The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.PitkinCtyBank.534E.Hyman.198119,61 Pitkin County Bank ��.•-- Verification of Exception, GNP FOUND; RF-5'4'R w/ALU CAP L.S. -71Cog A. P LOT 28 "r , SET-; REeaR W/PLA CAP L.S.12-70-7 r FIFLD; 542039'55E 12.l3 RECORD,' 542040' 2i'E 12.13 opt %� + 43.2 �rnu� a A �\ 0 8 �< /1 LOT 2 5 N N�20 22 N J � �2 2 N N X�/ F= 0UN D: w/ALU CP,P L.S. `rICoB TRI-CO Management, Inc. Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 F-OUNC7 s F E700-, Z W/ A LU CAP L.S. -fI&& �O 1>1 SET; RiffBAr-z W/ PLA CAP L . S. 12-70-7 <\0 FOu"C) s RE-�AF2 W/ALU CAP L.1-15. —71(�I6 FOUN fat REOAFR W/ALU CAP L.S. -7( Coe> SURVEYED date: MAY 20, 197-7 DRAFTED date: MAY 23, I97-7 JR REVISIONS SCALE; I" = 20' F3ASIS OP BF AF�ING; �OUNP MONUMENTS AS 5` (DWIJ SURVEYOf-;,`S CERTIFICATE 1, JOHN 1= BEISCHEL, HEREBY CEERTIF-Y THAT THIS MAP ACCURAT�I-Y DEPICTS A SUFZ\/!=Y MADE UNDER MY -R�/ISION ON MAY 20, I",-f-1, OF LrOT 215, WE-S'T A,5PEf� FILING N0, I, PITKR,J 0:IU"TY COLOFZADO, T Ham- ONE STORY WOOD FRAME DUPLfE7C WAS FOUND TO BE L-OCA-rED Ft.171RELY WITHIKJ THE 0CUNDARY LINES OF THE AP.YDVE DESGFZ161=D PROPI`RTY AS SHOWt\1 H- REON. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUIL.L�INC�, IMF�ZOVEtJ��lYS EASEM1=t�1TS, RIGHTS - OF -WAN' IN G-VI OENCE (DR KNOwN TO ME AND ti=NCF?2�AC d - M>=t�1Tr� 13Y oR ON THIS ACCURATEi-Y SHOW N TRI- CO MANPGEMI=NT, INC MA--( Z4 , 1 9-1-7 L.S, 1210� ! e. r 2707 TITLE: IMPROVEAEfJT SURVEY LOT 25, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING NO I PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO.: 7-7- �3 CLIENT: PAKZRY SHEET NO.: 1 of I 0 I J c�. ��•,�JV�G THECr?OPE L. h;JLARZ & ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECTURE PLANNING TED MULARZ, AIA P.O. BOX 166 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303 925-3365 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100— 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 00 11' � _- 1dL� 63724 y �7 ��_ Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Name: l l� n/�A Project:lty' Address: �' ^ Phone: Check No. Date: Receipt No. P �r Asp en/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen; =colorado 81611 April 27, 1984 Mr. Ted Mularz 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 determination 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, Alan Richman cc: Jim Wilson, Building Dept. Bill Drueding, Zoning Official Paul Taddune, City Attorney r, �1� (P4tr ,V 3423 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 27 1982 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 indicate 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 O, P, Q, and lots R and S, Block 94, Aspen Original Townsite, into four parcels. Approval is subject to the three conditions listed in the planning office memeorandum 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 units, 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 certificate 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 going 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 Councilmn 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 were 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. 319I+ Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 1981 n 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 come 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 received 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 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; Councilmembers 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 come 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 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 reconstruction 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. 3200 -- Reqular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 1981 Ms. Davis outlined the guidelines for demolition and reconstruction that the staff has come u, with. (1) A demolition that occurred before the GMP should not be allowed to reconstruct that building (2) A time limit should be established to limit the length of time reconstruction can be delayed. (3) Development plans must be presented to the II planning office to determine if the structure is consistent with t::e underlying zoning and area and bulk requirements. Councilwoman Michael moved to grant an exception from the GMP process for the portion of commercial space in the Pitkin Center whil will be demolished but will not immediately be rebuilt (Lots O, 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 - 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 zoningi and area and bulk requirement of the -zone district or if furt!ier review by the planning i and zoning commission or City Council is necessary (2) there is no expansion of the commercial floor area that existed prior to demolition (7289 square feet) and no more thane the two original residential units can be rebuilt (3) the owner provides a utility/trash areas with all existing and proposed utility meters, Pedestals, vaults and transformers j in this area at the time of reconstruction; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, I' motion carried. SLEIGH RIDES ON GOLF COURSE City Manager Chapman reminded Council this is similar to the request Council approved earlier with the Heatherbed Stable. Chapman told Council that narks director Jim Holland has no problems with the two purveyors provided they have the same lease arrangement. 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 Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. City Manager Chapman told Council this ordinance 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 housing., Mayor Edel closed thepublic hearing. iI Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #69, Series of 1981, on second reading; ;III seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, nay; Knecht, nay; Parry, aye; Mavor Edel, aye. Motion carried. POPPIE'S BISTRO CAFE ENCROACHMENT LICENSE City Attorney Taddune said the applicant applied to the Board of Adjustment for expansion I of a non -conforming use and to build in the setback. The Board granted the variance for I 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 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•II 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 Collins. Motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in - favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch, City Cler Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 24, 1981 i Mayor Edel called the special meeting to order at 12:10 P.M. with Councilmembers Michael, 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 consider the area and bulk requirements in all residential zones. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #80, Series of 1981, on second reading; second 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. Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: 4. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 4 REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: �� w �0 �'^ t OWNERS NAME. Tl��n l��bvi��tT \�"�r✓ '1"ir, �`►'Pll h�l�./ �� hAA OW�tr cv„y�� HvW�,vckd�� SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 84,vq� Las A ww4 am fr *P IsIL ? Leti nrppYYKI 27 �J. 2 �-t r►, 1 rt 2 (P 6 9 �.� L�. " I Q1 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments Pv✓;pk)yU C w'r Arr- 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 4I—`- 8. Anticipated date of submission: 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: , i+lCCle ' L'i ,D,.1� Nv►v r 3ttt-�' ASSDciti is ��in VQ��'��c C by d< 1�Ym rdt RtT e►"o' Council ✓ Approved ✓ _ Denied Date -- Co UA e- i 1 9 ramRd &-Woualo ff— ai the request to divide Lots 0, P, Q and Lots R and 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: 2,533.4 square feet Lot P: 2,758.25 square feet Lot Q: 1,997.35 square feet 9. PRE Lots R&S: 8,522.49 square feet These development credits cannot be transferred among the five At lots or cumulated on one lot unless further approval is received En from the Planning Office. This review is to ensure that each lot is not left without a reasonable development right or if no He reasonable development right ex* ;s,'that a covenant exists to Wa prohibit the transfer of the loi iithout first obtaining a development right. These development credits can be increased Ci if the owner competes and wins a commercial GMP allocation for additional space. 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. 11. FINAL PLAT Council Approved Denied Date 12. ROUTING: ✓ Attorney ✓ Building _Engineering _ Other ct it. Gas ✓ Dept. �S v '1 J, ,Dv� -+�, �nn�s -f Ivor �K• ►'�►t �o los � Q� �v IoJ b�rv� w o Aw No.&,)-91 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen i. DATE SUBMITTED: Igel STAFF: A,C IO _V; `S 2. APPLICANT: �1��`�n Coun�4 �a�k cirnd "1'ruSt' 3. REPRESENTATIVE:1� 4. PROJECT NAIME: "? T ki �XQn'2 !O�'v• 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC 7. REFERRALS: Attorney Engineering Dept. Housing Water City Electric 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: �c axe m ��+ory Subdivision Stream Margin Exception J0MGM19 8040 Greenline Exemption View Plane 70:30 Conditional Use Residential Bonus Other 3, 17 Sanitation District School District Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Parks State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric Other Fire Marshal/Building Dept. 'O Iw ~ Q. DISPOSITION: / / P & Z v/ Approved »/ Denied �_ Da LA ,--/\T�� r�idy/lzcr'lf P aw 0 Counci 1 Approved Denied Date No V, � . � }O. ROUTING: Attorney L, Building Engineering Other . 0w - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP 7) DATE: November 16, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Location: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P. Q. R, S, Blo k 94, Origin Aspen Townsite; E. Hyman Street and S. Hun e Avenue, N Zoning: Commercial Core Lot Size: 15,050 square feet Applicant's Request: 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. City Attorney: 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. Engineering Department: 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. Planning Office Review: 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. Building Inventory: 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 • r: Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Two November 16, 1981 Planning Office Recommendation and Planning and 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 periodis 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 consistent with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if future review by the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 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 i.n 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." • r • WILLIAM G. CLARK Chairman 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 Mularz 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. ph 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. Ur;� ( - .s R�r; � gyre, i)i+hiA ife U�� k' 2 - •�1 /S�. h�ut�; pre(. c�urCl 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 1 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. acly, Clark Chairman/President WGC/ad cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune, Esquire 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: �iiu.y�!/ ✓ "/ Location: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P. Q. R, S, Block,94, Original Aspen Townsite;AE. Hyman Street and S. Hunter Avenue, N Vl_ Zoning: Commercial Core Lot Size: 15,050 square feet Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting verification that if a_portion_of the Pitkin Center is demolished, the_guantity ofsquare footage not immediately rebuilt Aitf 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. City Attorney: 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. Engineering Department: Consistent with Sections 24-3.5 and 24-3.7(h)(4) of the Code, -,houid 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. Planning Office Review: 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 Soace 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, I 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. Building Inventory: The lliost important revle:: fcr' the arpl'c�nt 15 the in"Qrtnr�i 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 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: o(�tXe', ivy"ol. 1. A property owner involved in a demolition tnat occurrea d,Qmolj-han before the enactment of the GMP should not be allowed or'pr,+ to reconstruct that building. This will prevent demoli- P tions that occurred long ago from obtaining exception n�{ a 1v4� b from GMP competition for new development. f recLAV 5 .2. �r5 - CCLC%. -kvr plvtct-(Q4'iay. �0-4 . 4(4K . Ae uelopgr5 . � y�„a gone �G or reute"v Planning Office Recommendation and Planning and Zoning Comidssion Action: A time period should be established to_limit the length �f time reconstruction can _a e ayed. A five year period is recommendecVas reasonable time limit. A longer may adversely affect_ -the planning —process byy venting the ant' ation of future growth and -2evelopment. A five year rid 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 with the underlying zoning and area and bulk requirement of the zone district or if future review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council is necessary. The Planning Office and the Planning and /-oning 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 pew -structure is being developed plans must be presented to the Planning_0ffi-ce_t9___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 expson _of ___thF,cUm._mercial f_lo_or area that existed prior to demolition. t no nnoc,e 4,&, i j a4 re b cu R • • Memo: Pitkin County Bank - Verification of Exception from GMP Page Three November 16, 1981 4. The owner prov-ides a utility/trash area with all existing and proposed utility meters, pedestals, vaults and trans- formers in this a.rea 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 fo +otas-- "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 . Recons t ti on, u occ Sin five of the e f demo ition. There is no expansion of the commercial floor area that l`existed prior to demolition (7,289 square feet) and no more than the two original residential units can be rebuilt. Jq�. 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: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P,.Q, R, S, Block 94, Original Aspen Townsite; E. Hyman Street and S. Hunter Avenue, N.W. Zoning: Commercial Core Lot Size: 15,050 square feet Applicant's Request: 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. City Attorney: 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. Engineering Department: 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. Planning Office Review: 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. Building Inventory: 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 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 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: The Pitkin Center, Lots 0, P,.Q, R, S, Block 94, Original Aspen Townsite; E. Hyman Street and S. Hunter Avenue, N.W. ., y Zoning: Commercial Core Lot Size: 15,050 square feet Applicant's Request: 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. City Attorney: 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. Engineering Department: 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. Planning Office Review: 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. Building Inventory: 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 ccrizercial 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 neti� 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. 0 THEODORE L. MULARZ & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING 27 October 1981 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen Pitkin County Planning Dept. OC+T 291981 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 " p�pNNlNG viTKIN OFKE Re: Pitkin Cenfet' Dear Alan: There are two apartments in the Pitkin Center Building. The larger one rents for 5300.00 per month and the smaller one rents for ip225.00 per month. Mr. Clark has asked me to convey this information to you in his absence. Sincerely, Theodore L. h":ularz A I A cc: VVm. G. Clark Charles T. Brandt, Attorney P.O. BOX 166 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-3365 • C� As en/Pitkin -C!" nning ®Bice 130 south galena street aspen, colerado 81611 October 5, 1981 Ted Mularz P.O. Box 166 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Ted, This letter is our promised follow-up to the meeting that Sunny, Paul and I had with you, Bill Clark and Chucl; Brandt, on October 2. It Would seem that we were in basic agreeme that the best approach to resolution of the question of demolition _d eventual construction of commercial space outside of GMP competitio;l 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 mo:-iths any unit has rented within adopted City of Aspen employee housing 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 t,rhether we process you under an existing exception to the GMP or if you are the mechanism by which 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 caseload assignments have already been made. A November 3 date would probably 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. Please address yourselves to the typical Subdivision Exception/Conceptual level of review as regards submission requirements and application fees. i i Pleas e do not hesitate to call if you have additional questions. i Sincerely, Alan Richman Director Assistant Planning AR: kb cc: Sunny Vann Paul Taddune MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office ✓ FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office �?v DATE: October 26, 1981 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. CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspenolorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 21, 1981 TO; Al ice Davis FROM: Paul Taddune RE: Pitkin County Bank Exemption - Verification of Exception from GMP The above application for verification of demolished space has been made at the request of staff as a more accurate means of maintaining an inventory of such space in the event of future reconstruction or development. It would be appropriate, at this point, for the Planning Office to recommend administrative guidelines for similar situations which may arise in the future whereby a property owner intends to demolish existing structures and delay reconstruction. PJT:mc TO ❑ URGENT A.M. DATE TIME P.M. WHI BYO WIRE OUT FROM OF PHONE AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU RETURNED YOUR CALL WILL CALL AGAIN MESSAGE 1 'jlilt if 4 C Oyum-Qy tint I &MIo 1 It AiI OUId scoff i )' its if At 4571-1 Vl%V5;IoorAY s rAll i ofe4 6-, ho til GOr)tAvtl fv c t' bv�iri It 1.5 109, t N 0GNED NOTES erhpl�aQe kD" ))> ) o .Po .�.,oti RE -ORDER NO S-7725 50 SHEETS �QU/LL o 100 S SCHELTER RD • P O BOX 4700 LINCOLNSHIRE, IL 60197-4700 • (312) 634-4800 n4k64) S° l tOW.4 � 1 Afyfk�d ��s core►1 no f�� c bail( I_ I t's A4(4JA t 23 April 1981 6 PITKIN CENTER Project No. 77-28 D NET SQUARE FOOTAGE A. BASEMENT FLOOR: 4,397.50 t Less: Mechanical - 232.50 Openings At Stair - 34.27 NET SQUARE FOOTAGE 4,130.73 B. FIRST FLOOR: 3,927.50 Less: Open for So. Planter - 263.23 Open Lightwell at N.E. - 105.78 Chimney Area - 25.00 Open for Stair - 107.66 NET SQUARE FOOTAGE 3,425.83 C. MEZZANINE 475.93 Less: Open for Stair 66.00 NET SQUARE FOOTAGE 409.93 TOTAL NET BUILDING AREA FOR F.A.R. D. EXISTING F.A.R. 7,966.49 = 1.32:1 6,019 E. PROPOSED F.A.R. 7,966.49 � + 556 � (Addition) = 8,522.49 8,522.49 7,966.49 � 6,019 = 1.42:1 C 1.5:1 o.k. = F.A.R. with addition of Vault rear Vestibule + Office Space. F. Call to Sunny Vann regarding G.M.P. on 3/19/81 Growth Management allocation for Pitkin Center was 8,530 Square Feet. 8,530 - 7,966 = 564 Square Feet 564 Square Feet is the Area that can be added to Bank without going through Growth Management Procedures -556 Square Feet = Proposed Addition 8 Square Feet remaining unused after Addition s j BENEDICT-MULARZ ASSOCIATES, P.C. 23 April 1981 A PITKIN CENTER Project No. 77-28 D GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE A.. BASEMENT FLOOR A. MECHANICAL SPACE 851'-0" x 49"-6" 4,207.5t 23'-3" x 10'-0" = 232.5� 19'-0" x 10''-0" = 190.0� TOTAL 4, 397.. 5cb OPENINGS AT STAIR 11 _ 0 x 1 1 _ 72„ = 17.88� 7'-4" x 2'-9" = 20.17ib 2'-9" x 2'-9" 3.7a 2 34.27� B. FIRST FLOOR B. OPEN FOR PLANTER AT SOUTH 75'-0" x 49'-6" = 3,712.5tb 10'-11V x 18'-6�" = 203.19t 19'-0" x 10'-0" 190.Ot 10'-11 " x 10'-11k" a 60 04tb 12'-6" x 2'-0" _ 25.Ocb TOTAL 3,921:-% 2 263.23t OPEN LIGHT WELL AT NORTHEAT C. MEZZANINE 141-9-1/8" x 7'-2" = 105.78t 30'-6" x 15'-74" 475.93{� CHIMNEY AREA D. LOT AREA 12'-6" x 2'-0" = 25.0% 60.19' x 100' = 6,019t OPEN FOR STAIR + 14'-1" x ll'-O" = 154.92t E. ZONING REQUIREMENTS - 6'-10z" x 6'-102' _ (-) 47.26� Open Space 25% 2 107.6% External F.A.R. 1.5:1 C. OPEN FOR STAIR F. OPEN SPACE � 14'-8" x 4'-6" = 66.00� Actual 6.x 7.5' 12 = 38.69� ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE INCLUDED 14'-8" x 31.02' = 454.96t IN THE GROSS SQUARE FOOT AREAS 191-0" x 4'-8" 88.67t ON THE LEFT. 100'-0" x.10'—O" = 11000.0% 1,582.32t > 1,504.75 o.k. Required 6,019 x 25% = 1,504.75� Does not include area directly north of Building. -rrTI<IN 65slrUAo AG L-71 Ou am LOTS o, P � cp F11211�-rr Ft.«aR -00, F1 �&tcONC twl-CDR 249o.5 tz:P,FT TEnAL *' INGL0CMP5 TWO ---TU2l0 A04l4Cr MENTS TOTALING 8871457 rQc &I'm #sr.`T•. 15AKK pUILDING ON LaTea K �5 15A. �r=FM'tENT PqL0047- 4113a-73 FIRST �L�R 3,425.83 + 10/81 ADD m • 5150.00 3, 9'81.83 MEZZANI htE 409,`f 3 _ ToT�+-l.. 8522.49 op, rT G IZD�� q. pTG OF 'k It T,4. 3V IL171144--. tFXIST1NG 1✓ A,K, (,ALL 'S JOTS) -LOT ARM, 150.519 tool = 1510�0 i�k9.FT- ALLO WAC5LC 1'1V1Lt7194 A r<M , - I g o5a x 1, S = 22, 575 1-eSS5 1EXI'PTIt-14 f50IL"N4 ARCH 140, �0q-1 Po4'5181LS G"P t5VILVOVj' I ,A 7(, WF'T 15,o5O 40m T" Azz,>vE I'I4r-mwm,&now Avvwt, -70 T}•NS "4emT Vf TL.MUL.AXZ / AtZt�, UPI.o. LIG, to- 345 mrl 10.12.8t ELERGS \-�I ® MOO IES 5UR\/EY OPIENTED WITH FOUND MONUME.NT--t) FROM PREVIOUS SURVEYS CALL IN ( RECORD + FOUN 17D OR SET ROUND - HEAD OR NAIL O CaA5 METER TREE IN GOtvC. PLANTER SOUND 05 RE-BAFt w1T1-1 CAD TRI -CO L1t8q ELEVA7101`,1`9 BAdE0 OIN Iq7 CITY Or ASPEN AERIF11 UFt,✓C-.`f C�hI /.>"Tl3M. Chi -l17 I-1Z- I XP I ✓I t� 1-5 7"tlt HIII )i I?`.w't 11 .0 t)c'?t_ 111 16 "Y ( i I,..111 'f r1u,"I llu-) ',1ll4'Jt `f V`J/,`�) I`II III 'A)ttjl (I I)InIttlty I/1/ c l'1f5 (llI 1111 ,.l;' AV11)r')1 III1.111(rlil 1+. f 1-..k /,1 1 ( l A : i .I M i1 1 I ll. 111 ( ;1 1, /..f it I I-) t (:,LtPEC-T Hw; - ,t f ) ('It 1 I HL i ItJ .1 L-.`JILII:J'.Ir I H 1V✓I'I r;Il IIIII_ 1-'t/,I /;`. I (-AJ4l:.),A14u1VIA I IIiL.RE.ARE NO C�1 GF2E 1 !'aNGIE`7 c_ < if 11 L--IL 1 `�, `U' HORT/-�GC—:D- IN AREA, BOUNDARY LINE CON FLIC T.`�/ ENC F1C?AL-Htl1l-NTS OVERLAPPIIJG OP- IMPROVEMENTS, E/'A5EMENTS OP RIGHTS OF WA`( IN FIELD EVIDE-NCE CAR KNOWN TC3 NIE EXCEPT A5 HEREON SHOWN. UNDERGRc-,c.)ND UTILITIES WITH NO VISIBLE ABOVEGROUND VALVE BOXES OR MANHOC-E.S, ANO 1DOCUMENTS OP REGORO NOT SUPPLIED TO T"E, SURVEYOR ARE EXCEPTEO. SIGNED .< DAVIO W. M�-BRIDE L.S. 1rb12G h r` t� :lal 1 FLOW LINE ELEV. -190154 - s LEV -7-115 i - 914.Q I I AND 2. tDTORY BUILDINGS s S S s f ALLEY BLOCK 94 ( fit.-15' Oc-l" 11'"VV 150.50 (9--.-- �E.LEV 7915 GONG. PARKING FLOW LINE ELEV.-IG0`l ±� s 15ANK AV)Vrr(ON ADDED TO F-mq T L. MtJLJatzZ, 4RGt+. c71J la/12�e1 GO. lZ A1')Dt710N TO f3A.NIC oGro3Etc '�f81 0 0 12,5 Z� .8 I 2, STORY W� BQSk.MENT I BRICK BUILDING 0cj r I Q � 0 Q j I 5AWK eUl V NG 0 m 9 Q I p -=- ------1 0 °v Q I V 'c4.4 U7 I WOOD CHECK In (D 1i 7 i9 �- -- ---- '-__J OVERHANG I ELEV. -1g2Z5 I � 1_ TprAL AREA FIRST FLOOR OF U A �PNALT 15,050 t 5Q F'i Bt-1NK Et CV. �911? 30 S M I COURTYARID y O• c)Vf�F21IAh-�G _ 6 0 ELEV OI i3R�CK I -LE\/. EL_I .V L:` Lr \/ I I El E V 4Co EI-EV 5G 1q I� — 1PATVO 19.0 ILA"• IgIGGZ 1 I I id_ I -791Cn - � I pl { f - r R 1 ; C� �5oq' I I E 150 ow I T • GONG Wf�LI� - FIRE HYDFi�NT� r F . HYMAN AVE APc,Rox, L-0cc,Tx3rj OF' 1Z' GAST 7 ROtJ W/aTEF? 1-I1 JE ---- -- - -- w ---- ----- w w ---..- — - w ---- --- --- -w 1"HIn 1r-11 I�". con e5 ----- F3/a��15 OF BEARINGS n '--I(,-D 32 i w J: + E MP N(IDW EEI YD CE RI U (T)T aW1ZW OF LOTS O, P, Q, R, AND 5, BLOCK G 4 CITY O ASPEN PITKIN GO, GOLORADO 13Y SURVEY E.NGRS INC. P.O. DOX 250G ASPE)�I COLD. 51 a-71 80 fITKIN G�NT�1Z SU�MInIaN 810°I-14 '%L,MI�L�RZ AhIflAS�IA'.TtS, AI�GNIT�G75-FL,4NNEttS AebtbN, Got atAvv 2 GIGTOB�te 14l9 i JOt3 NO.1013�-A 7vreffm Mxv042 FL -AN RF--PK4wN PiZOM rL^44 4�'URt E-5+4ETP 1--f OWN=R PATeP 2>125-'7?,£XT`='KIOP-PIM5NSIOh4S `IMWI EP W/ I M PROvEMESN r SURvCY MAPM T3T .ram( t Cr I M EERS i7A-r mp � 2-7 80 A14V MA17E A PART of 714IS 5UrJM t =-a, to W , MF A.-4E eumt-IAK'f IST. rLo• 4�4.32 i 325,po 'I� 23,00 gi,<o8 88`I 120 .4'I 5.Oo 1110, 00 15�84o,'Lo TOTAL. IST, FL001e ScQl1°� RE SOOT* Co E r\ a Q M O cM co Lo 0, _ 4 Y a o 0 0 u a� S V E La c .�. a • a i O � } u o rd + C O � L -0 V -C t a o a u C � ,6, �� pF IS�(3MISSIOhI • CdI .Co3 III Q0.0-7 TOTAL_ 2t4v FL, SQ, �oOT�ci � fi,�,d•R i M t�TIT ?�i 0. I = !'SIG , 5 `-�, F`T. N L T'�r APA� f M �(VT SO, 2 = 370.5 SQ, r-7 NET TOTAI- --41 1--T NCT"" lh1GLUi76 I�10 f_-�rRLOR OR I -ARTY WALL