly by lodges or other units which are permitted to be used as short-term accommodations, and a substantial percentage of these units are currently being used for short-term rentals; and RESPONSE: The applicants have stated that the surrounding residential units do not have 6 month minimum lease restrictions. However, it is important to note that the projects which allow the short term accommodations are all projects which were created prior to the enactment of the 6 month minimum lease restriction in 1977. b) The parcel is in close proximity to the downtown area or to major tourist recreational facilities. RESPONSE: The proposed townhomes are located on the bus route, five blocks from the gondola and five blocks from the Hyman Avenue mall. c) The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject neighborhood as appropriate for short-term accommodations. RESPONSE: The 1973 Aspen Area Master Plan designates this area as multi -family residential indicating that it is an appropriate location for high density residential uses for the permanent population. At the conceptual review stage the Planning Commission and City Council approved a development on this site which is a multi -family residential project. While this project will be too expensive for the majority of permanent residents of the community, it would be inconsistent with the plan to allow it to be short termed. The surrounding land uses are a mixture of local uses (Eagles Club, residential uses and the SCI uses) and tourist uses (short. term accommodations at Original Curve Condominiums and Concept 600). The Planning Office feels that the master plan intended this site to be used as a permanent residential multi -family site rather than a short term (lodge oriented) site. The areas to the North and East of the site are primarily long term residential areas. In recent months the City Council has chosen to deny several requests in these areas for waiver of the 6 month minimum lease 11 restriction in order to maintain residential characteristics for this portion of town. The Planning Office does not support waiver of the 6 month restriction since this might encourage other long term residential projects in this area to seek short term status. d) There were not previously long-term residents of the parcel who were displaced by the proposed condominiumization. RESPONSE: The applicants have stated that the project's employee housing commitments mitigate the displacement of employees. However, 2 single family residences are being lost and employees are being displaced by the development of this project (see c below). The employee housing commitments are requirements to offset the impacts of the new units, and do not mitigate the displacement which is occurring since the reconstruction of the demolished unit is exempt from GMP housing calculations. In summary, the Planning Office does not support the request for a waiver of the 6 month minimum lease restriction based on the location of the development, the community need for long term permanent housing, the displacement which is occurring and the effect that having a short term project in this location would have on the surrounding long term projects. Criteria c below addresses Section 20-22. c) The Applicants Shall Demonstrate that Approval will not Reduce the Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing: The applicants suggest that the requirement for employee housing was mitigated by the employee housing commitment in GMP with regard to one on -site unit and a cash -in -lieu payment. The fact is that two existing single-family houses which have historically housed local permanent residents are being demolished. As noted above, one house has been rented while the other house was owner occupied. It is our understanding that the rental house has been rented within the guidelines (moderate income). Therefore, the applicant must deed - restrict one new unit under the existing code or pay a cash payment under the proposed code if the Commission finds that the employee housing commitment through growth management did not mitigate the displacement of these employees. The rental unit which is in question was exempted by growth management (replacement) and therefore does not make a direct employee housing payment in the cash -in -lieu contribution. The Planning Office is requesting that the Planning Commission make a determination as to whether or not an additional affordable housing fee is required for this project. 12 The applicant has the option of either deed restricting one of the units pursuant to Section 20-22 (d) of the existing code or requesting that they fall under the new code provisions paying an affordable housing fee for one of the units pursuant to Section 7- 1008 of proposed code. The Planning Commission has the option of waiving the fee if it is found to be appropriate. The Planning Office recommends approval of the condominiumization with the conditions as listed in the recommendation. CLARIFICATIONS PUD/GMP AMENDMENTS: The application states that there are several clarifications that the applicants would like to make regarding the conceptual plan submittal. The application states that the applicant does not believe that the proposed clarifications constitute " substantial deviations from an essential element of the GMP proposal". The Planning Office agrees that two of the three clarifications are minor in nature and do not greatly effect the project as was proposed at conceptual review. These two issues are: 1. Snowmelting of the area around the pool and recreation building. 2. The addition of hot tubs to the patios of each of the 17 free Market units. The Planning office feels that the addition of the snowmelting and hot tubs will increase the overall energy use on the site and that this could require a rescoring of the Energy section of the Growth Management evaluation, however, the Planning Office does not feel that there is very clear direction from the RFEC with regard to the impacts of these changes relative to the overall energy use of the project. The Planning Commission scored the Energy section of the growth management evaluation with a consistent 2.5 score (one Planning Commission member gave a score of 2). The Planning office feels that a rescoring of this will not significantly change the overall score granted to this project. In addition, the Planning office considered the change in character of the project due to the addition of hot tubs on every patio. Our conclusion, after considerable thought was that the character of the project is a tight urban feel and that the addition of hot tubs would not significantly impact the character. The hot tubs which are located in the internal units will not impact the public in any way. The concern initially was the impact of the units along Main Street. In reviewing these units in more detail it seems unlikely that they will be visible at all from the street due to the fact that they are located below grade and landscaping will shield any direct views. The recommendation of the Roaring Fork Energy Center, that foam covers be used on the tubs should become a condition of approval. In addition, the proposal shows these units as having additional patio areas added for the hot tubs. In effect, this adds to the mass of the project. The Planning Office feels that the patio size should remain the same with the hot tubs located on the patios which were shown at conceptual review. The Planning office does not support the applicant's request for an insubstantial amendment with regard to the open space at the corner of Spring and Main. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum the applicants and the Planning Staff disagree on what was represented at the conceptual level subdivision and GMP review with regard to the corner of Spring and Main. The Planning Staff strongly believes that the corner open space area was to be accessible to the public and that benches were to be located in this area as a passive open space/park area. This position is supported by the fact that the applicants committed at the conceptual review stage to condition #4 which states that the corner park at Main and Spring Street will be accessible to the public and that benches will be provided in this area. This position is even more strongly supported by the fact that the issue of whether or not this area was to be accessible to the public was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting as well as at the City Council meeting. .This is documented in our memo to the City Council as well as in our memo to the Planning Commission (attached). It is difficult for the planning staff to support the project with regard to its open space/site design amenities if in fact the applicant is saying that this area is not accessible to the public; and, if the applicant is only supplying benches within the public right of way. The Planning Commission has several options. The first option is to determine that condition #4 was clear and is a condition of approval which must be complied with. The second option is to determine that the issue is not significant and that it is merely a clarification which does not require an amendment to the GMP scoring or reconsideration of subdivision approval. If the Planning Commission wishes to reconsider condition #4 and rescore the project relative to site design the staff has prepared a rescoring recommendation attached to this packet. The Planning Office, however, does not recommend a rescoring. The Planning Commission score for site design were quite high ranging from 2 to 3 for a total of 18.5 points. Even if all the Planning Commission member agreed with staff that site design should be rescored to receive 1 point(indicating a major design flaw) the total # of points would be 7 points in this category. This would mean that the applicants would lose 11.5 points in this category. This, in turn means that the average score in the Quality of design section would be 10 rather than 11.The application would still score above the threshold and maintain 14 its position relative to the other projects. Therefore, a rescoring does not have any impact on the GMP status of the project. The Planning Commission, however, has the authority through both subdivision review and GMP amendment procedures to maintain the requirement of condition #4,imposed on the applicant and accepted by the applicant at Conceptual subdivision review. The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the accessibility of the open space at the corner of Main and Spring street was a specific part of the conceptual PUD approval- and that condition 44--__stands as a condition of the C__7f_qGr_r.,._,the eliminary approval. COMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approvA of eliminary Subdivision/PUD, Exemption from growth mar.g'ement employee dwelling unit, condominiumizat,i-vni� margin review, and special review approval for the 700 Main project with the following conditions: 1) All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval. 2) Employee Housing: The on -site unit shall be deed - restricted as a low income rental unit with priority to be given to an on -site employee of the project who doe not require to meet the low income guidelines. 3) Subdivision/PUD/GMP: A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with commitments for mature trees on site. Verification that the site can sustain these plantings illustrated in the landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. 4) The corner park at Spring and Main Street shall be accessible to the public and shall include 2 benches. 5) Engineering: Prior to final plat approval, the Engineering Department shall verify that the applicant has adequately provided the following information: a. The plat shall conform to all of the requirements set forth in Section 20-12 of the Municipal Code. b. The proposed five foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets shall be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. C. The sidewalk curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street shall be designed so that parking there can be maximized. In addition, the surface parking 15 along Spring Street shall be redesigned in order to provide 2 additional on -street parking spaces. d. The easement for the transformer/utility pad shall be at least 101x7l. e. The sidewalk on the north side of Original curve shall have a guard rail installed on the north side along the area where the bank drops off to the river. f. The storm drainage for the site shall be designed by a registered engineer to insure that the historic water table level is maintained. 6) The total square footage of the project shall not exceed 42,000 sq. ft. 7) The hot tubs for the individual units shall be located on the footprint of the patios -as shown on the conceptual plan. The hot tubs shall not extend off of the patios as was submitted at preliminary submission. In addition, foam covers are required for each hot tub on the site. 8) The pool area, recreation building and parking ramp may be heated for snowmelt purposes. 9) The applicants must receive encroachment permits for the light posts and walls on the ramp area within the public right-of-way. This encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to final plat approval. 10) The public river overlook shall include (1) bench and boulders for public seating. 11) There shall be no 3rd floor balconies on the Main Street units 12, 14 and 16. 12) Condominiumization: The 17 free market units shall be condominiumized with the following conditions: a) The applicant shall submit a statement of subdivision exception which shall include the limitation that the units shall be rented for periods of six months, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. b) The applicants shall agree to join an improvements district if one is formed for their area. 16 Option to _determined the Planning Commission: CH.700 c) The applicants shall be required to pay an be affordable housing fee based on the one unit by which is being demolished (bedroom count) pursuant to Section 7-1008 of the proposed code or to deed restrict one of the new units pursuant to Section 20-22 (d) of the existing code, whichever is in effect at the time of final plat approval. M LAW OFFICES GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN April 12, 1988 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office HAND -DELIVERED 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Subdivision Dear Cindy: Pursuant to our meeting this morning, this letter is to provide the following clarifications of Fine Associates' Preliminary PUD/Subdivision Application scheduled for the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on April 19, 1988. 1. Project Name. 11700 East Main" is a project name for the approval identification purposes only. The applicant intends to choose a different project name later in the development process. 2. FAR. The applicant has previously stated that the proposed FAR was not to exceed 42,000 sq. ft. This commitment was based upon interpretations of the FAR calculation formula prior to final revision and administrative interpretations of this formula. There have been some very recent (April 9, 1988) formula interpretations and conclusions between Bill Drueding and Michael Thompson of Hagman, Yaw. In addition, refining of technical development plans has increased the need for additional square footage. It is my understanding that the applicant now needs approximately 1,000 additional square feet. 3. On -Street Parking. There are currently seven (7) 2-hour parking spaces on Main Street along the subject project. Jim Gibbard's proposed alternative curb design would allow two (2) additional spaces. Please note that this design also impacts the proposed open space amenity. There are currently nine (9) 2-hour parking spaces on Spring Street along the subject property. Five (5) of these spaces will be deleted by the project's entry, garage entry, and trade and utility transformer access. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By Ma -ha Pickett MCP/bw V cc: Bob Kueppers LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 GIDEON i. KAUFMAN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 April 12, 1988 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Subdivision - FAR Calculations Dear Cindy: The following calculations represent the required Park Dedication Fee for the 700 East Main Subdivision approval. Purchase Price ($212051000) = 11297 x net new population (32.5) $42,154.00 Number of proposed units (17) Please note that we are requesting exemption of the employee unit from the Park Dedication Fee requirements. I will appreciate your review of the above calculation and verification of the fee owed. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By ka-Ajia C. 'ckett MCP/bw cc: Bob Kueppers H O L LAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW DENVER 600 EAST MAIN STREET DENVER TECH CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C. February 29, 1988 Ms. Cindy Heuben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Street Project Dear Cindy: TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 TELECOP,IER,(3W) 925-9367 THOMAS J. TODD This letter is a follow-up to the February 22, 1988 Aspen City Council public hearing on the proposed 700 East Main Street Project. The law firm of Holland & Hart owns commercial office space in the Concept 600 Building, which is located west of and across the street from the 700 East Main site. After observing the applicant's presentation, we wish to state for the record that Holland & Hart has no objections to what appears to be a sensi- tive and creative re -development of the site. As you may recall, I voiced a concern at the public hearing about street parking on Original Curve and North Spring Street. We at Holland & Hart are anxious to see that parking on Original Curve and North Spring Street remain as all -day unrestricted parking. I'm sure that a number of the other businesses on East Main Street have similar concerns for the availability of all -day street parking for their clients and employees. Based on the foregoing, we request that the City Planning and Engineering Departments keep these concerns in mind in the event modifica- tions to our neighborhood's parking patterns are considered as a consequence of the development of the 700 East Main Street Proj- ect. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, C�` f Thomas J. Todd for HOLLAND & HART TJT/sg .40ARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBON DALECO,81623 (303)963-0311 March 24, 1988 TO: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford, Director RE: 700 E Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 The RFEC was formed in Aspen by volunteers interested in - promoting the conservation of natural resources. To this cause, we are pleased to see the elimination of all woodburning devices. Improving the local air quality while reducing the energy -inefficient use of natural resources is a commendable change in this.development. The additional 16 hot tubs will result in a corresponding increase of energy use. We hope that foam covers will be used to prevent stand-by, evaporative losses (especially at night) and that the tubs will utilize high -efficiency heating systems to provide the hot water. Besides the addition of the extra hot tubs, the project seems to have the same energy features as the earlier submission. Please reference our opinions dated January 8, 1988 for further comments. =GMAN YAW ..tCHITECTS itn llo SOUTH GALENA ASPEN. C OLOR..1Di) rilbl t 3o3r9?j-2W -r }° tAi : t 4 March 1988 _ Mr. Steve Standiford Roaring Fork Energy Center 242 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Re: 700 East Main Street Dear Steve: � Co � i��A2 c t(• FAX 72--D A CT r S3�-39-3� �� ►� T c e i o,-r if ou t36:. We are submitting our project for the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision process now, and I would like to take this opportunity to tell you exactly how we addressed your energy concerns expressed during conceptual PUD. I am including prints of our building elevations so you can see how the glazing works. In addition, I have attached a copy of our glazing area survey for all East, North and West facing glass. Our current design has 3,141 SF of actual glass area on these faces, which is 6.170 of our floor area for the top three levels of all build- ings. As you know, we are also providing Low-E glass in all Non - South facing windows, which will further reduce energy consumption. The combination of Low-E glazing and half of the allowable non - south glass will make this project an exemplary one with respect to energy conservation. *The calculation sheet shows a possible future increase in non -south glass, which is currently on the boards. As you can see, the impact of this increase still has our total under 70 of floor area. With regard to water consumption, it is important to note, in response to your conceptual PUD comments, that our toilets will all be maximum 32 gallon tank sizes, and that our showers will all have maximum 3 GMP restrictions on them. Please call me if you have any questions on this or on the Preliminary PUD Application, when you receive it. MT:aa Enclosures Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd Michael Thompson A I A Partner 0 -- •-uurr�rw�cF ,.y�9 , 1 4i r P�lA /-':Ri-.HITE TSB � T ht3.•%`✓.:"�•{- (-\.l,Ja �3V.,ti+..��a (..:��-.{Yf'�i�.l i'��;��rJ ! ©�i�J�' f. i ""1,�• �':'� tea` • • (Q a.,� _ .. ..... - �.... b/ t.. i - �.. "t.,-'- . _. � .. �+.�'.�'• . 4. .... � ..._ � � 1 4 t i .� ~ is iJ ' '•> ) t � � ..- Io ((1 -. Col _ ( -"` i _ �;i � "'. � I°! y _ - "�� � ,lid _ .. `�Y... w' �'h ....J ,vf 1 r� .. _ _- - �f _ � , ^ Y-*7 'I a , x � ,� / ✓ !� ��. ... _ .. - r 1 � . fin., � ..:,� c-�- ".. ✓ � a.i _ �J L,! _ .n�. ••- !""} ;{ «� :.. , �`�• - - . � �� anj t ^%v ETA l 2 G/ /J s -70(n 0 v 17 d .� . , a� ,•rJ � �' 6 i+•' `✓✓ f L W . � y+'c.+„d r ! .li Lit �-ti« ✓ti: 7 t � � rw a,�-s..r+' L r .'.'a . ^ '+= s ` , —iJ rs i"9 t..J ..✓ �;yr rp� • • i 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 8161 i 303*925-2867 MEMORANDUM TO: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM: JIM ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR DATE: April 14, 1988 RE: 700 MAIN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION, EMPLOYEE UNIT REVISION BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a modification to the employee unit in the 700 E. Main Project. I have reviewed the drawings for square footage and bedroom count. The drawings do not have a scale on them but from what I can determine the square footage is approximately 750 - 800 net livable square feet, which is above the employee guideline for a one bedroom low income unit, which is 500 - 600 s.f.). HOUSING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Office recommended approval of the applicants modification to the employee unit number 18, with the condition that the rental rate be in accordance with the low income employee guideline, i.e., $.60 per square foot, up to 600 s.f. or a maximum of $360.00 per month including utilities. Further, that if the unit is rented by an employee of the project occup- ancy guidelines do not apply. The applicant must also pay $685,000 in payment -in -lieu fees for the remaining employee generation before the issuance of a building permit for the project. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: April 14, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main Preliminary Residential PUD/Subdivision In a memo dated January 7, 1988, the Engineering Department recommended that the detention structures described in the proposed storm drainage plan be designed by a registered engineer to insure that the historic level of the water table is main- tained. This recommendation was not addressed in the above application and the Engineering Department recommends that it be a condition of approval. In the Engineering Department's Stream Margin Review of this application, it was recommended that a registered engineer should verify that the riverbank on the east boundary of the site be protected from erosion. The above application adequately addres- ses this in both the areas of protection of the bank from construction and from erosion. jg/700main4 cc: Jay Hammond MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: April 7, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and has the following comments: 1. The submitted plat does not conform to all of the requirements set forth in section 20-12 of the Municipal Code. 2. The Stream Margin Review plat that has been submitted does not have the high water line in the right location. 3. The submitted design shows a trash access grate and two wall or fence structures which encroach onto the public right of way. If an encroachment license for these is requested, the Engineer- ing Department will recommend against it. 4. The proposed five foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets needs to be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. 5. We would also recommend that the sidewalk curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street be designed so that parking there can be maximized (see attached diagram) . 6. The proposed location of the easement for the transformer/ utility pad is acceptable to the Engineering Department as long as the dimensions of this easement are at least 101x7'. -7. The proposed sidewalk on. the north side of Original Curve needs to have a guard rail installed on the north side along the area where the bank drops off to 'the river. jg/700mainl cc: Jay Hammond Chuck Roth !l' t • `vl) MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department E DATE: March 1, 1988 E j RE: 700 E. Main curb gut ter ter and sides alk design. The Engineering Department would recommend that the applicant design the curb, gutter and sidewalk alignment on Main Street so that parking can be maximized. The attached diagram shows a design alternative which would create two more parking spaces than the existing alignment. jg/700main cc: Jay Hammond i IIIL III-. 13 3 �A ! I c o MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: February 24, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main k This is in regard to a phone conversation with Rich Persky of the State Highway Department in Grand Junction in which we discussed the location of the guard rail on the north side of Original Curve. Rich indicated that the guard rail could be removed entirely and the curb could serve as a barrier to traffic provided the curb was at least 6 inches high and the edge of the curb was at least 20 feet from the centerline of the street. He also indicated that he would like the applicant to send a copy of the plans for this sidewalk to both he and Milt Cass, the State Highway Department supervisor of maintenance in Glenwood Springs. jg/grdrail cc: Jay Hammond 3) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with commitments for mature trees on site. Verification that the site can sustain these plantings shall be submitted at preliminary submission. The corner 4)` park at Spring and Main Street shall be accessible to the public and shall include benches. 5) All sidewalks and curb and gutter designs provided at preliminary submission shall conform to Engineering Department specifications. 6) Detailed energy conservation information shall be submitted at preliminary submission in order to deter- mine actual savings. 7) The applicant shall work with the Engineering Depart- ment regarding necessary stabilization of the banks of the Roaring Fork River along the applicants property lines. Coordination of this work shall be accomplished prior to preliminary submittal. 8) The applicant shall submit a stream margin review plat at preliminary plat stage pursuant to the Engineering Department's memorandum dated January 28, 1988. CH.700 11 �:�t1Coi'71 thAt VAlUoii a)ic�pn �(�Ac.-s�a 4ts �.�►� [ I►.l /'ark 1s. n i Yt►� hill l.lc! j�I'At3csL'VF]ti. n��al 4 too In general, the proposed site design retains the valuable public elements of the site with regard to views and buffer vegetation. Specifically, the site design preserves the vegetation corridor along the Roaring Fork River and its banks. The easterly view plane to the river area from Main Street is partially preserved as an undisturbed area. A sunken pool area and a recreational area will be located on the eastern front half of the parcel. The conceptual grading ,mately a 5' elevation gain from the ws t the Main Shat treet will be approxi- view which will block any direct view of the swimming pool area from the public. This will provide an open, undisturbed view to the wooded banks of the river. Another open space features of the site is located at the corner of Spring and Main where a relatively level view from Main.Street will be provided into a pocket park containing approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of landscaped green space. The application states that this area is for pedestrian use but does not offer an detail with regard to providing sitting areas within this space. The Planning Office feels that this -area provides a visual break from the proposed front structures and massing -of the develop- ment. In addition, if accessible to the public as rk space, the area would be very valuable to workers in then areaforlunch breaks, etc. In order to make the area accessible and encourage its use, benches and passive use spaces should be provided by the applicant. The additional public benefits of the 700 Main site design is the addition of sidewalks along Spring, Main and Neal Streets. The applicants propose to landscape within the public right-of-way and provide a river overlook and public seating area at Original Curve. This will extend the open space feeling of Herron Park. The bulk of the project is placed to the rear of the site adjacent to the Eagles Club. The proposed open space for the site offers approximately 550 open space when calculated with the proposed open space standards. The open space between the front and back buildings is approximately 70' and the closest structure to the Roaring Fork River is setback approximately 501. 6 intensive residential use by permanent residents of the community since it is located in close proximity to employment and shopping areas. The Plan- states that these areas should be used as a source for housing low income residents. The 1985 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element identifies a proposed pedestrian corridor along Neal Street. The applicant recognizes the need for sidewalks in this area and commits to providing them on Neal Street to the No Problem Bridge as well as along Main and Spring Streets. In summary, the proposal is consistent with adopted plans with regard to providing a multi -family development. The development, however, is not intended to be within a price range affordable to low income permanent residents of the community. The proposal commits to providing an identified need for a sidewalk along Neal Street. SUBDIVISION/PUD: The 700 Main site was designated as a PUD site because of its proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the concern that valued green spaces would be preserved. In general, the proposed site design retains the valuable public elements of the site with regard to views and buffer vegetation. Specifically, the site design preserves the vegetation corridor along the Roaring Fork River' and its banks. The easterly view plane to the river area from Main Street is partially preserved as an undisturbed area. A sunken pool area and a recreational area will be located on the eastern front half of the parcel. The conceptual grading plan shows that there will be approxi- mately a 51 elevation gain from the Main Street view which will 'block any direct view of the swimming pool area from the public. This will provide an open, undisturbed view to the wooded banks of the river. Another open space features of the site is located at the corner of Spring and Main where a relatively level view from Main Street will be provided into a pocket park containing approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of landscaped green space. The application states that this area is for pedestrian use but does not offer any detail with regard to providing sitting 'areas within this space. The Planning Office feels that this area provides a visual break from the proposed front structures and massing of the develop- ment. In addition, if accessible to the public as passive park space, the area would be very valuable to workers in the area for lunch breaks, etc. In order to make the area accessible and encourage its use,, benches and passive use spaces should be provided by the applicant. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant represented that the park is intended for public use and that outdoor furniture will be provided. e MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: McDonald Historic Designation and Conditional Use (Public Hearings) DATE: April 19, 1988 LOCATION: 300 West Main Street, Lots Q, R, and S of Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: Office zone district. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION: The existing log house is located towards the northwest corner of the property. Mature blue spruce trees grow in the front and side yards along Second and Main Streets. The property is basically flat and lower than the grade of Main Street and the Elisha House property to the west. Adjacent properties are residential in use, including the Elisha House to the west and two residences north across the alley. Across 2nd Street to the east is the Christmas Inn. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Scott and Caroline McDonald request historic designation of the log house property and conditional use approval to convert the existing 1400 square foot house into a fifty (50) seat restaurant. A two story addition, approximately 2300 square feet in size, would be attached to the north and west sides of the existing house for a four bedroom residence, garage and restaurant kitchen. A one bedroom employee unit was initially proposed within the addition, but has been deleted as a response to HPC's concerns about the bulk of the addition. ACTIONS BY OTHER BOARDS: The Historic Preservation Committee recommended historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main on February 9, 1988. On that date HPC also gave conceptual development review approval to the addition subject to several conditions. HPC continued conceptual development review to ascertain whether the conditions of approval had been met. Design changes have been made following each hearing to address concerns raised. After four meetings, HPC extended the period during which the applicant can meet the conditions of approval to April 26, 1988. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant should be aware that if any changes affecting the conditional use review occur as a result of further design changes from HPC's conceptual 1 or final development reviews, then the applicant may need to return to P&Z to amend the conditional use permit, or obtain a staff sign -off pursuant to Section 24-3.3(c). A variance request for encroachment into the rear yard set -back had been scheduled for the Board of Adjustment. The addition will extend into the 15' rear yard setback to be 5.2' from the rear (alley -side) property line. However, Section 9-103.C.2 of the revised Land Use Code allows HPC to grant encroachments by historic landmarks in all zone districts. Consequently, the variance hearing was canceled; and HPC may grant the encroachment subject to adoption of the revised Land Use Code and Final Development approval. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. HISTORIC DESIGNATION: In order for the property to be eligible for the restaurant conditional use, the property must receive historic landmark designation. Standards for historic designation are stated in Section 24-9,3(a) of the Municipal Code. Following are the Planning Office's comments in response to the standards: 1. Standard: The structure or site is commonly identified with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: The applicants researched Assessor's records and concluded that the original structure on the site was built prior to 1893 and torn down some time between 1930 and 1940. The log house was built around 1944. There is no documentation that the house or site has significant historical association. 2. Standard: The structure reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The house is one of the only log structures remaining in Aspen, along with the cabins at 205 S. Third Street and 527 W. Main Street. While it is newer than these other two cabins, it is in a more prominent location and setting. Log construction with chinking, the cross gable roof, and the square windows with small panes are typical of the Pioneer (1850-1930's) and Rustic (post 1940) styles now rare in Aspen. The 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures considered the log house to possess distinctive characteristics of "type, style of architecture, and construction" and to be "a noteworthy surviving example of a style becoming rare in the locale or is identified with a street scene or other landscape." The fact that it was built so recently (1944) makes historic landmark status dubious. However, given the structure's unique status, we feel we can support the viewpoint that it meets this criteria of architectural significance. The State Historical Society's 2 architect, Jay Yanz, reported verbally on April 5, 1988 that he considered the log house to be a "classic". The HPC continues to review the proposed alterations and addition to the log house to assure that the historic character of the property which is deemed worth preserving is maintained. 3. Standard: The structure embodies the distinguishing character- istics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: The log house embodies the characteristics of the rustic residential building type, which is identified in the "Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines" as an historic architectural style in Aspen. 4. Standard: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: It is unlikely that a house of this type was designed by an architect. The applicant's research indicates that Leo "Pope" Rowland, an old-time Aspenite and the brother of "Red" Rowland, was the primary builder of the house. John Parsons a mason who did work throughout the Valley, y, is credited with building the stone fireplace and chimney. The stonework in particular is outstanding; and it may be that Mr. Parsons' work influenced other use of moss rock in and around Aspen. No research has been done to confirm this. 5. Standard: The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: The log house is considered visually contributing to the Main Street Historic District, according to the 1980 Historic Inventory. The major spruce trees give a special, rustic character to the site and contribute to a sense of maturity, permanence and visual relief from buildings on Main Street. 6. Standard: The structure or site is critical to the preserva- tion of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location, and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or archi- tectural importance. Response: The log house has a special prominence in the community because of its visibility on Main Street, in staff's opinion. B. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW: Section 24-3.3(b) of the Municipal Code states the criteria for review of conditional uses as follows: 3 "(1) Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, (2) Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this zoning code and the applicable zoning district and, (3) If the proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area." 1. Referral Comments: a. Engineering Department: In a March 28, 1988 memorandum from Chuck Roth the following areas of concern are discussed: 1. Parking: The parking requirements for the 1400 square foot restaurant and the four bedroom residence would come to a total of nine (9) spaces. P&Z may reduce the requirement through special review to a total of seven (7) spaces. The plans reviewed by the Engineering Department indicate there is one (1) parking space in the garage and five (5) spaces along the alley, totaling six (6) spaces on site. The Code requires 7' in height for garage parking spaces. The intention of the "O" zone district was cited to support special review or variance reduction of parking requirements. This may help preserve the visual scale and character of the residential area. Engineering noted that on -street parking may be appropriate for the proposed restaurant and that public transportation on Main Street is easily accessible. Diagonal parking along 2nd Street is conceptually acceptable to the Engineering Department so to provide three (3) additional on -street parking spaces, for a total of seven (7) spaces. Curb relocation, grading, paving, signage and other elements of this conversion would need to be accomplished at the owner's expense. 2. Trash Dumpster: The site plan does not show a separate enclosure for dumpster(s). The application letter indicates dumpsters would be located in the garage. Sizing and access should be determined by BFI. 3. Service and Delivery: Service and delivery vehicles have access to the project from the alley. The structure should be designed to allow for these vehicles to provide restaurant -related services from the alley. 4 4. Utilities: The applicants should check with the Electric Department about whether they will be responsible for paying for a larger electrical transformer or other utility extension costs. New utility extensions must be underground. 5. Drainage: The addition and proposed parking area would create adverse drainage impacts on the public alley and streets. The applicant should be required to provide on -site disposal of excess drainage flows with dry wells, retention ponds, timed release mechanisms, or other solutions designed by a qualified professional engineer. 6. Sidewalks: The construction of a sidewalk along 2nd Street, a minimum of 5 feet wide, is required. With angle parking, there must be a 2 1/2 foot wide landscape area between the curb and sidewalk or a sidewalk minimum of 7 1/2 feet wide. b. Environmental Health: Rick Bossingham addressed in his March 10, 1988 memorandum the following concerns: 1. Sanitary Sewer and Water Services: The applicant should contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Aspen Water Department regarding their requirements for restaurant use of service lines. 2. Air Quality: The applicant notes that a charboiler will be installed with an electrostatic precipitator. Please note that controlling particulates does not control odors that could effect the area. The applicant will be required to comply with applicable wood burning device regulations. 3. Noise: There are no adverse noise impacts anticipated with this application. 4. State Rules and Regulations Governing Sanitation of Food Service Establishments: Compliance with State regulations is required, including that food service operations must be completely separated from living quarters. A second memorandum from Rick Bossingham dated April 14, 1988 addresses in more detail how the issue of odor control might be handled if within one (1) year complaints are received. c. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark commented in his April 13, 5 1988 memorandum that: 1. Two means of egress to the restaurant are necessary. There appears to be one means of egress in the proposed plan. 2. There is adequate water and access to provide fire protection to this property. d. Housing Office: In an April 4, 1988 memorandum, Jim Adamski noted that the new code would require housing for 35% of the employees generated from expansion or change in use of an historic landmark. The existing code does not require any employee housing mitigation for changes in use of historic landmarks. While originally the applicant had proposed an employee housing unit, this commitment has been dropped and no employee housing mitigation would be provided. At the April 7, 1988 meeting the Housing Authority recommended that the applicant mitigate the employee housing impact that the restaurant will generate in accordance with the intent of the new code. 2. Staff Comments: In addition to the above points made by referral agencies, staff has the following comments. a. Parking Requirement: Section 24-4.5(c) of the Municipal Code establishes that nine (9) parking spaces be provided on site for this project, which can be reduced to no fewer than seven (7) spaces through special review approval by P&Z. After removing the employee unit and further pulling back the addition from the alley, five (5)) spaces would be possible along the alley (47' long area) in addition to the two (2) parking spaces in an enlarged garage. Section 24-4.6 of the Municipal code states the criteria for P&Z's special review as follows: "...Such review shall be made by the zoning commission which commission, in making such determination, shall consider the projected traffic generation of the proposed development, site characteristics, the pedestrian access and walking distance to the downtown areas, and the availability of public transportation." Factors influencing the need for on -site parking for the proposed restaurant include: the size (50 seats), availability of on -street parking, and anticipated vehicular/pedestrian means of access. The Hickory House Restaurant on the 700 block of W. Main provides some useful comparisons. The 50 seat size is approximately half that of the Hickory House, which is also a family -style restaurant. The Hickory House generates a great deal of traffic, R particularly in the morning when locals stop on their way in to work and skiers stop on their way to ski areas. The Hickory House has use of a parking lot that can accommodate approximately 8 vehicles; however, we have observed that customers park also in the alley as well as along Main and Sixth Streets. The Hickory House is approximately 9 blocks from the Commercial Core, while the log house is approximately 4 blocks from the Commercial Core. More pedestrians can be expected to patronize the log house because of this proximity; however, a major sector of the clientele for a family restaurant is probably commuting workers, similar to the Hickory House. The following table describes the parking situation: On -site and Off -site Parking (3/31/88 Plan) Location Use # of Spaces On -site Residential 4 On -site Restuarant 3 Main St. - parallel Restaurant 3 2nd St. - parallel Restaurant 4 or 2nd St. - diagonal alt. Restaurant 7 Total Restaurant Parking 10 or Total Restaurant Parking: diagonal alt. 13 Potential problems with diagonal parking include: increased congestion of the 2nd Street and Main Street intersection, snow removal along 2nd Street, and removal of additional green space. Please note that there is head -in parking across the street next to the Christmas Inn. The diagonal parking arrangment does not require cutting down any existing trees. The alternative of providing more above grade on -site parking would require removal of trees and negatively effect the character of the property, in our opinion. There would remain significant yard space even if the entire r.o.w. is paved. Without diagonal parking, it is likely that customers will park further down 2nd Street, creating some adverse impact on the residential neighborhood. From the point of view of acceptable traffic flow, the Engineering Department has supported diagonal parking on 2nd Street. After weighing the "trade-off's", the Planning Office believes that with diagonal parking, there is sufficient parking to accommodate the restaurant use and that parking impacts are mainly compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The three spaces on site for use of restaurant 6 customers should be signed accordingly. We note that the sidewalk would be located mainly on the applicant's property. The applicant has verbally explained the configuration of the garage to accomodate two parking spaces and enough space for a trash compactor and dumpster. Further modifications to the plan will be explained at your meeting. b. Trash Dumpster and Service Access: The applicant wrote a letter dated March 1, 1988 indicated BFI believes a two -yard dumpster is needed for this size of a restaurant and that removal through the garage is functional. The garage area, leading directly into the kitchen, appears to be adequate to accommodate the dumpster and service access. It appears that for a small restaurant operation, this is an acceptable area and configuration. As noted above, the applicant will further clarify the trash and service plan at your meeting. c. Delivery: Deliveries should take place from the alley between the normal working hours of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. so to not inconvenience residential neighbors, in our opinion. Night and early morning deliveries would be incompatible with surrounding residential properties. d. Drainage: Drainage impacts from the new addition and parking area should be addressed as requested by the Engineering Department. e. Odors: The Environmental Health Department has suggested that odors may result from the restaurant, particularly the charboiler. Mesquite wood has been identified as a particularly strong smelling burning substance and should not be allowed in this restaurant because of the nearby residential neighborhood. While odor controlling devices are available, Environmental Health believes that because they are so expensive and odor may not be a problem, it is unreasonable to require such at this time. A mechanism has been suggested whereby after one (1) year following certificate of occupancy if complaints from the neighborhood are made then the applicant agrees to reappear before the P&Z to discuss and propose odor mitigation. At that time the Environmental Health Department can help substantiate whether there is a problem and suggest options for dealing with it. f. Fire and Building Code Concerns: The Fire Marshal identified the need for two means of egress into the restaurant. Rob Weien of the Building Department noted verbally that handicapped access and handicap bathrooms will also be required. These matters would need to be addressed in the building permit application and do not require P&Z M action for conditional use review. g. Historic Preservation: One of the purposes for allowing conditional uses of historic structures on Main Street is to provide for workable adaptive re -uses of old houses in order to preserve those houses. We believe that there is necessarily a certain trade-off between preservation and neighborhood impacts. In this case, we support the efforts of the applicant to preserve the log house and we believe that the restaurant use would be appropriate for the neighborhood if the scale is kept small enough and the operation is done sensitively. Visual impacts of the alterations and addition continue to be a subject of HPC°s reviews. Hopefully a design will be arrived at to the satisfaction of both the Committee and the applicant. The April 12, 1988 meeting was very encouraging. Another concern is that this development could be perceived as adding to strip development of Main Street. We suggest that the proposed restaurant should have a fairly quiet presence on Main Street, given the limited seating, heavily vegetated site and the placement of the fairly modest structure on the site. Converting the log house into a restaurant on Main Street would make this interesting structure more available for public display and preserve the building. h. Employee Housing: The Planning Office shares the concerns of the Housing Authority that during this transitional period between the existing code and the revised code, it would be desireable for an applicant to mitigate a portion of the impacts on employee housing caused by new commercial development. However, historically, conditional use review has not been utilized to require employee housing. The new code is not in effect at this time and cannot be used to enforce a future requirement. Therefore, we cannot recommend that employee housing mitigation be required as part of the P&Z review. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the following actinncz! 1. Recommend historic landmark designation of 300 W. Main Street. 2. Grant conditional use approval for restaurant use of 300 W. Main Street subject to the following conditions: a. The restaurant shall not exceed 1400 square feet in size or fifty (50) seats, including both the food service and bar areas. b. All representations within the "Request for Conditional 9 Use" application regarding saving of the trees,, site plan features and other matters pertaining to the restaurant operation shall be adhered to. C. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy the applicant shall make the following improvements to the site and adjacent public rights of way (plans to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit have been specified): 1. A parking area containing six (6) standard size parking spaces shall be installed along the north property line along the alley with gravel or paving surface. Signs shall be posted designating three of those spaces for customer use. 2. The one (1) parking space in the garage shall conform to the Code required dimensions, including a height of seven (7) feet. 3. Diagonal parking to accommodate seven (7) parking spaces along 2nd Street shall be installed at the owner's expense with the approval of and to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Curb relocation, grading, paving, and signage shall be accomplished at the owner's expense. Plans shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. A sidewalk along 2nd Street shall be constructed at the owner's expense following the minimum width and other construction standards to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Plans for the sidewalk shall be shown in the building permit application and accepted by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. The applicant shall provide on -site disposal of excess drainage flows with dry wells, retention ponds, timed release mechanisms, or other solutions designed by a qualified professional engineer to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Plans for the drainage shall be shown in the building permit application and accepted by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of�a building permit. d. No mesquite wood shall be burned for the restaurant operation. e. A hearing may be called Zoning Commission any time issuance of a certificate regarding odor problems are 10 in front of the Planning and within one (1) year after of occupancy if complaints received. The Environmental 4- i - Health Department will document and investigate any complaints and have information available if a hearing is called. The applicant shall agree to adhere to any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission for mitigating odor problems, including installation of an odor control g devise. f. Deliveries to the restaurant operation shall be made only between the hours of 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. 3. Grant special review for reduction in on -site parking requirements from nine (9) spaces to seven (7), four of which are for the use of the four bedroom residential unit and three for use of the restaurant. mc.cu ----- ..... 777 WA Z K --7-7-1 77- r-3D\ Ia To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer 0.-r Date: March 28, 1988 Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Parking - The application is unclear as to the intended final distribution and number of bedrooms. I -telephoned the applicant on March 28, and he indicated that HPC did not accept the bulk of the project along the alley. He said that therefore their intended structure will contain four bedrooms in a single family residence. There will be no employee unit. The parking require- ments for the use of restaurant and dwelling therefore would come to a total of 9 spaces in accordance with Section 24-4.5 with a possible reduction by P & Z which could result in a requirement of 7 on -site spaces. The blueprints show a fifteen foot wide garage. I have already spoken with the applicant about this, and he has stated the he does not have enough space to provide the 8.5 foot width required by code (24-4.2). I do not know that it is true that the applicant cannot provide a 17 foot wide garage in lieu of a 15 foot wide garage. The plans do not indicate if the required parking space height of 7 feet is provided. The applicant further represents on the blueprints that there will be 5 parking spaces outside of the structure. This could be permissible by special review of P & Z. 1400 square feet times three spaces per 1,000 square feet = 4.2 spaces = 5 spaces + 4 residential = 9 spaces, versus by special review 1400 square feet times 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet = 2.1 spaces = 3 spaces + 4 residential = 7 spaces. The intention of "O" District as explained in the code refers to preserving "the visual scale and character of formerly residen- tial areas ...." It might be questionable if either allowing or requ i r i,., �, _ tius to the intention. Ti, _.Lom t;nc central core that it might not be unreasonao.&e co ...-.1y on parking on the streets, or perhaps the applicants could consider constructing parking underground. The site is of course located on Main Street and is therefore easily accessible to public transportation. If the applicants were to attempt to obtain a variance from this provision, they should also seek a variance on the width of the garage. The Engineering Department would not categorically oppose 7.5 foot width parking spaces in the garage, but it would have to be made clear that there were no other encroachments, such as posts supporting overhead structure, and that the 7.5 feet was free and clear for parking use. Since this is a matter of buildings and blueprints, it would be appropriate for the Zoning Enforcement Official to examine the application to see whether or not he concurs with the ability or lack of ability to provide 8.5 foot wide parking spaces in the garage. The diagonal parking is conceptually acceptable to the Engineer- ing Department. This would provide an additional three spaces on the street. The curb would have to be relocated at the appli- cant's expense, and all elements of the work would be at the applicants expense - grading, paving, signing, etc. The appli- cant must obtain an excavation permit from the Engineering Department, at which time final details of the plan would be reviewed and approved. 2. The site plan does not show the intended dumpster(s) loca- tion. The dumpster sizing must be determined with the help of BFI based on the intended uses of the property, and the dumpster(s) must be located on the applicants' property, not within the public right-of-way (the alley). BFI can also tell the appli- cants if the intended .location of the dumpster.(s ) is acceptable for BFI's access. 3. The vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns in the area appear to be adequate to meet the project demands. Service and delivery vehicles have access to the project from the alley. The structure should be designed to allow for these vehicles to provide services from the alley - that is, there should be a door to the kitchen from the alley so that deliveries are net made from Main Street. 4. Utility considerations appear minimal, although the appli- cants themselves should check with each of the utilities in case they might be required to pay the cost of a larger electrical transformer or have any other costs associated with extending any utilities to serve the structure. New utility extensions must be underground. No new aerial hook-ups are permitted. By the end of this summer, all of the aerial utilities in that portion of the city should be completely underground. The adequacy of water flow for fire protection needs must be determined by the fire marshall. 5. Drainage - The additions to the building together with the construction of the proposed parking lot would create adverse drainage impacts on the public alley and streets. It is sugge's- ted that the applic ' ant be required to provide on-s " ite disposal of these excess drainage flows in the fashion provided for in Section 20-17(f)-with dry wells or retention ponds or timed release mechanisms or other solution designed by a qualified professional engineer. 6. The construction of sidewalk along the Second Street frontage is required, either through Section 19-98 or through the Condi- tional Use process. The sidewalk must be a minimum of five feet wide. With angle parking, there must be a two and a half foot wide landscape type area between the curb and the sidewalk, or the sidewalk must be two and a half feet wider than the minimum requirement in order to allow for vehicle bumpers hanging over the curb. cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer CR/cr/memo 88.32 I IMIU01;:► lul TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vand ,F y emark4 Fire Marshal RE: McDonald Conditional Use DATE: April 13, 1988 Following are my comments on the proposed restaurant use of the existing house: 1. Two (2) means of egress are necessary. There appears to be one means of egress in the proposed plan. 2. The Voluntary Fire Department can respond within a three minute period. There is ample water for fire protection in the area. 3. The entire structure is accessible to fire fighters. ASPEN40PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT 14EMORAMUM To: Steve Burstein, Planning Office From: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Department2_z Date: March 10, 1988 Re: McDonald Conditional Use and Special Review Parcel ID# 2735-124-41-006 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office, which is a recognized land use referral agency, by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant should contact the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District about additional requirements for restaurants using district lines. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant should contact the Aspen Water' Department about the adequacy of the service line for restaurant use. AIR QUALITY: The applicant notes that a charbroiler will be installed with an electrostatic precipitator (as required by section 11-2.4. of the Municipal Code) to control particulates. Please note that controlling particulates does not control odors that could effect the area. The applicant will be required to comply with applicable wood burning device regulations. NOISE: There are no adverse noise impacts anticipated with this application. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: The proposed restaurant will be required to comply with the Rules and Regulations -Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado, which include the requirement that food service operations be completely separated from living quarters. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-2020 ASPEILM14WITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: Steve Burstein, Planner FROM: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Officer DATE: April 14, 1988 RE: McDonald Conditional Use Review, additional comments. The potential for nuisance odors from the proposed restaurant must be addressed under the requirement in section 24- 3.3. (d`) (2) of the municipal code which requires that fumes, smoke �� and odors be confined to the lot on which the use is permitted". However, this cannot be predicted because of the variables involved (except that the use of mesquite wood in-charbroilers has caused odor problems in Aspen). Requiring odor control without knowledge that a problem exists may place an unnecessary burden on the applicant, while not requiring any would leave us without redress if a problem occurs. I suggest that any approval. include a provision that a hearing may be called in front of the Planning and Zoning board any time within a year of occupancy if complaints are received. The Environmental Health Department will document and investigate any complaints and have them available if a hearing is called. In addition, complainants should have the opportunity to present information, and the board could then render a decision concerning odor controls. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado aisl1 303/S25-2020 MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE BERSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 13, 1988 RE: MCDONALD CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW BACKGROUND: The application is requesting exemption from GMP for employee housing and is asking to build a 1400 s.f. addition around the west and north side of the existing house, to contain one free-market unit. The original house would be converted into a restaurant. The property is located at 300 W. Main Street and is zoned 0. The applicant had originally proposed an employee housing unit but called the office to say that the Historic Preservation Committee suggested the site was too dense to hold the unit. Under the current code if the site is designated HISTORIC no employee housing is required. Under the new code amendments 35% of employees generated would be required. HOUSING AUTHORITY: The Housing Authority understands that if this applicants site is designated as a historic preservation site that under the current City Land Use Code employee housing is not required. However, the rewrite of the code requires mitigation of the employee generation. The Housing Authority recommends that the applicant mitigates the employee housing impact it will generate in accordance with the intent of the new code. NAR REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL, USE I RF#-U-E5-ZU09, AND OWEERO--• Scott and Caroline McDonald ADDRESS: 300 West Main St. Block 44, Lots Q,R,S. ZONE -DESIGNATION: 0 Zone. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST:. Res tuarant in Historic Designated Structure. SjzQ 1400 sq.ft. -eatingg: 50. Fare Low/moderate cost family food. Baz Yes Ambiance: Rustic Log interior. Operation: Possible 3 meals/day Public Arceaz-, Original structure Historical designate. erated: By owners. VISUAL IMPACT TO SURROUND NG PROPERTIES: Minimal for the following reasons: Open space: Large open space ratio: 6100 sq. 'ft. for a 9000 sq. ft. parcel. Open space boarders 2nd and Main Street. Trees. Five existing large spruce trees shall remain. Buildijag ma rMIM.11114IRMOM Modest size (exterior areas): Owners living space: 1892 sq.ft. Owners garage: 270 sq.ft. Fmplovee H usina: 450 sq.ft. Restaurant Area: 144 sq.ft. - lst floor; Log with chinking same as original -2nd floor. Balloon frame with laps trake siding (stained grey). -Trim: off-white -Windows: True divided light. Addition roofline is offset from the original structure's roof line to maintain the identity of the original structure. The addition roof elivation is the same as the original structure's, 19'10 "above grade. This is low compared to the Elisha carriage house, 34'6" above the original structure's grade. Ad di tlzl�' M a in G t. - 12:'. 1 f t., 2 nd S t.: 18 f t. PUBLIC -IMPACT: Pedestrian Circulation: Impact minimal Ref. site plan. Vehicu iixr lation: Impact minimal some extra traffic from Main St. to 2nd. FaxkIna: Impact minimal - Existing street parldng has low useage, potential, 8 spaces. - Possible additional 2nd St. off street parking s paces, ref. s ite -Proposed off-street parldng:6 spaces,ref.site plan. Trash; .Dumps ter located off the alley in the garage. BFI recommends 2 yd. dumps ter, ref. site plan. Service Delivery: Off alley, delivery chute to basement. - Off alley access to restaurant through garage. No-tse. Minjjrjal ixrjpact; - Slight addtion to Main St. traffic nois e. - Log walls minimize sound transfer. QdQx.z-.' Minimal impact, - Char -broiler supplied with electrostatic condenser, minimizing particle ladened smoke. - Fire hydrant exist on the corner of 2nd and Main St. - Bus service. - Walking distance, within six blocks of downtown. - Restaurant public facilities per state and city codes. 300 WEaL—MAIN RESIDENCE ADDIJION ELEVATION NOTES REYa DATE:3\1\88 -1- 1" X 6" LAPSTRAKE, ROUGH SAWN "NATIVE" OR CEDAR. -2- 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" ROUGH SAWN SPRUCE OR LOG POLE PINE TIMBERS, CHINKING - 2". -3- WINDOW/DOOR TRIM: ROUGH SAWN 1" X 6", 1" X 4" "NATIVE" OR CEDAR. -4- ROOF; TAR AND GRAVEL. -5- ROOF: GREEN "PRO -PANEL" -6- SKYLIGHTS: BOX HEIGHT = 6" ABOVE TAR AND GRAVEL. FOR ADDITION FLAT ROOF ONLY, NOT DEPICTED. _10- TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW. COLOR SCHEIM -7- GRAY TRANSLUCENT STAIN, MATCHING WEATHERED OXIDIZED LOGS OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. -8- NATURAL FINISH SEALER, FOR 8 3/4" X 8 3/4" TIMBERS. AFTER WEATHERING TO MATCH ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. -9- OFF-WHITE STAIN: WINDOW/DOOR TRIM HIGHLIGHTS FOR GABLE/BAY WINDOWS. REQUEST FOP HISTORICAL DESIGNATION REQUESTORS : SCOTT AND CAI'OLINE T.ICDONALD PROPERTY: LOG H0_" 77,3 3 300 IV. IMAM ST BLOCK 44 LOTS REFE. MNCE : ATTACHED CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY FOR 300 IV. MAIN ST . HOUSE CONSTRUCT ION ON 300 IV. MAIN WAS COMPLETED IN I1�944 , MI l Y1'j11?,S SI?OrLT OF THE 50 YEAR PTQUII.?17,�IF1`vT. TiIE Srl'RtiC'1'U1?F� DO' ITER IT HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR, THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1 . THE HOUSE IS THE ONLY PROM I I1ENT SURVIVING CITY STRUCTURE ".:........ _ . �. -::. REPRESENTATIVE OF TURN OF THE CENTURY LOG ROUSE CONSTRUCTION. MANY LOG STRUCTURES EXISTED IN VICTORIAN ASPEN AND WERE LATER SHEATHED WITH FACADES. THIS - SHEATHING PRACTICE OCCURED UP TO THE MID 1060s. 2 . HOUSE CONSTRUCTION WAS PERFORMED BY OLD TIME A SPEN I TE LEO "POPE" R0WLAND, "RED" ROTVLAND S BROTHER, AND VALLEY MASON JOHN PARSONS. 3. THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE FIRST HOMES BUILT IN ASPEN AFTER THE TTTRN OF THE CENTURY t TILE LOG CABIN 300 `TEST 11A IN BLK 44 LOTS Q . R . & S . CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORICAL FACT SHEET 1893 ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON WILITZ MAP AT EXACT SAME LOCATION ON LOTS R P=, S, ORI(=INAL SIZED ALSO AT MAPS LOCATION -FRAME AND CLAPBOARD 1893 ASPEN DIRECTORY SIIOl'TS A.B. SHELLEDY, SURVEYOR AND S.A. SHELLEDY AT 304 MAIN ST . ( LOTS Q . R . PzS . ) STRUCTURE REBUILT OR TORN DOWN 193-1940 ? 1937 - 19414 "ONE OF THE FIRST STRUCTURES BUILT AFTER `.I'HE 1890' s" RO"'IONA MARKALUi; AS BUILT ACCORDING TO RECORDS AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS (WAREN-CONNORS , ASSESSORS OFFICE) BETWEEN 1937 &, 1944 1. l'r AREN CONNOR S NOTED LEO ROWLAND BUILDING ON IT IN 1944 (COUNTY RECORDS SHOW L. ROWLAND TAKING A LIEN ON VERA WURLS" PROPERTY IN 1937.) 2. MR. CONNORS ALSO SAW JOHN PARSON, THE VALLEYS MASON BUILDING "THE EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE AND UNUSUAL ROCK FIREPLACE" APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION APPLICANTS: SCOTT AND CAROLINE MCDONALD INTRODUCTION APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR HISTORICAL DESIGNATION OF 300 W. MAIN ST. IS PREDICATED ON THE INCENTIVE OF CONDITIONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. TITLE HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS ENHANCED ONLY BY PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INTERIOR. THE PRESENT HPC, PgZ, CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROCESS DOES NOT INTEC7RATE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONAL USE OF A PROPERTY. THAT IS HISTORICAL DESIGNATION BEING CONTINGENT TO GRANTI!1G A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NECESSARY TO ALLOW ALTER- NATIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPEMENT. IF CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT IS DENIED ALTERNATE DEVELOPE- MENT OF THE PROPERTY MUST PROCEED. DUE TO THE CENTRAL LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE RELATIVE TO LOTS Q, R °z S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPE- M7ENT WOULD TNECESSITATE DEMOLITION. UNDER THE PRESENT REVIEl"' PROCESS OF BEING HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED FIRST COULD ELIM-INATE THE Eil.?OL I T I ON OPTION OR ALTERNATE DEVELOPEl"JENT IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TITTE. THIS WOULD BE AN I7'IREASONABLE ECONOh,IIC HARDSHIP. THE DESIG"1 OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION MINITIIZES THE VISUAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS VISUALLY SUBOR.D I r1ATE TO THE OR. I CT I NAL STRUCTURE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN INSET ON THE NORTH SIDE RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND ADDS APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ FT OF FLOORSPACE FOR FAMILY AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING. THAT IS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 3880 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE OF WHICH A:PPROXI1.IATELY 1400 SQ FT IS THE RESTAURANT. A 9 , 000 SQ FT SITE IS ALLOWED 6750 SQ FT OF EXTERNAL FLOOR SPACE. THE ROOF LINE OF THE ADDITION MATCHES THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE,'ROOF APEX AT 19' 101" ABOVE GRADE, 14.5 FT BELOW THE APEX OF THE ADJACENT CARRIAGE HOUSE. PITCH ROOF APEX BY CODE (24.7) MAY BE 30 FT ABOVE GRADE. ADDITION OFFSET FROM DIAIN ST. IS 42.8 FT BY CODE (24.3.3, 24.3.7) THIS MAY BE 10 FT. THE OFFSET FROM THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PROPERTY LINE IS T FT, BY CODE THIS IS 5 FT. THE ALLEY OFF SET IS 5.2 FT., BY CODE THIS IS 15 FT. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF THE ADDITION 14ATCH THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO MINI14IZE VISUAL DETRACTION. AGAIN IN CONCLUSION THE INCENTIVE FOR THIS MODEST DEVELOPE- RENT IS TO HAVE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION CONTINGENT UPON CONDIT- IONAL USE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS A RESTAURANT. THE ALTER'\TATIVE WILL BE DEMOLITION AND PROPERTY DEVELOPED. -!ENT PER "0" ZONING CODES. DUE THAT OUR RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY 1,10ULD NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OR DESIRABLE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPED TO THE ALLOWABLE LIIMITS . 1/19/88 �7aC Juc , )- .1 , st�, Y� Ccl` 7 c.' c, �V)Ca . �. r e 1 ooOO SNO\VMASS LODGING COMPANY April 12, 1988 Aspen Planning and Zoning Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re. Caroline and Scott McDonald 300 W Mains historic designation/conditional use Dear P&Z - I am unable to attend the meeting of April 19th concerning the above noted property as I will be out of the country. but I am very concerned about the proposed designation of the house as a historic landmark and subsequent application for a restaurant. The plans which I have seen at City Hall completely change the whole reason for the location gaining a historic designation. The original log structure is 1400 square feet. It is my understanding the whole addition will be another 3296 square feet. The new structure's finish completely hides the original building under straight roof lines and massiveness. I also question the reality of 1400 square foot family style restaurant with seating for 50 people being able to succeed in our town anymore. If the restaurant is unsuccessful in this size, will application follow to expand into the living quarters? Will this structure work with the historic Elisha House next door? The impact on Second Street, a residential block, is significant in terms of parking and noise. Think of the family homes behind Asia and Charlemagnes on a busy night. Those residents have a difficult time parking adjacent to their homes or accessing their driveways. If historic designation is given and restaurant status is obtainable, do we need another liquor license here? I hope these questions are completely resolved prior to any finalization of historic designation and conditional use in this location. Thank you for you�time P ula Derevensky 333 W. Main Street .Aspen, Colorado 81611 P.O. BOX 6077 . SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 • (303)923-3232 141 DI u M; lu TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Ritz -Carlton PUD/GMP Amendment DATE: April 15, 1988 During the last week, the staff has been working full time to process the excavation and foundation permit applications for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Due to this heavy workload, it has not been possible to make any other progress on this project. As of the time of writing of this memo, it is not possible to report on the status of the permits. This issue will be clarified in advance of the time of your meeting and we will report to you accordingly. April 13, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Bill Paas & Mr. Welton Anderson RE: McDonald Property n the McDonalds (age infancy to 5), so I'm concerned also about the safety of the _`ldren. NOISE & TRAFFIC OF PEOPLE: If the application for a full restaurant operation is approved it will really be a concern to me to have a flow of people coming and going just outside t e window, especially at night and in the warm weather when windows are usually opened. LSU 'OG-t.AVSRY TROGKS WILL- ISE 6 WusFNcG. GARBAGE AND ODORS: Currently the alley is strewn with litter from a dumpster at the other end of the alley the full length of the block simply from careless disposing of trash that blew all over my property. Since dumpsters are placed in the alley, odors can be prev- alent while trying to enjoy the tranquility of my home, and the situation is the same for my tenants. In the winter months dumpsters poorly placed hinder proper passage of vehicles in the alley and cause further damage to fences and vehicles parked in my off -:street parking spaces.' I have encountered vehicle damage due to such situations? CONSTRUCTION PHASE: If and when this project is approved, I'm concerned about the construction phase. I will address these concerns pending any future approval. Sincerely, A_ r r J Ruth Whyte P. 0. Box 202 -)en, CO. 81612 _ VV mlb cc: Scott & Caroline McDonald Westside Improvement Assn. Adjacent Property Owners Tenants of Ruth Whyte Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office P.S. I am pleased that that McDonald are my neighbors and wish the best for them in their business endeavors so that they can remain living here in Aspen. I question the need for a family operated restaurant since Aspen has many business that struggle to stay viable, so do we need three restaurant within four blocks of each other on the edge of a residential area. DOUG FRANK 5110 NORTH THIRTY-SECOND STREET, #216 0 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 PHONES - HOME: (602) 956-0802 - OFFICE: (602) 955-9690 April 15, 1988 Mr. Allan Richman City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Richman: It has come to my attention that an application has been made to amend the Gordon sub -division plat. Gordon has now sold the property and the new owner wishes to build six units on the property. This item should not be placed on the agenda until the matter of the illegal access has been reso;ve�. yelys E. rank DEF:cs cc: Paul Taddune William R. Dunaway Welton Anderson,;* TO.z WELTON ANDERSON.! CHAIRMAN, . PEN PLANNING�,� &Q IG� N�ISSI hL.-,% ALAN RICHMAN, DIRECTOR, ASPEN CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT r ASPEN CITY COUNCIL FROM: BOB MURRAY DATE: 12 APRIL 1988 It has come to my attention this date that John Elmore of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, will be submitting plans for a large-scale development on what was formerly known as the Gordon Subdivision adjacent to my residence and bordered by the Callahan Subdivision and the Roaring Fork River. I request that this proposal be made when 1 can attend and when representatives of the Riverside Subdivision can be present -- which is anytime after May 24th, 1988..- Please advise if it is possible to grant my request. Thank you, Bo Murray 1275 Riverside Drive,,, 925-8793 home 920-2268 office APRIL .12 , 198 H.P.0 ASPEN, COLORADO 'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WE, THE OCCUPANT'S OF THE EL1SHA HOUSE LOCATED AT 320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUPPORT THE MC DONALD PROJECT CURRENTLY UP FOR APPROVAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL, q'A5— 5q Vic+\ SINCERELY, CHRISTINE DI BARTOLO AND FAMILY K9u th My& PO. 12ox 202 (323 ffle.41 igleeier Street) 44pen, Coloraclo 81612 April 13, 1988 ~. Bill Paas, Chairman _istorical Preservation Committee Mr. C. Welton Anderson, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street ; AP ri Aspen, CO. 81611 ` RE: MC DONALD CONDITIONAL USE & SPECIAL REVIEW Public Hearing April 26, 1988, for property - located at 300 W. Main St., Aspen, Colorado I live at 323 W. Bleeker St., which is adjacent to the McDonald property. I also own and rent 2 units directly across the alley from McDonalds at 117 - 119 Second St. and own a Victorian (rental) at 333 W. Bleeker St. Therefore, as the adjacent property owner to the above described property and in response to your request to write you my concerns, this letter will address my concerns in detail. I understand that the McDonald's are proposing to double the size of their existing residence at 300 W. Main St. and going to apply for a beer and wine license for full restaurant operation, serving three meals a day which will be open most of the year. My concerns, at this point, are inclusive, but not limited to the following: ROOF & HEIGHT: I understand that the new addition is to be no higher than -the existing log structure and, in agreement with HPC approval, a non -glaring metal roof will be covering `ie entire remodeled building. I agree with adding a non -glare roof and would object zrongly to a shiny glaring roof and to a roof that is higher than the original present log structure which is in clear view from my house. TRAFFIC & PARKING: I feel this will be a problem for me and my tenants directly across the alley for whom I provide off-street parking on both the alley and on Second Street. I'm concerned that their access will be encroached upon or blocked because there is virtually very little parking available for such an operation at that location. In addition, the Christmas Inn, which:?slocated directly across the street to the east of the McDonald property and my property, is short on parking space also. I own two visible parking spaces plus my carport area across the alley on the west side of the McDonald property. From my experience with The Charlemag-ne Restaurant traffic and parking (located at the west end of my property) encroachment on my renters off-street parking on 3rd and Bleeker, I do not want to have to be constantly calling the police. (as my renter does) to remove cars from my parking area. IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED FOR A RESTAURANT, I request that certain conditions be met at the expense of the McDonalds such as placing adequate "no parking between signs and warning towing zone" signs to insure that my parking and access is not blocked or encroached upon. The alley between my property and the McDonald property is only a single lane. My side is fenced along the entire property line except where parking for my tenants and me is provided. This, I feel, will present possible damage to my fence as more vehicles will be using this area. I already have fence damage from vehicles turning around in the alley or trying to manuver around poorly parked vehicles, especially in the winter when the alley becomes even less passable due to snow conditions and plowing procedures. ,NANTS: Because my tenants' windows are right on the alley and directly across from _ae proposed "restaurant/bar", I am also concerned about the additional dust, dirt, noise and odors (inspite of state-of-the-art equipment to be installed for odors/pollution) that will be present due to this situation. I keep my rent low for the working people and the present tenants have 3 children in the property located directly across the alley (303) 925-334 9 April 13, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Bill Paas & Mr. Welton Anderson RE: McDonald Property m the McDonalds (age infancy to 5), so I'm concerned also about the safety of the � ldren. NOISE & TRAFFIC OF PEOPLE: If the application for a full restaurant operation is approved it will really be a concern to me to have a flow of people coming and going just outside t e window, especially at night and in the warrq weather when windows are usually opened. GARBAGE AND ODORS: Currently the alley is strewn with litter from a dumpster at the other end of the alley the full length of the block simply from careless disposing of trash that blew all over my property. Since dumpsters are placed in the alley, odors can be prev- alent while trying to enjoy the tranquility of my home, and the situation is the same for my tenants. In the winter months dumpsters poorly placed hinder proper passage of vehicles in the alley and cause further damage to fences and vehicles parked in my off -:street parking spaces. I have encountered vehicle damage due to such situations? CONSTRUCTION PHASE: If and when this project is approved, I'm concerned about the construction phase. I will address these concerns pending any future approval. Sincerely, J Ruth Whyte P. 0. Box 202 nen, CO. 81612 mlb cc: Scott & Caroline McDonald Westside Improvement Assn. Adjacent Property Owners Tenants of Ruth Whyte Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office P.S. I am pleased that that McDonald are my neighbors and wish the best for them in their business endeavors so that they can remain living here in Aspen. I question the need for a family operated restaurant since Aspen has many business that struggle to stay viable, so do we need three restaurant within four blocks of each other on the edge of a residential area.