The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.PitkinCtyBank.534E.Hyman.1981 Aspen/PitkiIiPlanning Office 130 south galena street ~ ..... '. asp e ri;.';~o: lor ado 8 1611 '-',' . '''-'iF~ i-~-_-,- . April 27, 1984 Mr. Ted Hularz Theodore L. Mularz and Associates 0019 Pacific Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ted: This letter is to confirm the verification of your credit to construct a commercial building on Lots 0 and P of Block 94 in Aspen (Hyman Avenue between Galena and Hunter). Based on the P&Z and Council review of the Pitkin Center Building on lots P and Q in 1981, prior to its demolition, and the subsequent lot split review in 1982 to allocate credits to the individual lots, following is what you may-rebuild by right: Lot 0 - 2533.40 S F. (upon demolition of Cheap Shots) Lot P - 2758.25 S. F. (from prior demolition) Total 5291.65 S.F. During the review prior to demolition, it was established that two housing units falling within our affordability guidelines existed on the site. It is my dete,mination that this project is responsible for replacing one of those units. If this housing unit is not replaced during the reconstruction process, it will be counted as a debit against any commercial GMP application which may be submitted for Lots 0 and P in the future. For the record, the other unit is the responsibility of any develop- ment which takes place on Lot Q, which I show as having a commercial credit of 1997.35 square feet. Please let me know if you need further information in this regard. Sincerely, 0~ Alan Richman cc: Jim Wilson, Building Dept. Bill Drueding, Zoning Official Paul Taddune, City Attorney ./ ( , ) t ,. ( 3423 Aspen City Council December 27, 1982 Regular Meeting --~.,...--~-_._.__.,.,...- ,-. -~--_._------ ,,-.. ,1 , 11 U -'/ '1 J "\ j I 4 ) -.- --'-- ~- SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Chapman Condominiums Alan Richman told Council these units are already built and the plat must be recorded as built so that all changes that were made after construction are reflected on the plat. Mayor Edel said he does not understand why this has to be on the council agenda. Councilwoman Michael moved to grant subdivision exception to the Chapman condominiums subject to the following conditions; (1) the applicants should be required to join an improvements district in the event one is formed; (2) prior to recordation, the plat should be amended to show the following; (a) indicate on-site parking spaces at one per bedroom; (b) utility sources and meter locations; (c) show the fence around unit 2; (d) location of the irrigation ditch along the westerly property line; (e) the wording of the surveyor's certifcate is somewhat unclear and should iridicate that the work was doen by the surveyor; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Pitkin Center Alice Davis, planning office, told Council there must be planning office review if the applicant wants to transfer development rights between the lots. Each of the four lots has a development right and can be subdivided. Councilman Collins moved to approve the request for subdivision exception for the purpose of dividing lots 0, P, Q, and lots Rand S, Block 94, Aspen Original Townsite, into four parcels. Approval is subject to the three conditions listed in the planning office memeorandurn dated December 27, 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Mountain River Manor Alice Davis told Council this is a request for subidivision exception to amend the plat and recondominiumizing Mountain River Manor studio units. To some of the units in this building, a loft was added. Council needs to make the determination that adding the lofts does not change the studio unit. Ms. Davis said if Council considers these one bedroom u~its, they would need 1,000 square feet. These units are 330 square feet. The lofts were built without the proper approvals or permits; however, they have been fined. Gideon Kaufman said the applicant would like permission to amend the plat to show that these lofts exist. P & Z unanimously recommended this. Ms. Davis said the lofts make the units more habitable. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the subidivision exception for the Mountain River Manor to allow the addition of sleeping areas to 8 of the 16 studio units and to allow the necessary changes to the original plat. Approval is subject to the following conditions; (1) plat must be titiled "amended plat"; (2) changes in the plat must be clearly indicated and a statement that the remaining sheets of the original plat remain in effect; (3) signature blocks for approving authorities and engineering department as well as the clerk and recorder's acceptance cer.tificate must be added to the plat; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. REVENUE SOURCES FOR JOINT HOUSING AUTHORITY Mayor Edel said on all suggested sources of funding, who is really going to pay for this. Mayor Edel said it looks like the employee will end up paying for this. Ron Mitchell said the employee housing certfication fee will add about $4.00 per month per unit. Councilman Knecht said he would rather see the city pay the $51,920 to fund the housing authority than to add onto any employee costs. Mitchell said that cost only covers the operations; it will not give the department money to do anything like buying land. Assistant city Attorney Esary said there is a benefit to the employee, like better enforcement of the policies on the books. Mayor Edel said he felt the city made a major mistake in go~ng into this. Councilwoman Michael said she was not adverse to the funding sources #3 and 4. Councilman Knecht moved that if staff recommends going to four suggested fees so that the housing office has an on-going revenue, the Council should go that way; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilmembers Collins, Knecht and Parry in favor, Councilwoman Michael and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Parry left Chambers. ORDINANCE #73, SERIES OF 1982 - Amended Towing Policies Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #73, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #74, SERIES OF 1982 - Appropriations. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Mayor.Edel requested staff check on the negotiations with the Skiing Company and report back to Council. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #74, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilrnn Collins. Roll call vote; Councilwoman Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #75, SERIES OF 1982 - Liens on Past Due Accounts. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There wele no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #75, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmember Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. 31UH Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 1981 r" :l 1\ U Councilwoman Michael agreed but asked that the planning office explore a broader thing than just sOlving the Koval house; that the planning office come back with a recommendation on whether bed and breakfast use ought to go through the growth management plan. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council the planning office is addressing the broader issue including non-conforming lodges, reviewing the growth management plan, what to do with lodging in general and this neighborhood specifically. Councilman Collins asked that the planning office go ahead with the recommendation and corne back to Council with specifics. Mayor Edel said he is all for the proposition; Councilmembers Parry, Michael and Knecht all agreed. Planning Office told Council they will come back with a specific plan. ORDINANCE #79, SERIES OF 1981 - Housing Price Guidelines Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this ordinance is moving in the direction of providing affordable housing. Vann said there is a problem with projects previously approved and switching over to these guidelines. There are changes which may satisfy this concern. For projects approved after this date, Vann said they would like this concept to apply. This ordinance addresses who may qualify for the units. Gideon Kaufman said he has clients who have done projects based upon the anticipated increases in the guidelines that have traditionally been given. Kaufman pointed out that increases are based on increase in operating costs. This really only applies to larger project; duplexes or triplexes really don't have those kind of increases. People who had receiv~d prior allocations planned their projects on expected increases. Vann agreed with this. Vann said this ordinance is a major transition in concept. In the past, the rental rates have gone up approximately 8 per cent per year. Council could adopt that approach for previously approved projects. Council could adopt the approach that rental rates for previously approved projects could go up commensurate with increases in salaries. Vann said the planning office with come up with several alternatives to address this and let Council decide between them. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing and continued it to December. Councilwoman Michael moved to table Ordinance #79, Series of 1981: seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor motion carried. ORDINANCE #80, SERIES OF 1981 n u Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council they had adopted a three month moratorium on construction in the R/MF zone. district which expires November 30th. There is a special meeting with P & Z tomorrow to discuss the entire residential area and bulk requirements, not just R/MF. The planning office intends to have P & Z pass a resolution, which once it is passed,has the effect of suspending all building permits for a period of one year. During this time, the Council will then address the Code amendment. There is a public hearing scheduled for December 8 to address this. Richman said the staff feels there may be some exposure if this moratorium in not in effect. This ordinance extends the moratorium for one month. It is an emergency ordinance to go into effect immediately. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #80, Series of 1981: seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #80 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATROIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR EXPANSION OF ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE R/MF ZONE DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #80, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by.Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmernbers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye: Parry, aye; Michael, aye: Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. WEST SIDE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION - Residential Bonus Overlay District Alan Richman told Council the area and bulk requirements under consideration are not only for the R/MF district but for all residential zones. Richman encouraged the people concerned to corne to the P & Z meeting and the public hearing on this. The only downside is that someone wishing to build in a district other than R/MF. Taddune told Council as soon as P & Z passes a resolution addressing the area and bulk requirements in all the residential zones, it acts like a moratorium. "":> PITKIN COUNTY BANK EXEMPTION rl il 'J Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request for verification for an exception from the GMP process for the Pitkin County Bank. The bank is in the commercial core and is located on about 15,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to demolish a portion of the Pitkin Center and not immediately reconstruct. The plan is to demolish 5700 square feet and delay the reconstruction three to five years. The site of the demolition will be a parking lot and drive~up window in the interim, which is permitted in the zone district. There are plans to demolish another 2476 square feet in the future; the reconstruction for that will also be delayed. Ms. Davis pointed out the city attorney feels guidelines should be established for demolition like this. These guidelines should provide an inventory of what space will be reconstructed in the future. Ms. Davis pointed out typically demolition and reconstruction is handled on a staff level review. However, this applicant is going to demolish 5700 and 2476 square feet and dely reconstr~ction for three to five years and wanted to go on record for this. The applicant plans to~ear down two residential units consisting of 887 square feet and 4813 square feet of commercial space, totaling 5700 square feet. The applicant also plans to tear down 2476 square feet of commercial space for a total of 8176 square feet. The two residential units do fall under employee housing guidelines. This residential square footage cannot be used to expand commercial space. -.._.,-"'-_...._,----_.._-~..._.~..__. _., .--.,.~._,_._... - ..~..-_. .,_..._. -_._.~...- '.-- ~200 ,. Regular Meeting Aspen city Council ::. November 23, 1981 - , i "- , i-- Il Ms. Davis outlined the guidelines for demolition and recon~truction that the staff has I. CO:<1E! u, with. (1) A demolition that occurred before the GHP should not be allowed to I'! reconstruct that building (2) A time limit should be established to limit the length , I of time reconstruction can be delayed. (3) Development plans must be presented to the :1 .\ planning office to determine if the structure is consistent with t:le underlying zoning and I:' i area and bulk requirements. ' , ill Councilwoman Michael moved ~o grant an exception from the GMP process for the por~ion of il i commercial space in the pitkin Center whil will be demolished but will not immediately : " be rebuilt (Lots 0, P, Q, R, S, Block 94, Original Aspen Townsite). The delay in recon- :! struction will not affect the owner's right to build the space if the following conditions:1 are met: (1) at the time the new structure is being developed plans must be presented to \ II the planning office to determine if the structure is consistent with the underlyi rq zoning'! and area and bulk requirement of the. zone district or if furt11er review by the planning :1' and zoning commission or City Council is necessary (2) there is no expansion of the i. commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition (7289 square feet) and no more than:\ the two original residential units can be re;)uilt (3) the owner provides a utility/trash \i areas with all existing and proposed utility r.1cters, pedestals, vaults and transformers ,] in this area at the time of reconstruction; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. o SLEIGH RIDES ON GOLF COURS~ I' City Manager Chapman reminded Council this is similar to the request Council approved !i earlier with the Heatherbed Stable. Chapman told Council that parks director Jim Holland i: has no probler.1S with the two purveyors provided they have the same lease arrangement. :1 'I il il !i II II I I I 1 II I I , !,\ ,\ II \i II ,I II 11 I 1\ II II II II Ii I I I I Councilman Collins moved to authorize the city manager to enter into the appropriate license agreement; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #69, SERIES OF 1981 - GMP Exemption 85:15 ~ayor Edel opened the pliQlic hearing. City Manager Chapman told Council this ordinance "I was developed for the preservation of employee housing that is presently not deed restricted. This ordinance allows the city to proceed with the Smuggler Trailer park employee hous1ng Mayor Edel closed thepublic hearing. 00"",",,", ,","" "'... ., ..". 0..".... .... ...... ,. ..... ,. ."'". ....,.". '1 seconded by Councilman parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, nay; Iii Knecht, nay; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. POPPlE'S BISTRO CAFE ENCROACH}ffiNT LICENSE 1 ..) City Attorney Taddune said the applicant applied to the Board of Adjustment for expansion of a non-conforming use and to build in the setback. The Board granted the variance for the non-conforming use but not to build in the setback. The Board thought the applicant could request the city to vacate the alley shared by poppie's and the forest service. Council made the determination not to vacate. Taddune told council the Board of Adjustment wanted an indicate from council that there was no concern on the city's part in terms of ' exceeding the setback and affecting the alley. The applicant has submitted an encroachment license to serve as an indication that Council has no problem with the expansion into the :i alley. Council wanted to accommodate the request to vacate the alley but required fair " market payment for this. It would be impossible to work this out with the forest service.;1 Councilwoman Michael moved to approve poppie's encroachment license subject to the city ~ attorney's approval as to form; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the ii' exception of councilman col~ins. Motion carried. \ Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All ini favor, motion carried. Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 24, 1981 Mayor Edel called the special meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. with Councilmembers t1ichael, Knecht, Collins and Parry present. Mayor Edel said this is the second reading of Ordinance #80, Series of 1981, which is an emergency ordinance to extend the moratorium in the R/MF for one month while P & Z can il consider the area and bulk requirements in all residential zones. II Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #80, Series of 1981, on second reading, seconde~ by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Knecht moved to adjourn at 12:12 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ~ CXtlNERS NAME: AJ;n JJilbl"j),t ~^Jt OI.oJ'\f( (O">1',t? HDw!\.,i/t k (j); 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action/type of development A~ ~ lj1 rru-kJ '? ~ A'''-}'^J,[ W\1 '^,t 4....... I'l-dhc J).-,? Let-ft,,1 ~'IJP1Y'<-1 . '7 lV1\O, , 'i' ki" il . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: AfPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: I~ ,w h 0 I i'\., f- 'A~"., r" L, (T~" {t1;, t \"tPIH"}JJ (C SUMMARY 3. o-t{,;.-t _/ )'let",') I t ~ f{, " Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Asent (.~,,) '''""1'}v0 rJ, 5t,,,t I~\ 1 )), r{l~n h, 'J p""""')'f\J, Ch,p (,rr Comments t u"\ Ii 0-:> t-~y-I [bll") Review is: (P&Z Only) (CClBOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) : (NO) h 1. i _.lli17D <ol!i~,Av..! "LL");,, W at fee was app lcant requested to subm t: __ j ,.. Anticipated date of submission: COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: P It\\\ Y1 It,,,'';'''(f ~jbJ.'Ic;) v" - L"'i), I-=" i i\') C '.\.~- Ji .- ,...... i'. -l T ,-+ c' n ~.. I {,'ft"/ rJVi-,'(, J ;t(.(' H<>\l>(.\j\.;'i'~ Jell"-" ,eil.'ii" .,-<- .., ru" Chv~1<~(I!/ld-\1 (Iff rfse.-..-. '.; Counci 1 if Approved ./ Denied Date /;L!;l.7{g2. Co WU. I I g r().I\.~d. ().evrovo.\ of eI the-request to divide Lots 0, P'- Q and Lots Rand S, Block 94, Aspen Original Townsite, into four parcels. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) As stated in Section 20-5(b) of. the Code, the four. newly created parcels cannot be transferred without a development allocation or credit. The current development rights are as follows: Lot 0: Lot P: Lot Q: Lots R&S: 2,533.4 square feet 2,758.25 square feet 1,997.35 square feet 8,522.49 square feet I I' , 9. PRE These development credits cannot be transferred among the five At lots or cumulated on one lot unless further approval is received from the Plannin9 Office. This review is to ensure that each lot is not left without a reasona~le development right or if no reasonable development right ex' ;s,'that a covenant exists to prohibit the transfer of the 101 tithout first obtaining a development right. These development credits can be increased if the owner competes and wins a commercial GMP allocation for additional space. En Ho Wa Ci ct It. Gas ( Dept. 10. PRE P 8 2) The four plat requirements requested by the Engineering Department listed in this memorandum must be met prior to recordation of the plat. , 3) A statement of exception must be reviewed and approved by the Attorney's Office and then recorded at the Courthouse. Reference to this statement of exception must be added to the plat. j' ,'" 11. FINAL PLAT Council Approved Denied Date 12. ROUTING: ../ Attorney if Building -LEngineering Other I . 1,-' , I!' I, i ~ ~ J \(, ) ctH)1\V") 'j_ 2lL~) -\ u ,....,)') ~^' l lV\'g' \V I' 0"l.~-)~o', I ) J I , I I I I, Doe~ ~l .bonv~ f/por ~w ha.( to h-< ;.f ~ ~ l1. ~ b01\V ~ ), J for e-Y'1)Q'r~~ II' ' <I' hi'oi.l ~M ~rr ...1 bO" /) /l CO ". \ ~;V\~} ^~<. , I (,-r-""'.v ,) i\n~lt/ r.z;::;:::;'- I I , I I I I I i I I'), i I [ < ,', n", n 'IC\r)~ ~ / j-'d' v,'\!"<'" ,--,/ \ " -- \-f ~ f-lYJV~" ~ 0,,':1-," aj~/'l.bl(, ~ (<I" {"J" dJ (~~\I \,,(. 2lJ r", , iJ,J ,.. ___ C Co 'fAn'fj '2.,<,,, J1,k \.1;)".-" 1-~rrr -'),~ L.J V 1, - h DJ,;v) (e1y;~J- fJl ,t,i~' Ij? r~~ l )0, ~ L U~~ ~U;"1,r- \ ) \ \ tA, ~ -- t~ \ ' ,/ ~j\ ~ .-/ )-~),: .i '.l C>.~V" ,") \ 0 1 ."1_' - ( : (, J ' ,) / ---- , '1. , '3 " ,--- , [. 'JI: L.- y>-)1' q~Vi ___j UM' , - -~ =-- < , ~e .... ." No. &fS-g/ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBr~ITTED: , 1,IIIULr \3. \q~l ,~TAFF,:~/;ce ))avi.s 2. APPLICANT: ~i"W,\1'\ COVn:t~ 1)Q\,\ I<.. ' ,..h\',,\ Ir\J~ t C.f\. c:;.?y~ 'i. I-(rmttl1 Iff){ , I Bd"X 3&00 7?, N~, (~.J)'C71 i 3. REPRESENTATIVE: ~; \\ C:\a.rK - c:J.S - 4:>7~D 4. PROJECT NAME: -:P;-tk;V\. C,()I1\i\~Y\ k CZ-XefYlp-fi~ 5. LOCATION: ~, cfpliJIV 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: :L 'Z--y.e I'Y\ ~\t)1'\J Subdivision Stream Margin v TException ttOtl\Gt'l(J 8040 Greenline Exemption ____View Plane 70:30 ____Conditional Use Residential Bonus ____Other Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC "-\0 C'~~ b O~ 'Nou-.3. 1'( ~ I 7. REFERRALS: bttorney ~Engineering Dept. Housing ____Water ____City Electric Sanitation District School District ~Mountain Bell ____Ro"Cky Mtn. NaL Gas Parks State Highway Dept. Holy CrosS Electric ____Other ~Fire Marshal/Building Dept. 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: -,. -- -.-" , , , , 9. DISPOSITION: Denied Date Nu.J,' 3, I (j'JI :'urdll:on ~: / P & z / Approved "..j7 (~ 'fr('l, ),rl\\ (, Ii: ,rJ f'1'~JJ ,:rhJ''''' I, [':il; :J,: 1'ICjej picin, mu,-! be:: p~1?IIW,-k ) 10 cl.e-tefil!I" ,,~t,. IUle 1< ((jn~i<J([,f c.Ut/h C"fol:df'I'J Zc{;;i J) A+ -tb,' 1111") "he ~IOrr\lfI~ (j({/ce IY y"\" (.):( . (e;;j~')r/I' + 1- or (,)'lle! 'i ;.J /; ())Hh,-, 5 'II '0).( jd" c'{ J.Efrdi+iOf) 4t'dt HI (Idl - :Dr 1fI',) --fki 0-1d<',1 C( *' I,fr.-Irk",; 1:"1 j.jtlh (li;~ ~,..:::.l/r:, "i ()'"L':rd i;J Recfs"irI) MiD{\ 11',1)'51 ",,"'Jr 2;\, It '{J Ii rD {';Y I n:A-::.(\ b( '-I . (J(~:'l f~"~: (( ,;.1\. fr., UCl1~ 1< y -;'.r<l['\r:{/::f 1I~'(-~ il\ , c:("(q o+-(r rVlOl'dr'.tiPr,. Counei 1 V' APprovedL "2'3,IQ\51 ( r't '1(' j i~:' v. Denied Date_ Nou M \,I\~II E Me tfDI'\ it C>', (mil r'Jpew I kylIn p::r-l1on . 0i?!)1{ 11\ , ' WLon:,) I (.{(''fC4 " ' I}" ;,-f .,~-~'1"1 1:;\\',\,\'::ly)r~ -! (.">, :n\. (!" 'l, J".c ,;/ , ~ 4 -,J."'11,)1 ""J...- - r I, f': i~:".l, .i/~ r'E2bv t r,)s~ f" -Ii rt{: .] r (I i-\ \0.\ J.,,- ", 5:) b(~'l l!,:,1 :' (;;1', (' \ .' 'J:4- ;:~.g r';'''/ 0.' ~~t"\(N"', ( I of' 'j\l\.\ \",v, '~7'" ,Ii:: "j'~'",(.?-;\lhJI"l"i'\ elr)\\~iCl', sf -fue. t(JV'I,,'lI::'rn,'Jl j!\')f'lf(c~ !I,J!!::"i "'l4 }lr'/ I" 1Y'tIt' -!rcl;\"t '2. 0(1 1'1\f\Cl \ (c:=,I-1,::;r,{lOi 11''-'" i)\"1i''' ~,~\ef ~~vu-"1'(:,, '"', ',(,' d',!-f<',:)cjA -J .I \..:::..) I "Ie' >'d., -<\',\ ty,,(,,?,, rr'f"'" ,{ ,t "'i {j':"'(f' \" j. f ~ ~J )f1,_"":'it((,:<':; I, 'I' '';' .,'Y.' ',\ 'or -\ll:' ~{ 1:''-': Jr.:\"-(U(ik:,; 10. ROUTING: Attorney G- Buil di ng j Engineering Other " MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP DATE: November 16, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Location: Zoning: Lot Size: Applicant's Request: City Attorney: Engineering Department: Planning Office Review: Building Inventory: ~ The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P. Q. R, S, Aspen Townsite; E. Hyman Street and S. Commercial Core 15,050 square feet The applicant is requesting verification that if a portion of the Pitkin Center is demolished, the quantity of square footage not immediately rebuilt will again be available for development without competing under the GMP process. The applicant plans to demolish 5,700 square feet in the spring of 1982 and delay part of the reconstruction three to five years. The space will be used in the interim as a parking lot and drive-in facility for the bank, both permitted uses in the zone district. The applicant also plans to demolish 2,476 square feet in three to five years and possibly delay part of that reconstruction. The City Attorney suggested that administrative guidelines be established for property owners who demolish existing structures on a parcel and delay reconstruction on that property. These guidelines would govern such reconstruction and provide a means of maintaining an accurate inventory of such space in order to anticipate future reconstruction and development. Consistent with Sections 24-3.5 and 24-3.7(h)(4) of the Code, the engineering office commented that the owner should be required to include a utility/trash area as part of recon- struction as well as be responsible for the relocation of all existing or proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in the protected trash/utility area. Typically, the demolition and reconstruction of dwelling units and commercial space outside of the GMP has proceeded as a staff-level review. However, this applicant felt that it was important that this item be placed on the public record in that the bank does not plan to immediately rebuild the entire 5,700 square feet which is to be demolished in the spring of 1982 and may not immediately rebuild the entire 2,476 square feet to be demolished in three to five years. The exception being used is under Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code which allows exception from GMP competition for the remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any existing building provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor the creation of additional residential units. This has normally been inter- preted to allow reconstruction consistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirements of the zone district. The review of this application is deemed necessary by the Planning Office since (1) the reconstruction will be delayed until some time in the future and (2) this type of activity needs to be regulated through administrative guidelines. The most important review for the applicant is the inventory of existing square footage which is to be demolished. The building to be demolished in the spring of 1982 consists of two residential units of 887 total square feet and 4,813 square feet of commercial Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Two November 16, 1981 Planning Office Recommendation and Planning anrl Zoning Commission Action: space for a total of 5,700 square feet. The commercial space to be demolished includes Chip Chip Hooray, Gracies, Erickson/ Fuller Advertising, Gabe's Ski Service and Ann Wolff Stain Glass Studio. The applicant may also demolish an additional 2,476 square feet of commercial space (Cheap Shots) in three to five years. Thus, the applicant proposes the demolition of 8,176 total square feet. The two residential units fall within the housing price guide- lines of Resolution 18, series of 1980, as they have been leased for $.58 and $.61 per square foot during the past 18 months. If the applicant competes for additional space in the GMP process, to be competitive these units will need to be replaced in addition to those employee units normally required. Also, this residential square footage cannot be used for the redevelopment of additional commercial space. This results from Section 24-11.2(a) which states that reconstruction can only be exempted from the GMP process if no expansion of commercial floor area is made. The Planning Office concurs with the City Attorney that it is appropriate for administrative guidelines to be established regarding reconstruction exceptions. We recommend that these guidelines encompass the following restraints: 1. A property owner involved in a demolition that occurred before the enactment of the GMP should not be allowed to reconstruct that building. This will prevent demoli- tions that occurred long ago from obtaining exception from GMP competition for new development. 2. A time period should be established to limit the length of time reconstruction can be delayed. A five year period is recommended as a reasonable time limit. A longer period may adversely affect the plannin9 process by preventing the anticipation of future growth and development. A five year period will also prevent an imbalance in the market resulting from an unforeseen oversupply of commercial space. -<:::::) 3. At the time of reconstruction, development plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is consistent witn the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if future review by the Planning and Zoning Con~ission or City Council is necessary. The Planning Office and the Planning and Loning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the request for exception ,from GMP competition for the portion of commercial space in the Pitkin Center which will be demolished,in the spring of 1982, but will not be immediately rebuilt. The delay in recon- struction will not affect the owner's right to rebuild the space if the following conditions are met: 1. At the time the new structure is being developed plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is consistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council is necessary. 2. Reconstruction must occur within five years of the date of demolition. 3. There is no expansion of the commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition. Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Three November 16, 1981 4. The owner provides a utility/trash area with all existing and proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and trans" formers in this area at the time of reconstruction. Council Action: Should the City Council agree with the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to grant an exception from the GMP process for the portion of commercial space in the Pitkin Center which will be demolished but will not be immediately rebuilt (Lots 0, P, Q, R, S, Block 94, Original Aspen Townsite). The delay in reconstruction will not affect the owner's right to rebuild the space if the following conditions are met: 1. At the time the new structure is being developed plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is consistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council is necessary. 2. Reconstruction must occur within five years of the date of demolition. 3. There is no expansion of the commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition (7,289 square feet) and no more than the two original residential units can be rebuilt. 4. The owner provides a utility/trash area with all existing and proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in this area at the time of reconstruction." \. WILLIAM G, CLARK Ch",m,n October 13, 1981 Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Dear Alan: This is in response to your letter of October 5, 1981, to Ted Mu1arz regarding the future Pitkin County Bank extension project. 1. It is contemplated that a portion of the existing structures, containing approximately 5,700 square feet, will be demolished in the Spring of 1982. Such structures will be replaced during 1982 with drive- in banking facilities and parking for approximately 11 cars. The remainder of the building, containing approximately 2,476 square feet, will be demolished with- in 3 to 5 years. At that time, a new building will be constructed to house additional banking facilities. It is expected that such structure will contain the remainder of the verified commercial square footage not previously utilized. It is likewise possible that additional G.M.P. allocation will be applied for at that time. 2. Ted Mularz has surveyed the existing improvements on the property and will submit a detailed analysis of such space as requested. Please be advised that neither of the residential units involved have been rented during the previous 18 months within adopted City of Aspen employee housing guidelines. i}i-'-1-1 ) hOU5lfV". J (\cC LUI-fnm\J,;Z qU'tdc.llnC;, , price J ". l't, U. u1111-t .~ ' - ( ct', 2... _ (':;'6 I "1 '1-1 1\ '[ , 0"" f'l' Roq1"o<c 1,:..1 ~ ~ 534 E, HYMAN AVE, . P,O, BOX 3677 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303-925-6700 . . Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director October 13, 1981 Page 2 3. See response to question Number I above. Should you need any additional information, Alan, in support of this request, please do not hesitate to call Ted or me. With best regards. WaC/ad cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune, Esquire ( ~~. ; If' '. .~ ,- -.. "._A" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: DATE: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP ;,1 November 16, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1}WMII r/ et,1-\Ul.-u/ Location: Zoning: ,~ Lot Size: Applicant's Request: City Attorney: Engineering Department: {If'l'ii iC,,1i '~h"lAld \)~, ,bPOl\"t>I-e. Planning Office Review: Building Inventory: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P. Q. R, S, Block 94, Origin 1 Aspen Townsite; E. Hyman Street and S. Hunter Avenue, Nlw. lIiJ V iF Commercial Core 15,050 square feet The applicant is requesting verification that if a portion of the Pitkin Center is demolish~d, th~ quantity of square footage not immediately rebuilt will again be av.~jlabl~or development without competing under the GMP proc~ss. The applicant plans to-demolish 5,700 square feet in the spring of 1982 and delay part of the reconstruction three to five years. The space will be used in the interim as a parking lot and drive-in facility for the bank, both permitted uses in the zone district. The applicant also plans to demolish 2,476 square feet in three to five years and possibly delay part of that reconstruction. The City Attorney suggested that administrative guidelines be established for property owners who demolish existing structures on a parcel and delay reconstruction on that property. These guidelines would govern such reconstruction and provide a means of maintaining an accurate inventory of such space in order to anticipate future reconstruction and development. Consistent with Sections 24-3.5 and 24-3.7(h)(4) of the Code, the engineering office commented that the owner should be required to include a utility/trash area as part of recon- struction as well as be responsible for the relocation of all existing or proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in the protected trash/utility area. Typically, the demolition and reconstruction of dwelling units and commercial space outside of the GMP has proceeded as a staff-level review. However, this applicant felt that it was important that this item be placed on the public record in that the bank does not plan to immediately rebuild the entire ~fu(e 5,700 square feet which is to be demolished in the spring of 1982 and may not immediately rebuild the entire,2,476 square feet to be demolished in three to five years. The excepti on bei ng used is under Section 24-11. 2 (a) of the Code which allows exception from GMP competition for the remodeling, ruestoratioh or reconstruction of any existing building provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor the creation of additional residential units. This has normally been inter- preted to allow reconstruction consistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirements of the zone district. The review of this application i~ deemed necessary by the Planning Office since (1) the reconstruction will be delayed until some time in the future and (2) this type of activity needs to be regulated through administrative guidelines. The most important revie~1 for the applicant is the inventory of existing square footage which is to be demolished. The building to be demolished in the spring of 1982 consists of two residential units of 887 total square feet and 4,813 square feet of con~ercial '131 '-\ '!i'\) r' ......, - Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Two November 16, 1981 ..., 411" ~, 'boll\' ,~ space for a total of 5,700 square feet. The commercial space to be demolished includes Chip Chip Hooray, Gracies, Erickson/ Fuller Advertising, Gabe's Ski Service and Ann Wolff Stain Glass Studio. The applicant may a1so'demo1ish an additional 2,476 square feet of commercial space (Cheap Shots) in three to five years. Thus, the applicant proposes the demolition of 8,176 total square feet. The two residential units fall within the housing price guide- lines of Resolution 18, series of 1980, as they have been leased for $.58 and $.61 per square foot during the past 18 months. If the applicant competes for additional space in the GMP process, to be competitive these units will need to be replaced in addition to those employee units normally required. Also, this residential square footage cannot be used for the redevelopment of additional commercial space. This results from Section 24-11.2(a) which states that reconstruction can only be exempted from the GMP process if no expansion of commercial floor area is made. The Planning Office concurs with the City Attorney that it is appropria te for admini strative gui de 1 i nes to be es tab 1 i shed regarding reconstruction exceptions. We recommend that these guidelines encompass the following restraints: J'Vile;' Ivtool cic rNili +l 01'\ fW1()\ -1:0, P + cri Gf1'l e )'1.0-c+m d. -iu '10+ atloLUea-1 blJ~ '" (C",+ -if, --\ (l<\-{' f"rlO~ S '-It,> ' 1. A property owner involved in a demolition that occurred before the enactment of the GMP should not be allowed to reconstruct that building. This will prevent demoli- tions that occurred long ago from obtaining exception from GMP competition for new development. 2. A time period should be established to the length f time reconstruction can ayed. A five year pe . disreco reasonable time limit. A longer . may adversely affect T~e planning process b . venting t e .. ation of future growth and evelopment. A five year . d will also prevent an imbalance in the market resulting from an un 0 oversupply of commercial space. oO.\i't -for p\utq ~i- eMu ~e-{ {(",,,, de uiZloplZr? p"rod - h M,!-fdf, LI"\ft-E u, lx'\! , ~lC>f\) , Ui,c1~ d-i ~q -WII€ r"u,t"'-" or Planning Office Recommendation and Planning an<i Zoning Commission Action: 3. At the time of reconstruction, development plans must r"1' be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is consistent witn the~nderlyinQ zoning and area and bulk requirement of the ZODe district or if future reyiew by the Planning and Zoning Con~ission or City Council is necessary. The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the request for exception ..from GMP competition for the portion of commercial space in the Pitkin Center which will be demolished, in the spring of ,1982, but will not be immediately rebuilt. The delay in recon- struction will not affect the owner's right to rebuild the space if the'ifQllo~ing conditions are met: . ~ (1' Lt.. l{.... '1,l':e., 3... e ,,~cl 1. At the time the pew structure is being developed plans must be presented to the P1 anni n.!LQffi ce to determi ne ifthesfiucture is coosistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if further rev~ew by the Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on or City Council is_necessary. 2. Reconstruction must occur within five years of the date of demolition. ",J.'ii'1 '1, ,<,Ie 3. There is no p~pansion nf th~ rnmm~rciaJ flQQr area that existed prior to demolition. '" t\() fY;;;~ -lhoJ', fu '2- or'1:\'w\ r-e'Jo., w'l"t:, (r"';rt~ rei.",-,14 I'"" , " ......" Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Three November 16, 1981 "'..,,- 4. The .owner.J1.rQ.'ljdesauti]itYLt;,r~_?h_area with all existing and proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and trans- formers in this area at the time of reconstruction. Council Actian: Shauld the City Cauncil agree with the Planning Office and the Planning and Zaning Ca~nissian recammendatian, the apprapriate matian is a~folluw~. qi'U€.t-'- II"- ~ fV\..erv--u, "I mave ta grant an excepti an fram the GMP pracess far the , partian of commercial space in the Pitkin Center which will be demalished but wi'l not be immediately rebuilt (Lats 0, p, Q, R, S, Black 94, Original Aspen Townsite). The delay in recanstructian will nat affect the .owner's right ta rebuild the space if the fallawing canditians are met: 1. At the time the new structure is being developed plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is consistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission .or City Council is necessary. '2. occ five of e \..; ~ /. There is no expansion of the commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition (7,289 square feet) and no more than the two original residential units can be rebui It. ~. ,. The owner provides a utility/trash area with all existing and propased utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transfarmers in this area at the time of recanstruction." ' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP DATE: October 27, 1981 Location: Zoning: Lot Size: Applicant's Request: City Attorney: Engineering Department: Planning Office Review: Building Inventory: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P~Q, R, S, Block 94, Original Aspen Townsite; E. ~yman Street and S. Hunter Avenue, N.W. Commercial Core 15,050 square feet The applicant is requesting verification that if a portion of the Pitkin Center commercial space is demolished in the spring of 1982, the quantity of square footage not imme- diately rebuilt will again be available for development in three to five years when the remainder of the building is demolished for redevelopment. The City Attorney suggested that administrative guidelines be established for property owners who demolish existing structures on a parcel and delay reconstruction on that property. These guidelines would govern such reconstruction and provide a means of maintaining an accurate inventory of such space in order to anticipate future reconstruction and development. Consistent with Sections 24-3.5 and 24-3.7(h)(4) of the Code, the engineering office commented that the owner should be required to include a utility/trash area as part of recon- struction as well as be responsible for the relocation of all existing or proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in the protected trash/utility area. Typically, the demolition and reconstruction of dwelling units and commercial space outside of the GMP has proceeded as a staff-level review. However, this applicant felt that it was important that this item be placed on the public record in that the bank does not plan to immediately rebuild the entire 5700 square feet which is to be demolished in the spring of 1982. The exception being used is under Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code which allows exception from GMP competition for the remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any existing building provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor the creation of additional residential units. This has normally been inter- preted to allow reconstruction under the same general building configuration that existed prior to the demolition. The review of this application is deemed necessary by the Planning Office since (1) the reconstruction will be delayed until some time in the future and (2) there is no known configuration for the new structure. The most important feature of this review for the applicant is the inventory of existing square footage which is to be demolished. The building to be demolished consists of two residential units of 887 square feet and 4,813 square feet of commercial space for a total of 5,700 square feet. The two residential units fall within the housing price guidelines of Resolution 18, series of 1980, as they have been leased for $.58 and $.61 per square foot during the past 18 months. Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Two October 27, 1981 If the applicant competes for additional space in the GMP process, to be competitive these units will need to be replaced in addition to those employee units normally required. Also, this residential square footage cannot be used for the redevelopment of additional commercial space. This results from Section 24-11.2(a) which states that recon- struction can only be exempted from the GMP process if no expansion of commercial floor area is made. Since this request has been made, the Planning Office feels this is a good time for administrative guidelines to be established regarding reconstruction exceptions. It is recommended that these guidelines encompass the following restraints: 1. A property owner involved in a demolition that occurred before the enactment of the GMP should not be allowed to reconstruct that building. This will prevent demoli- tions that occurred long ago from obtaining exception from GMP competition for ne~ development. 2. A time period should be established to limit the length of time reconstruction can be delayed. A five year period is recommended as a reasonable time limit. A longer period may adversely affect the planning process by preventing the anticipation of future growth and development. A five year period will also prevent an imbalance in the market resulting from an unforeseen oversupply of commercial space. 3. At the time of reconstruction, development plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is of the same general configuration as the demolished structure or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council are necessary. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of the request for exception from GMP competition for the portion of commercial space in the Pitkin Center which will be demolished in the spring of 1982, but will not be immediately rebuilt. The delay in reconstruction will not affect the owner's right to rebuild the space if the following conditions are met: 1. At the time the new structure is being developed plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is of the same general configuration as the demolished structure or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council are necessary. 2. Reconstruction must occur within five years of the date of demolition. 3. There is no expansion of the commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition. 4. The owner provides a utility/trash area with all existing and proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in this area at the time of reconstruction. ",,", ........ / MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP . DATE: October 27, 1981 Location: ... Zoning: Lot Size: Applicant's Request: City Attorney: Engineering Department: Planning Office Review: Building Inventory: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P"Q, R, S, Block 94, Original Aspen Townsite; E. Hyman Street and S. Hunter Avenue, N.W. Commercial Core 15,050 square feet The applicant is requesting verification that if a portion of the Pitkin Center commercial space is demolished in the spring of 1982, the quantity of square footage not imme- diately rebuilt will again be available for development in three to five years when the remainder of the building is demolished for redevelopment. The City Attorney suggested that administrative guidelines be established for property owners who demolish existing structures on a parcel and delay reconstruction on that property. These guidelines would govern such reconstruction and provide a means of maintaining an accurate inventory of such space in order to anticipate future reconstruction and development. Consistent with Sections 24-3.5 and 24-3.7(h)(4) of the Code, the engineering office commented that the owner should be required to include a utility/trash area as part of recon- struction as well as be responsible for the relocation of all existing or proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in the protected trash/utility area. Typically, the demolition and reconstruction of dwelling units and commercial space outside of the GMP has proceeded as a staff-level review. However, this applicant felt that it was important that this item be placed on the public record in that the bank does not plan to immediately rebuild the entire 5700 square feet which is to be demolished in the spring of 1982. The exception being used is under Section 24-11.2(a) of the Code which allows exception from GMP competition for the remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of any existing building provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor the creation of additional residential units. This has normally been inter- preted tO,allow reconstruction under the same general building configuration that existed prior to the demolition. The review of this application is deemed necessary by the Planning Office since (1) the reconstruction will be delayed until some time in the 'future and (2) there is no known configuration for the new structure. ' . The most important feature of this review for the applicant is the inventory of existing square footage which is to be demolished. The building to be demolished consists of two residential units of 887 square feet and 4,813 square feet of commercial space for a total of 5,700 square feet. The two residential units fall within the housing price guidelines of Resolution 18, series of 1980. as they have been leased for $.58 and $.61 per square foot during the past 18 months. , r- v ,--,,, "'~ Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception fromGMP Page Two October 27, 1981 - Planning Office Recommendation: If the applicant competes for additional space in the GMP process, to be competitive these units will need to be replaced in addition to those employee units normally required. Also, this residential square footage cannot be used for the redevelopment of additional ccmmercia1 space. This results from Section 24-11.2(a) which states that recon- struction can only be exempted from the GMP process if no expansion of commercial floor area is made. Since this request has been made, the Planning Office feels this is a good time for administrative guidelines to be established regarding reconstruction exceptions. It is recommended that these guidelines encompass the following restraints: , 1. A property owner involved in a demolition that occurred before the enactment of the GMP should not be allowed to reconstruct that building. This will prevent demoli- tions that occurred long ago from obtaining exception from GMP competition for ne~ development. 2. A time period should be established to limit the length , of time reconstruction can be delayed. A five year period is recommended as a reasonable time limit. A longer period may adversely affect the planning process by preventing the anticipation of future growth and development. A five year period will also prevent an imbalance in the market resulting from an unforeseen oversupply of commercial space. 3: At the time of reconstruction, development plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is of the same,genera1 configuration as the demolished structure or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council are necessary. The Planning Office recon~ends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of the request for exception from GMP competition for the portion of commercial space in the Pitkin Center whlch will be demolished in the spring of 1982, but will not be immediately rebui,lt. The delay in reconstruction will not affect the owner's right to rebuild the space if the following conditions are met: 1. At the time the new structure is being developed plans must be presented to the Planning Office to determine if the structure is of the same general configuration as the demolished structure or if further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council are necessary. "2. Reconstruction must occur within five years of the date of demolition. 3. There is no expansion of the commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition. 4. The owner provides a utility/trash area with all existing and proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and transformers in this area'at the time of reconstruction. THEODORE L. MULARZ & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27 October 1981 Re: Pitkin Mr. Alan Richman Aspen Pitkin County Planning Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Alan: There are two apartments in the Pitkin Center Building. The larger one rents for $300.00 per month and the smaller one rents for $225.00 per month. Mr. Clark has asked me to convey this information to you in his absence. Sincerely, '"-~~ <....m~ Theodore L. Mularz AlA cc: Wm. G. Clark Charles T. Brandt, Attorney P,O,BOXl66 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 3031925-3365 ,,"" ....'....'... ......-' AI ~ r,' Ii ,p. ~'~ II P H-f<r ~ F .L'jJ,. '" ll" '"-' H ,ilL Jl U..l<~ r ", .., . ~ ., ~':tHHng Of ~.. .. . lace 130 SOUth "I ~.." ~ \"l' '~, . ,_' l" _'0 t:-,.... C ~R. d street 81611 aspen, cotorado October 5, 1981 Ted t1ularz P.O. [lox 166 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Ted, ' Thi s letter is our promi sed fo 11 ow.. up to the meeti n9 that Sunny, Paul and I had with you, [lill Clark and Chuck Brandt, on October 2. It would seem that we were in basic agreemen' that the best approach to reso 1 uti on of the ques ti on of demo l'i t ion ::d eventual cons tructi on of commercial space outside of GtlP competit';on is to verify the action before P & Z and City Council. The key issues we identified which should be addressed as part of your application include the following: 1. Please suggest the approximate time frame for the proposed actions, including the anticipated dates of demolition and reconstruction. 2. A precise inventory should be provided of the existing square footage which is to be demolished, including the commercial space, the residential space (number of units, size of each unit and whether or not during the previous 13 months any uni t has rented withi n adopted City of Aspen emp'l oyee hous i ng guidelines) and other support space such as parking. 3. It would help if you would suggest precisely what you plan to do with the land during the period between demolition and eventual construction. At this point in time, for your purposes, I do not think it is particularly important ~lhether we process you under an existing exception to the Gt'lP or if you are the mechani sm by wh'j eh we create a new review process. In either case, the review would be'conducted under Section 24-11.2 of the code whereby P & Z recommends to Council that an action be taken; that is, simply a two-step process. Looking at our agenda dates at the present time, I would be very uncomfortable with placing you on the agenda for October 20, since it is only two weeks away and our case load ass i gnments have already been made. A Ilovember 3 date would probab'ly be more appropriate, although if you can get us an application back by the end of this week, we will see what we can do. Pl ease address yourselves to the typi ca 1 Subdi vi s ion Excepti onjConceptua 1 level of revie~1 as regards submission requirenents and application fees. /-', ,,-,-~ ;. i \ \ \ \ I I , " I Please do not hesitate to call if you have additional ~uestions. Sincerely, s,'0 ,'f":/--'L- Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director AR:kb cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune f"". ........, ",~, - MEMORANDUM FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office ~ Jay Hammond, Engineering Office ~ October 26, 1981 TO: DATE: RE: Pitkin County Bank Verification of Exception from GMP Lots 0, P, Q, R, S, Block 94, O.A.T Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comment. The owner/applicant should be required, at such time as demolition an reconstruction occurs, to include a utility/trash area as required in the code. Further, the owner/applicant should be responsible for relocation of all existing or proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults, and transformers into the protected trash/utility area. SPEN MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 1981 rro: A11ce Davis FROM: ~.r-,\ Paul Taddune / RE: Pitkin County Hank Exempt10n - Ver1fication of Exception from GMP The above application tor ver1tication of demo11shed space has been made at the request of staff as a more accurate means of maintainin~ an inventory of such space in the event of future reconstruction or development. It would be appropriate, at this point, for the Plann1ng Off ice to recolamend administrative guidelines for similar situations which may arise in the future whereby a property owner intends to demolish existiny structures and delay reconstruction. PJT:mc f' ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE .. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ... LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 - 63711 09009 - 00000 63712 63713 63714 63715 63716 63717 City 00100--63721 -09009 - 00000 63722 63723 00-,/3- 63724 {p~L;22- 63725' '-I 7,3 sO - 63726 <; .x 100 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000 63062 63063 Name: II/diM? {/~ .. "1k~ 3/7 /Ycr# 'I#' 11 r-l\ ~ All. 1J,.. ,I !/ i '......fJ., I. J I..--\...-- /)1 I.V 11 Address: Check No, ::).0 (p//7 Receipt No, P Subdivision/PUD Special Review P&Z Review Only Detailed Review Final Plat Special Approval Specially Assigned Conceptual Application Preliminary Application Final Application ExemPtion~ t ::>f'/I,;n Rezoning ~~\~ Conditional Use County land Use Sales GMP Sales Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other . I project:,\+t~l llwn~ I.> ro/...., -c;;,~GrnAv<.. ,l '.\} Phone: ~ ~ Date: IJII, j:5)CJr; < AnAl' aUlf'~ ~r&m u-Plf