Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.ex.LotsC-I,Blk77.1974
Limelite Lodge EMPLOYES HOUGiNG L.)NITS NFLW SIDEWALK m. _4 r--*A I ST. SIDMWAL-K 10 T4 C-0 U R 7 Lip -FLOOR ARt!^ RATIO CAL-CUL-A-rIOW!e, AMEtJITIES MA _lbF-/Y\ EW -1� 1 1"7'69 2 I,000 i5q. FT, PROPERTY 21.000 5Q, FT. eU I L-0 1 W4 ALLOWED 05,750 SOFT, OF ROCA&Ib ALLOWED (7r, V.) FIRST FLOOR 2400 Sep.FT, loot e�q. FT.Z,4-29, 13,123 $Q,r--r, OF ProwTAL. wWi-r$ 4CP'2.rb-/. 2,27 -1, P -r. ".FT. 42ZO 54?. FT bq.Fr-r. OF EMPLOYEEH00610CI (12.� _1412 (2 -BECOND FLOOR AISTIN,44, re7e0 6q. PT; at F 7-644 -69.FT, 44o SQ.FT. fr. A- R. 15Q,F-M 2&73 5 FT. -6161 t>qjl�7-. TOTAL Li 1 01 W&R, Fr so,T, - i I LAYYILL RJJ V%In ■ m.w IREV. ARCHITECTS A. 1. A. GLENWOOD SPRINGS • ASPEN LL :..,• v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPRa<. LCt�4-na_l Co" WATErz (_9WEK4 PPLM 1':>70 07Y WATER_. NVW' VVATr-FZ- VAL-Vtt VV v ao 050, MUND %-um fAp WI'-', PUNV,�Aw �-MF_ 0�0 15 `-f-T C, PLAlbnC. CAP. 06 79t 2_ -5 -760 019' 11" r- ilk _z 0,4 PROP. CD9. EL,- 7)11,7 0, i� I P�� l770 OT-l' WA-fl5P- MAP MUNP ALUM cl�\p — , d, "I - tiff o.4 (Z�, PETA N. WA4_ L - - 0,(p �q I - O'd ------ ------- VIA",' 0,4 0,3 0,2- z�o _FLCOK OVF� 71 16,2 Z,b FZC)f)F 0,H-,- 7 Lo v `7 _v)w- LAN�,/�� 74�462 UILE)l RY NIA�5( OD FRAME F N tA /EE�� -r. TT eu�i cow_, WALK ;)o 0, Co�-Z. WALK E�,FLOVY rD.-1 -e-V- I IF5 2A, hPE.0, 4�00F Lwrwk4t-�G RD L, La 15 0 ?J0 30 140 r:; C -1 j ®r -,LTF ',4 0,; 5 0,5111 eo,-_7K,? OF r3E_4P,'lt-4C--5 FOUND OT-l' �7, r- t.-IW CO;ZNEJ7_ bLOCA< 9'�, NW C0F?t4E-:F?_ 5LOCK e�4 W. ON WALL AT 45W C0Kll4eJ0__CF F;,iTK_jN COUNTY COO HOL)!�-,E r-1 7c�)O&. 00 MCI- Elr_LLt5L)KF Z,7 .7 LOCK77 V_ ovff�Ne +• '� ( :. III T.: - i (✓; ,`-/ I .- / i I 0.2 rooL /A -)AME56 Fz THAT 'hl MAY le-)741 A,52UIZVE�� WA-!5 MAPE UNDER;?- M--r'5uPEV-- 4 v15ioN OF- LOTSLOTSc, o, r=, F� (9, H � I, f34ZC4,-_ 77 c_rrY or TWO 6TO;Zy KAA A15FE�4/ COLCFZADO, THE 0.8 IN I' <� FF?,&� N)ILPIWG W1 15A-_eME��4T VVA6 FOUNP TO 56 LocAnEv F-N-nKm2( MT"U-4 Tj4P_ 50UNOAIZYLJ�-JfE�5 OF 7)4ff '�?7A`aG�N 9uaa ( RL i' / '' // I � I A50VF- ptFXj7jE5eo pKOPEIZ-rY A6 �b�40"l HC-_ EON. 7PE \lr _W16- I Mn?Mf�- , Ato L.CXATX)t-4 AND L7)MEN1:510Nep OF ALL E3L)ILL F:,\�Lcxou��- Vv MENT5, EA-5�T-5, FZt6k-M-5- OF- WAY IH CEMGet-r-E 09 Kj-40WN -ro Mf-- ANIP EhtGf20hGHMEI JTS 5"rOK ON 01 z Al� FZ K 1 f__4 11,L-- �',T V�EW - Lq TPF_,�,P_ PREM115E-5 ARE: A4:�YPPVEL�r lb�, EL, Al- VJF�AA/ PLANE tl _2 AT N*_ E kE-!5EK Ile C5, L' 0, f4,6 M .... ..... 75"09' W' \/V 209,34 (i)r:Z7 K 71N4 13Uf?)LTO PTO LlrJF_ rrlvve7R POLE - ----- f�_LfEc_l - ----- powrlp- Paz lfJV, EL, = �n,3 WAT 5 A L L K -7 -17 *7915.5 JOB NO.: 74-&3-1 SURVEYED date: V-)-�4 TITLE - TRI-CO Management, Inc. Du F-V E, y RAFTED date: 11,/Wf C7 M p 1: Z 110 v F_ M E r -r CLIENT: Box 1730 5 C; REVISIONS LOTS I--.z F!, r-z- rl% 1 4 016 1LOG -7-7 SHEET NO.: I 303.925,2688 *City of Aspen, Colga.do D v �o w BUILDING PERMIT Ir ESTIMATED COST $..:............ � NO. .. tt.,,.. ... DAB `: ... "(..... CJ.. .. . PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED ...!.... .. .. l ..... pxr AS .. 1���2`Y" ""'mil �A........... TO .....l.:'.r l c: t .... A STORY .... � .... . ` y ON LOT �!` , .. r i BLOCK ....... r / .................. ADDITION `. ! .............. �..... i /1..'Y. ZONE ..... .. i .Q ......... FIRE DIST. '/ I........... CCUPANCY ........ ADDRESS ... \.. ..... / ..`. ��/ . �.. ....: .1C ..... L.... !..................... TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIO . �. ;: i <� .Y .�... ! ...'Z... .!/. Y ............................... SIZE .......... [ . 4 .... ..;� . Gl . 1.. .. .. ............. NUMBER LIVING UNITS. , ............... NO. ROOMS ... f�..... STYLE OF ROOF . 1� u�' ............... ROOFING MATERIAL . J.�C�':5{'..' y... .. . ARCHITECT ... ... .. ' �_ . `...... ADDRESS ... %.{.�..✓1:.. �- �. ,.. CONTRACTOR ADDRESS ..... ....... REMARKS- G CHIT Ct.ERK APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, Colorado The undersigned hereby requests permission to perform and do the work, repairs, construction alteration or developement hereinafter described and further agrees to do said work in accordance with this application and in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted herewith. This application is made with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the terms or conditions upon which it is approved. / Location: Lot.��____ J / J J______ Block -_______ ------- - � J T r � Desk; ption of ,sty uctur S ify width, length, square feet, type of construction, type of roof, etc.) _-______ ------------------ ------=------------------- -�`- Intended Use and Pur ose:_ ___ ___ ___ ______________________________ --_ ------------------- ------------------------------------ Estimated Cost of Construction:_. Distance from lot lines: N-- ��1 ; S-- E- of O Name of Contractor or Builder: -- f� - -- -----------f--------- Name and Address of Owner: -------------------'____ " ________-_____- ______--_-_ — Additional Remarks: Applicant BY- - --------- r-. APPLICATION (Approved) (Wmod) This _ -day of !!f_ _ 19 C ,subject to the following conditions. ----------- -- ----I - ------- ----1------- City Building Inspector F...,;�-�,:.w.�is'.^rtn�?.'SR'..,� �..�--:x+aXrcar•+_ r "qSi?` . 'yam. '. -. . ^ ' c9g3 -- -- �i 1 i .Y t't r r Y . of September 26, 1974 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o City Planning Office P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: The concept of the proposed addition to the Limelite Lodge is a separate two story structure housing thirteen (13) units. three (3) saunas, a laundry room, a pool equipment room, a tool room, and storage facilities for the entire Limelite Lodge. The plan calls for five (5) existing rental units to be utilized as employee housing. The net result of the addition will be an increase of eight (8) rental units and five (5) units for employee housing. The existing parking will remain and be modified to meet the 9' x 18' specifications established by the City of Aspen. The existing parking of 1876 sq. ft. as determined by the Planning Office, has been modified to 1944 sq. ft. in order to make twelve (12) legal stalls. One new stall per new rental unit has been added, for a total of twenty (20) parking stalls. A policy to encourage the use of the Rio Grande -property for employee parking will be adopted. The "Floor Area Ratio" for the new "Lodge' designation is as follows: 21,000 sq. ft. of Property 21,000 ::;cT. ft. of Building allowed (1:1) Allowed Proposed 62.5 % Rooms 13,125 sq. ft. 13,116 sq. ft. 12.5 % Employee Housing 2,625 2,673 25 % Amenities 5,250 5,181 Totals 21,000 sq. ft. 20,970 scq. ft. 0 % Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 26, 1974 Page 2 The proposed addition will be connected to the existing two (2) story structure by two (2) bridges, the floor elevations will be the same as the existing building. An elevator will be installed for vertical transportation to the basement and second floors. Sincerely, Glenn Paas President, Limelite Lodge cam August 13, 1974 Mr. Glen Pass, Jr. P. 0. Box 1089 Aspen, Colorado Re: Limelight Lodge Addition near Glen, This letter is to confirm our discussion of last week following receipt of the City Attorney's opinion that the Lime light Lodge, orginally the Ski Vu located on Lots C-J, Block 77, must maintain parking spaces pre- sently existing and needed to support its present den- sity. Yank Mojo an3 I made an on site inspection of exisif$gg parking at the Limelight Lodge with you and Don Ball. Because the existing parking is undesignated and some spaces currently in use -o not meet the recuir_ements of standard parking spaces, this office suggested that the following formula be adopted to determine existing parking: the percentage of area of the total siee used for parking must be maintained, and must become con- forming parking spaces on the revised site plan being prepared for sn addition to the lodge. We measured the area now be used for parking and agreed that it con- sists of 2.547(1876)sq. ft.) of the site. cause of the Limelight's location near the center of ItAy town and mass transportation,ceheePlanning Office takes L the position that a ratio of 2 spaces for I units is a reasonable one for the propose-i additional units. ours truly, Donna Baer AN Planning Office e DB /bk cc: Don Ball g • MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sandy Stuller RE: Application of Limelight Lodge; Elimination of Off-street Parking Spaces DATE: August 5, 1974 Members of the Commission: It is my understanding that the Limelight Lodge has processed an application for extension of the lodge in such a manner as would require elimination of their present off-street parking area and creation of only such addition spaces as are required by the new, additional units. 4-ore specifically, it is their contention that inasmuch as the original structure was built before the off-street parking requirements were established, they may eliminate any spaces they voluntarily supplied subsequent to the effective date of the off-street parking ordinance, dedicate that area to open space, -rely on this dedication for increased density, and replace only as many spaces as are attributable to the increased density. This proposal is in contradiction to the doctrine of abandonment of nonconforming use and cannot be accepted. General Principles Zoning ordinances are prospective only, i.e., no retroactive application of them is made. Consequently, all uses contradictory to a zoning ordinance are permitted to remain as "nonconforming" uses with restrictions imposed against their enlargement, expansion, restoration, etc., all designed to eventually eliminate them. There is an additional concept in the law designed to eliminate ronconformities, that is, the theory of abandonment. This doctrine provides that when an owner has a nonconforming use, and discontinues that use in such a manner so as to indicate he is • Page Two Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission abandoning it, this serves to terminate a right to a nonconforming use. If the cessation of use is involuntary, i.e., caused by external conditions (e.g. unable to procure a tenant, insufficient funds to do needed repairs, etc.) or if the cessation is due to governmental intervention (e.g. condemnation of the property) courts will very often find no abandonment of a nonconforming use because an owner will be found to not have intended to discontinue the nonconforming use, "Zoning: Right to resume nonconforming use of premises after involuntary break in the continuity of nonconforming use caused by difficulties unrelated to governmental activity", 56 ALR 3rd 14, "Zoning: Right to resume nonconforming use of premises after involuntary break in the continuity of nonconforming use caused by governmental activity", 56 ALR 3rd 138." However, when an owner voluntarily makes his use conforming (here, by providing off-street parking) or decreases its nonconformity, the courts will not allow him to revert to the nonconforming use, holding he has abandoned the same, "Zoning: Right to resume nonconforming use of premises after voluntary or unexplained break in the continuity of nonconforming use, 57 ALR 3rd 279." Voluntary Abandonment The author in the last noted cite states in the annotation: "Zoning ordinances, which are ordinarily , said to have no retroactive effect and to work no disturbance of existing uses of property, often provide, in effect, that where a lawful use of property is in existence on the date at which such ordinance comes into effect such use may be continued, even though the continued use does not conform to the mandates of the ordinance (i.e. ordinances are not given retroactive effect) ... Zoning ordinances also often go on to proclaim that, if such a nonconforming use is discontinued (abandoned), and resumption of activity with regard to the property shall be in • 0 Page Three Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission conformity with the provisions of the ordinance ... (T)he courts have generally held that the word 'discontinuance' is the equivalent of 'abandoned', hence, it has uniformly been stated that the dis- continuance of a nonconforming use results from the occurrence of two factors (1) the intent to abandon (2) and voluntary conduct, whether affirmative or negative, which carries the implication of abandonment". And further: " M t would appear to be a widely accepted fundamental of zoning law that a right to exercise a nonconforming use will continue to exist until there is an abandonment of such, i.e., that such right will not survive the abandonment of such use. THUS IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE WELL SETTLED on the basis of the following zoning cases involving the right to resume nonconforming use of premises after an alleged voluntary or unexplained break in the continuity of nonconforming use - that the actual legal abandonment of nonconforming uses is fatal to its resumption." Courts will find an abandonment of a nonconforming use on evidence of (1) a definite arrd regular conforming use of property over a period of time (2) a voluntary compliance with a zoning ordinance subsequent to the establishment of a permissible nonconforming use or, (3) intervention of a conforming use for a sufficient period of time to justify a conclusion of abandonment of the former use. It is submitted that the Limelight Lodge, in voluntarily supplying off-street parking (overt act) over an extended period of time has, under the common law principles described above, abandoned a corresponding degree of nonconformity and lost its immunity against application of the off-street parking requirements for the existing structure. E Page Four Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission A voluntary period of actual conforming use will break the chain of continuity in the exercise of nonconforming uses. Colorado Caselaw In Service Oil v. Rhodus, 500 P2d 807 (1972) the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the Denver Buick case's earlier holding that nonconforming uses could not be terminated, in Rhodus the Court stated a ruling in harmony with most jurisdictions to the effect that (1) nonconforming uses may be terminated by abandonment (2) if an intent to abandon is shown. See also Beszecles v. Board of Commissioners of Arapahoe County, 178 P2d 950 (Colo. 1947), Fishman v. Tupps, 257 P2d 579 (Colo. i953) and Board of Adjustment of the City and County of Denver v. Abe Perlmutter Construction, 280 P2d 1107 (1955). General Policies Generally, one enjoying a nonconforming use cannot substitute it for one of a less restrictive nature, cannot increase its intensity of use, nor extend nor enlarge the same. The policies behind the doctrines concerning nonconforming uses are: 1. nonconforming uses are to be looked upon with disfavor because the detract from the effectiveness of a comprehensive zoning plan; 2. nonconforming uses are to be gradually eliminated, if possible, because they, in addition to detracting from a zoning plan, give their owners hidden advantages or monopolies not enjoyed by the balance of the community. The concept of nonconforming uses was adopted to eliminate manifest injustices or hardships that may result from forced compliance by a landowner, of all new zoning ordinances. But if an owner voluntarily complies he defeats any argument that any new ordinance creates as economic hardship beyond his Page Five Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission ability to sustain and waives any immunity against compliance. Conclusion I can only conclude that the Limelight must, for a permit to issue, :aaintain those parking spaces presently existing needed to support its present density, and, in addition, supply any new spaces correlating to the new units to be constructed. P.G. Anderson P.O. Box 2916 Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 26, 1974 Mr. Spencer Schiffer Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Schiffer: I understand that the agenda for the Commission's meeting planned for August 6, 1974, includes both preliminary and final stage consideration of the Limelite Inc. request for a third story addition to their lodge. As a concerned adjacent property owner, I have checked the pro- posed plans and find there are several things which need clarification before any plans can be submitted for approval. For these reasons, the Board of Adjustment, in their meeting on July 25th tabled consideration of the variance requested on number of permitted units. In view of this, may I request that only the preliminary approval stage be considered at the August 6th meeting. Very truly yours, t P.G. Anderson PA:sj • • MAIN MOTIONS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting June 11, 1974 LIMELITE LODGE -- Conceptual Jenkins made a motion to give conceptual approval under Ordinance 19 to the Limelite Lodge, conditioned upon the following: that the parking problem be resolved; that the applicant obtain a variance for the height, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board of Adjustment that they grant the variance; that the Com- mission take another look at the building bulk and lot coverage at the preliminary stage; that the Commission give further consideration to the employee housing at the next stage. Robert Barnard seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. • TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Limelite Lodge Addition - Ord. 19 Conceptual Review DAYS: June 4, 1974 Request is for a 3rd story, 14 unit addition to an existing lodge. Addition will result in a total F.A. of approximately 15,000 sq. ft. Located on 21,000 sq. ft. of lot in the fringe of the central area. Lodges are a use by review in the central area, however the site is designated for lodge use on the updated land use map. Existing and additional units bring density up to maximum under existing code. P. 0. is now considering FAR as a possible criterion for density determination. 28'4" height to accommodate view plane; 2 lots are in AR zone which permits 28'. A variance will be required. Additionally detailed elevations should be submitted to determine bulk/height/lot coverage considerations of III A. 2. Existing code would require 27 spaces. Lodge is well located for public transportation and pedestrian modes. No employee housing is provided. r MEMO TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Erigineering Department DATE: July 10, 1974 RE: Limelite Lodge Addition After reviewing the proposed plans for the construction of an addition of a third floor on the Limelite Lodge, I have the following comments: 1. All roof drainage should be run into drywells or grassed areas. 2. Six foot wide sidewalk should be installed between the property line and curb. However, due to the large blue spruce trees between the curb and property line along Cooper Street, the sidewalk should be installed between the building and the trees, partially on the property of the Limelite. This sidewalk will replace the existing sidewalk which will be removed during construction. 3. Vertical curb should be installed in an existing abandoned driveway along Cooper Street. 4. The Owner should agree to participate in both paving of the adjacent alley and undergrounding of electric utilities when the City undertakes such projects. 5. A concrete driveway should be installed between the curb and the North edge of the proposed side- walk should the Owner or designer decide that this driveway is necessary. This driveway presently goes through to the alley, however, should parking be installed as shown on the plans, it would no longer exist at the alley. Should this driveway be deemed unnecessary, vertical curb should be installed to close it. 6. Excavation adjacent to the large spruce trees most certainly will damage the roots of these trees. The trees are in the public right-of-way and as such are public property. A qualified nurseryman should be consulted as to what precautions or remedial treatment should be used to insure the best chances for these trees to survive. This advice should be in written form and submitted to the Building Department for follow-up. • • • 7. The decision of the Board of Appeals and Examiners (July 11, 1974) to encroach into the "Wheeler Opera House View Plane" should be considered. Ed Del Duca Asst. City Engineer cc: Don Ball, Architect Aspen Planning & c/o City Planning Box V Aspen, Colorado Commission The objectives and purposes of the proposed addition to the Limelite Lodge include fourteen (14) new limited motel units to be added in the form of a third story. The present two story structure contains twenty-five (25) limited units, and one (1) unlimited unit. The remodeling includes taking one (1) existing limited unit and adding it to the existing unlimited unit, therefore increasing the size of the present unlimited unit. The additional limited units are geared at increasing quality and quanity of the number of accommodations available to those tourists wishing to stay close -in while visiting in Aspen. The location being Cooper and Monarch, should reduce the need for vehicular transportation thus reducing expenses incurred by the city for services needed to support that vehicle, i.e.: snow removal, paving, street signs, and law enforcement. Additional motel units should assist in increasing the econom- ic base of Aspen's tourist oriented economy. The present Lime- lite Lodge zoning designation is a combination of C-1 and AR-1. The information available at this time seems to indicate a possible rezoning to "Lodge", making the structure an appropriate land use. Any future transportation system would more than likely be located in close proximity to the Lime- lite, therefore establishing a logical location for visitors to utilize such a service, should such a system materialize. Sincerely, G enn Paas President, Limelite Lodge pm (4/65) 2 B.I. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT xI CITY OF 4ilREN - COUNTY OF PITKINO, COLQOADO ADDRESS GENERAL OF JOB CONSTRUCTION I - 233 E. Cooper PERMIT WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK: NEW ❑ ADDITION O ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK ❑ OWNER i e nc Box 1089 3025 NAMExti X glgkx ADDRESS PHONE Ix LICENSE LICENSE NAME (AS LICENSED) Dick Wright CLASS g NUMBER5045 u Q INSURANCE Fes- ADDRESS PHONE ❑ Z O SUPERVISOR u 1 FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION SURVEY ATTACHED ❑ DESIGN A LIC. BY BY PE NO. AREA (S.F.) HEIGHT NO. TOTAL OCCUPANCY AT GRADE (FEET) STORIES UNITS GROUP DIV. BASEMENT FIN ❑ SINGLE ❑ ATTACHED ❑ GARAGE TOTAL TYPE FIRE UNFIN. ❑ DOUBLE ❑ DETACHED ❑ ROOMS CONSTR. ZONE DEPTH SIZE SPACING SPAN FIRST AGENCY AUTHORIZED DATE BELOW BY Z O GRADE FLOOR BUILDING EXTERIOR F REVIE W ZONING Q FOOTING SIZE 0 CEILING 0 � EXTERIOR CONC. ❑ Z FDN. WALL ROOF PARKING O THICKNESS MAS'Y ❑ PUBLIC HEALTH U. THICK CAISSONS ❑ ❑ ROOFING SLAB 8 GR. BEAMS MATERIAL ENGINEERING MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE EXTERIOR THICKNESS 1ST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RE) FLR. WALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE & SPACE IST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR. REMARKS Adding 14 motel units and service area Connected units - NOTES TO APPLICANT: FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925 - 7336 VALUATION FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OF WORK $200,000 APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, _ PLAN TOTAL FEE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. FILED T P PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK 15 STARTED. 437.00 DOUBLE CHECK ❑ REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. 284.05 P1 ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE ❑ CASH THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. ❑ BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION Of ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT: APPROVAL BY DATE THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT WHEN VALIDATED HERE 5-31-7 224-74 :k. INSPECTOR'S COPY SUBJEC -P-- -NO. 9 H 10 FOLD LETTER© FROM Agpola C t t ^rvrn Distriet MESSAGE DATE june 18 193.E - -sez N-i oe this addition v- however- tilt hS� �7�37It completes t;ae necessary e NO. 9 FOLD -No. 10 FOLD REPLY DATE 19 SIGN ® "SNAP -A -WAY" FORM 44-902 9 PARTS WILSON JONES COMPANY • L 1961 • PRINTED IN D.S.A. RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY 973 0 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. P.O. BOX 2050 - ASPEN. COLORADO 61611 • (303) 026-2323 A To Whom It May Concern: 0rdinanco-#19 _ _ Limelight Addition (3rd floor) Monarch & Cooper Aspen, Colo. ocky Mountain Natural Gas Company as a moratorium in effect at this time and will be unable to serve a new services until it is lifted. However, when this moratorium is lifted we will have an ample supply of a 11 be happy to ser your project. S irtge ely, i C Willard C. Clapper District Manager WANNU ' � 1 1 j, CITY OF ASPEN aspen,colorado, mn box v CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The City of Aspen hereby s electric service for the project under Ordinance 19 review listed below. Thomas Maddalone Electric Department Director TCO/cmc J OF F ivi;tED!i.GS 1CO Laves room 9 C. r. wor.Kn e. e. s ' . c,. Regular Meeting Aspen P--,::ning & Zon__-. September l� Geri Vagneur Limelite - c::r:.-_:-2,>tual Applicant_- ... s and his architcc " . submitted _ _;l, .__' ^s allowing for :_ _. it addition to the Lodge. In the oropos,.plftn, three stories would be utilised with the bott371 as parking and the to-, two floors for no fireplaces or kitc::e ns . It was no `e.1 t would be no height problems involved. The 27 units no-..,. ..r. Pawl son, representing the 210 Cooper Buildin, stated i'"..: :_is group was opposed to the proposal because of the parking problems already existing in that area. He sited that the the 210 Cooper building supplied 19 parking spaces for their residents and that during the winter and even the summer, the parking spaces were filled with the Limelite's over-'. flow of cars. He presented pictures taken the weekend before and was asked if he could positively identify the cars in his parking lot with customers of the Limelite. Mr. Anderson answered in the affirmative as he had seen the people unloading their cars and walkinc into the Lodge. Paas stated that he hadn't used the open land for parking before but could in future since it had been covered with gravel. Motion Barnard moved that conceptual approval be granted an Jenkins seconded. Collins, Schiffer and Johnson were opposed so the motion did not carry. Outline Development Plan Chuck Vidal came before the Commission to ask for thei. Mountainedge recommendations so that Council would have some idea how the P & Z felt about the three proposed alterna- tives offered by Mountainedge developers. It was noted that there was no guarantee that Clarendoi or Ute Village might not be tied up in lawsuits for a long time. Jenkins questioned the time-share concept which basi- cally means purchasing the right to live in the unit for a certain amount of time but not purchasing it entirely, in this uTay taxes and costs are shared. The members thought that this idea was not in keeping with long term housing policy. Pollution was also mentioned since design plans fea- tured fireplaces in the units. A survey showed that one unit had an average use of 4 cords of wood per season which created much of the pollution but this survey had bccn question with the result of lowering the amount of wood consumed in the new survey and naming the real problem as being the automobile. Barnard ram: c,::cd a study session with Council to find out tti,_ir feelings. Schiffer did not feel that any thing was accomplished when they had study sessions with Council. Schiffer ? that he didn't of the propo- sals t, .: . c,emed to confo.-m the proposed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves .k !0 C. /. M FCKFL /. !. d L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning August�6, 1974 P.U.D.: The City Attorney informed the Commission that Mountainedge negotiations for annexation before the City Council would be on next week's Council Agenda but she advisee. them not to take official action at this time due to uncertain validity. Chuck Vidal advised the members that their decision would be at his own risk. At that time he went over the memorandum put out by the Planning Office in an attempt to convince the members of his good intentions Ms. Baer sited sections d and f under Intentions as the major objections. She stated that the density and resulting congestion were not in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood and that under proposed rezoning the area of Garmisch and Juan streets would be used as boundaries for high density tourist devel- opment. Jenkins moved that they deny Mountainedge PUD for the same reasons as under Ordinance 19 and Barnard seconde All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance 19 Review: KSNO asked for an exemption for a building permit so K.S.N.O that they could move to the white house on 600 E. Hopkins and make some external changes to the building such as moving the door from one side to the other. Under the parking memorandum sent out by Yank. Mojo, three parking spaces would have to be provided for the eleven employees. Collins moved that exemption be granted on the provisc that three parking spaces be provided and Barnard seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Tom Merrill This was a one level duplex in which applicant would like to build a bedroom and bath in a proposed second level. Members only objection was that it could at some time in the future be made into a triplex simply by adding external stairs but Merrill assured them that his sale contract would have a stipulation against that. Vagneur moved that they grant exemption under the condition that final plans be made available to them and Landry seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Christiania Preliminary and final plans were submitted for a proposed duplex. A discrepancy was noted between the plans and the official survey in which a cabin was supposed to be ten feet away from the duplex is in reality only three feet away. Barnard moved to table until stakes were put in the ground and an on -site inspection could be made and also accurate plans were submitted. Jenkins seconded, motion carried. LiMel i Conceptual approval had been granted to add fourteen units to the Skiview Lodge but a height variance fiad already been turned down by the Hoard of Adjustment:. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves PORY •i C..�'C'KFI B. P. A 1. C3. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning August -61 1974 Limelite, Ms.,,Baer reiterated the concern over the parking continued situation and said that since the building had gone up in 1.955 before any parking requirements, the Planning Office had originally believed that no space: had to be provided. Since then the City Attorney had ruled that it was to be considered abandonment of a non -conforming use and that not only would they have to maintain the present lot as a parking area but also provide additional space for the new units. Johnson stated that the Commission would have to see new plans because they couldn't accept the old ones based on Ms. Stuller's legal opinion. Architect Don Ball attempted to point out to the Commission that the parking area was not legally considered a parking area but rather open space and that the owner could use it as he chose. Johnson advised the applicant that he could either withdraw his plans or they would,.,.have to turn them down officially. The applicant withdrew his plan for resubmission as modified. 620 Hyman Applicant did not show for his presentation. Jenkins moved to adjourn the meeting and Barnard seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m. Recording secretary -3- u E FORM" C.F.HOECXELR.R.,L.CO. REC$RIP OF PROCEEDINGS 100 ..eaves Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment July 25, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman John Dukes at 3:20 p.m. with Charles Paterson, Remo Lavagnino, Gilbert Colestock and Fred Smith present. Also in attendance was Building Inspector Meyring. CASE NO. 74-24, LIMELITE, INC. Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing on the above case by askin Mr. Glenn Paas if he had anything further to state as justification for granting the two variance requests. The Board had had the opportunity to make an on -site inspection of the Wheeler Opera House view plane prior to the public hearing. It was also verified that the figures for open space had been checked by Building Inspector Meyring; he and Don Ball of Caudill & Associates had reached an agreement as to the method of figuring and the figures. It was for these two reasons that this case had been tabled previously. The figures had been amended because the proposed addition was discovered to be on a short block, that is less than the usual 210 foot block. The original plans had been for 14 additional units, these plans were now altered to 121, units. In the new figures, the existing parking on Lots E, F, G, and H would be eliminated with 8 parking stalls to be located on AR-1 zoned land. Smith asked City Attorney Stuller if, even though the original structure was'build prior to the 1956 parking requirements and the mere fact that they do have parking; it was not acceptable now to tear up that parking for an open space credit in the C-1 district. City Attorney Stuller was in agreement with Mr. Smith. That unless they maintain their parking and offer additional parking for the additional units, they would allow it to become more non -conforming over a long period of time. Lavagnino suggested that the variance requests be tabled until a decision had been reached by P & Z as to density, he did not feel that a blanket variance could be granted until the Board knew what P & Z planned to do. Mr. Paas stated that, at this point, a decision would have to be made by either P & Z or the Board of Adjustment so that he could work with the other. Mr. Smith stated that he was not ready to vote on a variance until density had been determined. Mr. Paas asked if a decision could be reached on the view plane variance and eliminate the density problem at this time. The Boar- was in agreement to settling the view plane request. Chairman Dukes invited questions and comments from the floor. Sandy Johnston only asked that the Board realize that a positive decision on this case would set precedence on view plane variances -- she felt that a foot would make a difference. The Board informed her that precedence was not a determinant in Board of Adjustment decisions. Each case is handled individually. Britt Tita explained that the proposed addition would affect her view of Wagner Park. She hadn't realized how much worse it would be until the red flags had gone up. Nina Johnston felt that the City would continue establishing view planes and this proposed structure would destroy any plans for a view from Wagner to the west. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Colestock moved to deny application for variance to have addition to Limelite project into the view plane starting from the Wheeler Opera House; in addition, the building can be erected without variance approval. No hardship nor unusual circumstances are shown and granting a variance will not serve best needs or interests of surrounding property owners. Smith seconded. Roll call vote - Smith aye; Colestock aye; Lavagnino nay; Paterson aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. CASE NO. 74-27, CARLSON HOUSE APPEAL Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing. A stop order was issued by the Building Inspection Department because although the west wall of the building was set back 5 feet, the mansard encroached 2 feet on the 5 foot set back. Former Inspector Bill Ward had approved the rough -in on May 9, 1974 and had issued the building permit. The mansard is considered a wall in the building code as per Building Inspector Meyring. There is an 18" allowance for roof overhangings but a mansard is not considered a roof -overhanging. Architect Fischer explained that he and the contractor had honestly tried to do the right thing. He felt there would be a definite hardship if the mansard had to be cut back to the 5 foot set back because it would create a flat sided abortion, an eyesore to the neighborhood. The following letter was received by the Board from Paul Seymour, Jr.,. Kurt Oppens, Herman Bidel, Loyal Durand. "We have received notice from the Board and a photo of the almost completed project. We have no objection to the new roof of the Carlson residence." In addition, Mr. Loyal reiterated the neighbors original concern that the present remodeling of the Carlson house not result in an apartment arrangement that could be used in the future as a triplex. Mrs. Anna Salter, who resides at 4th and North was present to state that she was not opposed to granting the variance just to get the contractors out of the neighborhood. She feels that broken down trucks, trailers, and litter of nails and scrapes should come to an end soon. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Paterson moved that approval be granted this variance since special conditions and circumstances in this case do not result from the actions of the applicant since the Building Inspector's office had approved the rough -in drawings according to our official inspection records. Colestock seconded. Roll call vote - Smith aye; Colestock aye; Lavagnino aye; Paterson aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. CASE NO. 74-28, RBH BUILDING Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing. Mr. Lavagnino read the following letter submitted by County Attorney J. Nicholas McGrath to the Board and the audience. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SQ C. F. MOECKEL K. B. 0 L. CO. Board of Adjustment, July 25, 1974, Continued Dear Mr. Dukes: The above -numbered case, involving an application for a variance by Messrs. Walls and Sterling on behalf of the RBH Joint Venture will be heard today at 3:00 p.m. Notice of the variance hearing was mailed to the County by letter postmarked July 19. It was not received by the County and forwarded to me until Tuesday, July 23. Under Section 2-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, that is almost the minimum possible notice. More importantly, the notice arrived so that there is no intervening meeting of the Pitkin County Commissioners, who meet, as you know, on Mondays. Therefore, I must formally ask on behalf of Pitkin County that the hearing be continued, on the ground that the County has no sufficient opportunity to assess the application and its possible effects upon Pitkin County's interests. I gather from talking with Sandra Stuller that the application could affect traffic flow in the vicinity of the Pitkin County Courthouse. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to review the application in detail and to raise the matter with the Commissioners on Monday, July 29... Clark, Oates, Austin & McGrath County Attorneys By /s/ J. Nicholas McGrath Jack Walls of the architectural firm of Walls & Sterling, representing RBH Joint Venture suggested that based on the above letter that approval be contingent with County approval. All of the Board members agreed that a courtesy could be extended the County in this case. Bob Sterling pointed that proceedings of obtaining approval had started in January. The County Commissions had had an opportunity to reach a decision since that time, in fact, they had suggested that no parking be provided at that time. Mr. Walls proceeded to present his case. Their variance request was with regard to the off-street parking ordinance. Two options were suggested to RBH Joint Venture by the P & Z Commission on July 16, 1974. These options were (1) to supply on site off-street parking based on existing code and (2) to apply for a variance so that existing required parking could be leased from the City. Theirs is a low density office space building. 45,000 square feet will be available for rental after the owners have been established in their respective offices. Smith suggested that it should go on record that parking variances are based on current parking regulations until such time as they change. Previous approvals (Coates, Dags, Shellman & Eubanks as well as the Vroom Building) should be interpreted as to current parking requirements. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Smith moved to grant the requested variance to permit the applicant to lease his off-street parking requirement (based on current code) from the Citv because the granting of a variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied the subject property because of the special conditions and extraordinary circumstances. Lavagnino further added, a condition for granting this variance, as a courtesy to the County, is to allow them the opportunity to voice any objections, at their July 29 meeting. At the end of such -3- meeting, if no objections are recorded, the variance will become effective. Paterson seconded. Roll call vote - Smith aye; Colestock aye; Lavagnino aye; Paterson aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. Paterson moved that the meeting be adjourned. Lavagnino seconded; all in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Reco ding Secr tary U NEC01tiD OF PROCEEDINGS 1.00 Leaves FURY <• C. F. H14 Kfl. R. U. A L. 1: 1. Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment July 18, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman John Dukes at 3:25 p.m. with Charles Paterson, Remo Lavzi,nin o, Gilbert Colestock and Fred Smith present. CASE NO. 74-22, RALPH MELVILLE This case had previously been presented at the prior meeting, July 11, 1974. Mr. Melville's request for a variance is to extend the present center section of an existing lodge 10 feet west and 21-2 stories high. The space is needed for a more usable manager's quarters. Chairman Dukes asked if there was anything further that Mr. Melville might like to present or discuss. Mr. Melville felt that his case had been presented completely. Chairman Dukes then asked the floor if there were any questions from the floor, particularly from the County representative. There were no further questions or discussion. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Lavagnino moved to grant the request to build an addition to a non -conforming building and to build within 416" of the front lot line. This variance will not increase occupant density, is minimal and will not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. Smith seconded. Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino aye; Colestock aye; Smith aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. CASE NO. 74-24, LIMELITE, INC. Chairman Dukes reopened the public hearing. This case as the Melville case had been tabled until the County could be given proper notice of the public hearing. There were two variance requests to be considered: (1) view plane exception. The proposed third story would project 1 foot into the view plane. The variance would be needed for the first 38 feet of the 172 foot north elevation and the first 28 feet of the 85 foot east elevation. (2) An exception to the density/zoned area. Correction was made on the appellant's appeal form on the description of the property. There is no Lot I as stated on the form --it should read Lot J. Mr Glenn Paas, owner and Don Ball of Caudill Associates presented the appellant's case. Mr. Paas stated that the building can be built only 4 inches into the view plane as opposed to the original request of 1 foot by eliminating the cants on the roof. The board asked how the 1 foot into the view plane was calculated. Mr. Paas said that the figures were estimated by Tri-Co in a professional survey. Smith pointed out that in the Bergman Building when it was determined that the proposed building was projecting out into the view plane that the plans were altered. He felt that the Board should consider what kind of precedence was being set. Lavagnino questioned the effect on the view plane, he suggesting tabling the case until such time as a temporary facade for estimation purposes could be erected. Dukes would also like to see what type of obstruction is presented. Paterson stig gestod 2" x •1" pl.:eed to the proposed height with a red flag, at the tip whereby the visual effect could be determined. The Board could for an on -site inspection prior to the next regular meeting, July 25. Don Ball explained the request for variance for density/zoning. This lodge is presently divided by Alt-1 and C-1 zoning in the middle of [loom 3 of the: proposed third floor additiun. The lodge is unique in that usually zoning is by street bound„vies whereas the zoning is in the middle of the block; this disrupts the i- .innings for the new floor --they would like to vertically align the plumbii;g. Smith questioned their calculation of open space. Paterson felt that after the Board figured a ro:.h estimation of open space there was a big discrepancy between the Board's figures and those on the plans. Chairman Dukes questioned Building Inspector Meyring on the Limelite's figures and whether he had checked them. Mr. Meyriieg had not and would do so the coming week. Smith stated that the present parking area should definitely not be considered in their calculations. Mr. Paas stated that these were preliminary plans and at the time they were prepared there was no idea of the parking requirement. He, stated that the requirement was now determined--10 spaces. Smith questioned whether they were to have no parking for the existing building. Verbatim: Paterson: Was this what P & Z requires? Lavagnino: Who gave you the figure of 10, P & Z? Paas: If we were before the ordinance, we were. Paterson: I don't understand how they could go back to 1956 for the parking requirement when they were proposing a new structure, don't the present rules have to be applied. Paas: We are providing parking for the new building --not for the existing building. Anderson: Where do the people go that have been parking there now? Paas: I don't want to get into what the P $ Z wants to do or anything else. It was suggested to us that we have no parking and we're just going along with whatever they ask us to do. If you have any problems on that, talk to P $ Z. They are telling us 10 spaces, we are not going to fight with them about that. Smith: We have alot of problems on that Glenn because unless adequate parking is provided, we are not prepared to grant any variances. End of verbatim. Smith felt that the 10 spaces are in addition to the existing parking. Mr. Paas stated that they were planning to cut down what they have now to 10 spaces. It was determined that the figure of 10 was from an article in the Aspen Times dated July 1, 1956. Mr. Ball handed Chairman Dukes the minutes for the June 11, 1974 P $ Z meeting in which conceptual approval was given the Limelite Lodge. He read the motion made by Mr. Jenkins and approved by all. Mr. Paterson read other portions of the June llth meeting from a copy of the minutes handed to him by someone in the audience. There were several items he thought would be of interest to the Board. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FMM 1n C. F. M ECKFL B. S. Q L. CO. Bd. of hdjt::-,tr.!cnt, 7/18/74, continued The board asked Meyring to check the figures. They would again look at the case when this was accomplished. Chairman Dukes asked those present in the audience for their comments. 100 Leaves Paul Anderson who resides at 210 Cooper and also President of the Condominium Association explained the breakdown of residents at the 210 Cooper Condominiums 10 of these units are used by permananent residents of Aspen. fie explained how much money was paid in taxes by these condominiums. He felt that this variance request would be a landmark in that it was the first decision on a view plane. fie explained the density problem in the area. 210 Cooper provides 24 parking spaces but alot of the lodges do not. He mentioned that once in talcing to -che Fire Marshall that a fire truck could not possibly get thru because of the parking problem. He also stated that the appellant had not had the list of condominium owners on his original list of adjacent property owners. It was requested that correspondence on this case be entered into the minutes. Letters from Joseph Tita and James Scull were read --they were against granting the variance. County representative Johnson stated that the County would not like to take a position. She did present her personal opinion. As a resident of 210 Cooper, she felt that Ordinance 17 established the view plane for the tourists and residents and that no variance be granted into that view plane. Louis Raphael, who lives on the east side but uses Wagner, Michael Ohnmacht, Britt Tita were against granting the variance. Sandy Johnston stated that a parking problem in already generated by the Chart House, Blue Spruce, Crystal Palace and the Mother Lode. Marion Ingle who resides at 210 Cooper would be worried about the safety of her children by adding density to an already over density area. Susan Trueman felt that if no recourse could be gotten thru City Boards that she felt the condominum owners would continue to express their dissension thru legal action, if necessary. Paas stated that they were not there to discuss the desirability of the third floor. They were there as stated on the appeal form. Lavagnino told the audience that the jurisdiction of the Board was limited in the interpretation of a variance request, lie suggested that these people present their ideas to the P $ Z Commission. Paterson further clarified the Boards jurisdiction by reading the reasons for granting a variance. It was the Boards request that the minutes of this meeting be forwarded to the P & Z Commission and also a letter sent to them asking that their wishes be made known to the Board of Adjustment when they refer cases to them. The case was tabled until an on -site inspection could be made and when new figures could be furnished to the Board by the Building Inspector. -3- CASE NO. 74-26, EMILY STEVENS Chairman Dukes opened Case No. 74-26. No one was present to present the appellants request to rebuild a shed where the old one stood, an exception to the new set -back requirements. Fred Braum of the Moutain Rescue was against granting the variance because it hampered the access of emergency vehicles used by the rescue team, especially in the winter.months when they would have to clear snow before vehicles could get out. Mr. Paterson, who was familiar with the property stated that there was no hardship --there was sufficient land for another site for the shed as well as another shed on the property. He thought the case could be heard because it was clear cut. Building Inspector Meyring stated that the present foundation i%as 7 to 8 incy.es into City right-of-way. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Smith moved to deny the variance because no hardship or practical difficulties were demonstrated and because the existing encroachment impedes plowing and access of emergency vehicles turning in the alley. Also the best interest of the property would not be met by granting this variance. Colestock seconded. Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino aye; Colestock aye; Smith aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE Building Inspector Meyring submitted a. letter addressed to the Board by Ms. Margaret Cantrup. She requested reconsideration on a single family dwelling only on her newly established non -conforming lot. The Board would like to address a letter to Ms. Cantrup explaining that financial considerations cannot be deliberated by this Board for any further variance requests. Gilbert Colestock leaves. MINUTES In approving the minutes for the June 6 and June 13, 1974 minutes, Remo Lavagnino questioned the action taken by the City Attorney in drawing up a resolution on Chateau Blanc:, he was informed by Smith that the City Attorney was waiting on legal papers to be furnished by him. Lavagnino felt that action should be taken on the resolution without submittals by the applicant at this time. Fred Smith would like to refrain from further discussion because of a conflict of interest. Lavagnino moved that a seventh item be added to the resolution on Case No. 74-17, Chateau Blanc --waive two parking spaces. He then moved that the June 6 and 13 minutes be approved as amended. Paterson seconded. All in favor except Smith, who abstained. Paterson moved that the meeting be adjourned; Smith seconded. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. R. Secretary rJ roe. •. c. r. .ncari e. a e t. _- Regular Meeting RECORD OF NIOCEEDINMS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning _ _ June 4, 1974 Vroom Building - -All in favor, motion carried. Preliminary, continued Johnson made a motion to give preliminary approval to the Vroom Building, under Ordinance 19, upon the following conditions: that the lower floor and commercial use should be restricted to pedestrian, tourist oriented uses and these should be designated by the applicant; that the applicant agree to comply with all the Engineering Department recommendations which the Commission had on a memo dated May 6, 1974; that the applicant submit brick samples to the Historic Preservation Committee pursuant to their request; and that the applicant agree to comply with whatever parking requirements may be established. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Limelite Lodge Addition - Ms. Baer stated that this was a third story addition Conceptual J to the existing Limelite Lodge. Existing zoning was C-1 and AR. The lodge was also restricted in height by the Wheeler Opera House view plane. A variance for about four inches would be required. The request was for fourteen additional units. This would be maximum density for current zoning. Ms. Baer further informed the Commission that if the buildina was built after 1956, it would need to provide on site parking, which would require 27 spaces. Ms. Baer stated that height and bulk should be ad- dressed. Including the new addition, there would be approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area on a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. Landry made a motion that the project be tabled until the Commission has the Planning office's recommendations on the square footage and parking recommendation presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not necessarily acted upon. Johnson seconded the motion. Jenkins stated that the lodge community needed en- couragement to upgrade this type of facility. Condominiums have really been a problem to these businesses. He further stated that at the concep- tual presentation, the Commission could consider this further, and not table for t!iese reasons but consider them at another stage. Schiffer stated that if density was to be considered, it must be considered at the conceptual stage. Mr. Paas stated that no motel had been built in this town for the last six or seven years, as this type of project was not economically feasible. He further stated that during the past few years, there had been criticism of the qualit of the motel units in town. �. A vote was taken on the motion to table. Commission members Collins, Landry, and Johnson, yes. Schiffer. Barnard, and Jenkins, no. Motion NOT carried. OfC RECORD OF PROCEEDING0 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Limelite Lodge Addition Jenkins noted that this was a much less dense use of Conceptual, continued the land than other buildings, and was less intense use of the land. Iie further stated that a lodge could not be supported with much less density. Schiffer noted that another consideration was the height and the bulk. He stated that he was unsure whether consideration of this should be done at this stage. Johnson noted that this was the reason for his vote to table. Ile felt he was unsure of what they were talk- ing about in respect to this project. Barnard sug- gested going out and taking a look at this project. Ms. Baer also asked what the Commission would want to consider in regard to the number of parking spaces for the lodge. She stated that 27 spaces would be required, with the 2 to 3 ratio now required by the code. Schiffer stated that this could be considered at another stage. Johnson made a motion that the Commission table the Limelite Lodge conceptual presentation until June 11, 1974. Seconded by Barnard. Jenkins asked what was being considered in the motion to table. It was stated that the only consideration was to go see the site of the project. All in favor, motion carried. CDES Building - Tabled at request of applicant. Preliminary Reevaluation 620 Hyman Building Ms. Baer stated that she had informed Kit Mason that the board was not interested in hearing the same building plans again. However, Mr. Mason had under- stood that the board was requesting some figures and comparisons with the adjacent buildings, which had been established. Mr. Mason stated that they wished to present this information to the board for their direction. Schiffer stated that under Ordinance 19, if a project was denied, the Commission could not reconsider the disapproval now. The only way it could have been re- considered would be if one of tae members on the pre- vailing side of the motion, had .jade a motion to reconsider at that meeting or at the next regular meeting. It was already past the point where the original building could be reconsidered. Schiffer further mentioned that he felt Mr. Mason was asking the Commission what they would approve or disapprove. He suggested that he turn to the Planning office for direction. Mason stated that he was willing to make some con- cessions for a building that may b\approved. Barnard stated that this was the job of the Planning t Office. -8- n W RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves yeeiai '•eetir — Aspen Planning and Zoning June 11, 1974 Special Meeting Aspen Planning and_Zoning June I1 1974 "cetir. ,was ca:l,d to order at 5:p7 P.M. by Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer with Limelite Lodge - considered, She stated also that this kind den- C -.-.ission ri:-hers Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Robert Barnard, Charles Collins,' Conceptual, continued of sity must then be considered for every lodge in and ,;anet Lar.dr7 with Assistant Planner Donna Baer and City Attorney Stuller. Aspen. Divine Sarah - Ms. Baer asked if the Commission would like to hear Ordinance 19 the case as an exemption from Ordinance 19 Review. v Exemption Request Th•: project •entailed extension of a restaurant use behind the Brand Building. It was noted by vice Chairman Schiffer that only business listed on the notice of the special meeting could be considered at this time. An exception at this time would require an amendment to the by-laws. Geri Vagneur arrived. Limelite Lodge - Ms. Baer sta_�d that the Planning dPfice was not Conceptual recommending approval of the project in this form due J to the fact that the addition would bring the build- ing up to maximum density. An Ordinance 19 policy had been to reduce growth levels. Ms. Baer further stated that the Planning office was expecting to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission a .5 to 1 Floor Area Ratio, and an addi- tional floor area ratio to be allowed if employee housing is provided. The current floor area ratio in the AR zone is 1 to 1. With the floor area ratio recommendation, total employ. hou::ing required by the development should be included on the development. This amount can be determined; how many maids per 1,000 sq. ft.? It may then be possible to allow a higher floor area ratio. This figure had not been arrived at as yet. Ms. Baer mentioned that the Board of Adjustment had requested that she communicate to the Planning and Zoning Commission, in regard to the Fred Smith case, that they had been under the impression that employee housing was required. Ms. Baer stated that she had explained to them that this was a goal and policy urrd.-r (ir<1in.in,:e 19, but was not required. 'They would like to prepare a resolution that this requirement b,.coma mandatory. Ms. Baer stat.•!d that another issue was the parking, and how many places could be provided on the site. Vagneur stated that to encourage lodge use as opposed to cor.dc.minium use for the tourist, this type of expansi-n nh,,uld be encouraged. Ms. Baer reitterated that she did not feel that this type of density was in ae_r_orlanc•, with the object of Ordinance 19. Vagneur s`_at,od that, if the project was built at the proposed den::ity, there would be a floor area ratio ,if .75 to 1, while current zoning was 1 to 1. Jenkins stated that this density in this location was okay in his opinion, and that the economics of the project mr;st be considered. Ms. Baer stated that the ratio of the number of lodge units to mountain capacity, transportation systems, etc, must also be Jenkins further stated that the lodge business was a large segment of the Aspen economy. Such businesses should be encouraged to expand. Landry noted that Ordina.ce 19 came down hard on the lodges of Aspen, bu- that the Commission had changed their thinking, in that the economic study had stow that lodges circulate a dollar much further than a condominium. Ms. Baer stated that the land use map restricted the areas of mixed residential. .The Planning Office had always encouraged the lodge business. Jenkins noted that there was a shortage of high quality lodges in Aspen. Schiffer stated that he was more concerned with the overall picture - the capacity of Aspen Mountain, transportation, and parking, etc. Baer stated that another consideration was the park- ing. The lodge would need 27 parking spaces if they were allowed to build the fourteen unit addition. This would tear up the site, with the two to three parking requirement of 1967. Schiffer noted that'the parking problem could be left to further consideration. Baer stated that she had only brought it up so that the Commission could try to visualize what the site would look like with this amount of parking. It was noted that a variance could be required of less than four inches. If the project was approved, the Commission would need to exempt it from P D and request the Board of Adjustment grant the var- iance. Bulk and lot coverage would be considered at the preliminary stage, and the Planning Office was interested in the employee housing ratio. Jenkins made a motion to give conceptual apprcval un- der Ordinance 19 to the Limelite Lodge, conditioned upon the following: that the parking problem to resolved; that the applicant obtain a variance for the height, and that the Planning and Zoning Con - mission recommend to the Board of Adjustment that they grant the variance; that the Commission take another look at the building bulk and lot coverage at the preliminary stage; that the Commission give further consideration to the employee housing at the next stage. Barnard seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. The Commission then went into study session. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M. C+ 4 << c - , Secretary • • -1- • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F lrAM U C. F. HOECKEL S... & t. t1. REGULAR ITEETIIri OF ThE CITY OF ASPEN P;.A=Urr AND ZONING COV11ISSION August 24, 1965 Meetin- was called to order at 8:30 P.M. Present Were: �f alls, Benton, Woodward, Whitaker Buildin- Review; Ullr:Apartr:ents. Block 30, Lots K,L,M,N and z 0. moved by Woodwarl seconded by Benton that plans be approved. Motion carried. G ' Ski Vu Lod,,,e - Request opinion from City Attorney on land use. A permit was issued in 1956 for construction overlappin7, from "B" to "T" with no parking requirements. New construc tion is proposed in T Zone tlri.thout parking. Does overlapping ownership exempt new construc- tion from parkinz. Define "coverage", as it applies to B. Zone. ;-loved by Walls, seconded by Woodward. �iotion carried. It was moved b;r E4enton that plans be returned to Building Inspector, reco-mendation teat parking requirements for T zone are not net, seconded by Woodward. Motion carried. Vagabond LodEe Block 118, Lots P, Q, R, S. Moved by Whitaker; seconded by Benton tllat e istin sign proposed bo be replaced crust conform to sign regulations. 1::otion Carried. Stairway on City Property for Eotel Jerorr.e. Yoved by Benton that stairs and awning be approved, and recn.�Lmend to City Council that approval be granted, with a further recomL7rendation that the City require insurance exempting City from .liability. Seconded b,Y Whitaker. Xotion carried. FlaZpole for Bank of Aspen. I-:oved by 1M.-iitaker, Seconded by Benton, recor-:::ianded to City �;ouncil that flagpole be approved, and that the City require insurance exempting City from liability. Parking Cornittee R port submitted. tilueh discussion and returned to cone-ittee for furthcir study. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully suoriitted, Francis RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM `.1 C. F. M E1KfL 9- R. N L. l ). RDIIULAR KEETII10 OF THE CIT'1 OF ASPEN r;XNNII�rj AI1D ZONKINs CO ,'II SI0;1 August 21�, 1905 Meetins was called to order at 8:30 P-M- Present Were: W alls, Benton, Woodward, Whitaker Buildin;; Review: Uli•:Apartnents, Block 30, Lots K,L,11,11 ands 0. moved by Woodward seconded by Benton that plans be approved. notion carried. Ski Vu Lodge - Request opinion from City Attorney on land use. A perr,dt was issued in 195,6 for construction overlannin- From "B" to "T" with no parking requirements. Idek• construe tion is proposed in T Zone vithout parking. Does overlapping ownership exempt new construc- tion from parking. Define "coverage", as it applies to 3. Zone. ;Moved by Walls, seconded by Woodward. "lotion carriod. It was moved by Benton that plans be returned to Building Inspector, recommendation that par%in- requirements for T zone are not met, seconded by Woodward. 14iotion carried. Va-abond Lo?7,3 Block 118, Lots P, Q, i, S. Moved by WHitaker; seconded by Benton that existinc, sirfn proposed bo be replaced must conform to sign regulations. 'lotion Carried. Stairway, on City Property for Hotel Jerorue. Xoved by Benton that stairs and a imino be approved, and recor-_send to City Council that approval be granted, with a further recommendation that the City require insurance exempting City from liability. Seconded b;, hiitaker. Eotion carried. Fl�,pole for Bank of Aspen. ':owed by 'Whitaker, Ceconded by 2enton, recor.�:anded to City 'CouncJ.l that flagpole be approved, and that the City require insurance exempting City from liability. Pa.rkin7 Corinittee Re -port submitted. i.luch discussion and returned to conirittee for further study. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M - Respectfully su r-i.tted, Francis � - /..9, - 7 Al 67