HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.230 E Hopkins Ave.15-80
,
,
i
i ,
1
f.,
,.
r--,
r--,
No. 15-80
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: mid-May, 1980
STAFF: Sunny Vann
2. APPLICANT: ~/#/'I",,=,~L:r;/~
, 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Don Ensign, Design Workshop 925-8354
4. PROJECT NAME: Forge Building Parking Reallocation
5. LOCATION:~~/:~./ 2'ZJ~.J/:::;PN//S
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
__Rezoning
P.U.D.
~Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
Subdivision
Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
__.__Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
View Plane
Conditional Use
Other
,2C;;// /'7ll'( hZ:X/C"S o-c~r"e:EP;?,</iE_:.. /:4/v{/,<~ X'e:::2:X?lcx/)'
/ /
g:;~./r E'X'a-//,??c-<,/ ~/\ ~;=t:CJYee /,,b:;:6/~
7. REF ERRALS:
__Attorney
__.__Engineering Dept,
~Iousing
Water
_____City Electric
Sanitation Oistrict _School Distr-ict
Fire Marshal ____~ocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks ____State Highway Dept.
_-yoly Cross Electric _,___Other
I~ountai n Bell
..i-
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: /"l7Z A'~L ~ /"""?I/f ./:Z5,y{:.>::::"9
/?f/95/Nf? /)6t:;t;?::::;77CA/. rf-z -4A//7 CA:A_:X/::/L,Ar''?/1::::Y~
I
rCA cp/../r" 6)eX/?;r/t:'X,/
--.-------
r
/"..,. .,
,;-"
i~
_tr/"'c
9. DISPOSITION:
P & Z V Approved V Denied Date qb/B'
.dL'~V6/? /?//'f /lY--L"'? ~~T70 ()6t-.9. ~ A~c:.-
6?<5J7"E /24~' ?'")cL:b~/:::/L. ~/r~L cr o/,L/r e:r~~~ A~;-;;;
7)~/cX/ ere /J,GE!// /f65ll1P-q//l'f/C/) 7b /~6c)f~4E Cy='
~,~"L-#r ~rrrLVerJ /flII1N/f1;j ~q-ftQ/V 7C 9~~
~ c5/77~/ '? e.L/~ ~,CU~~~9) ~EC-7 72"-" 4~C:-
tJr a..1q. ~ *
Council V Approved V Denied Date~~
~-#7/CX/ /77::'/-/ ~r /eVf 2'/.5/:?'rh/. 9a:>sy rT ~~~
/ /
~--/6 C';.4'/'Ze-YCE Lx//7:" 4//"~AL. ~/3J6::::7" 70 ~-C y-7c//
, /
CY" .o~ ff~~P?'A./ ?~A' ;23 /~U1~ Or ~j2?f~-///
10. ROUTING:
,/ Attorney
--Lsuilding
~ngineering
Other
~/Z"/J.' JZ:4/../5 -6':b.--t-P /h/CU-Y7C= /- 2/3?N/ c:!'/./~.Ec?
~X/lF or AT U5Y:57 9a? -5:?:
.Y- /f~~a? ~,CI"'" A/2./. '04/f/4//CG /""'eY'r ;cJ1/f/-r'/"v6) 070u;r CW -p!.c;/8:>
r-\
~
"
\fI
~6\
FORGE Project
Special Review Submission
Submitted to:
City of Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
App I i cant:
Des i gn Workshop, I nc.
415 S. Spring Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Project:
Mounta i n Forge
230 E. Hopkins Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Arch i tect:
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
Post Office Box 273~ ~~
210 S. Galena Street )
Aspen, Colorado 81611
r--.
,-,.
FORGE Project
Special Review Submission
INTRODUCTORY
1. Project Name
The Fo rge
2 . Loca t i on
230 E. Hopkins Street
City of Aspen
3. Lot Size
60 X 100, 6000 sq. ft.
4. Zoning District
o
5. External Floor Area Ratios
.75: 1
.25:1 bonus for employee housing
6. P~fr~itte~ Us:s in 0
Z6~lng District
Single & Multi-Family Residences,
Business Offices, Commercial/
Residential '
7. Minimum Lot Area
6000 sq.ft.
8. Minimum Lot Area per
Owe 11 i ng Un 1 t
1000 sq.ft./Studio
2000 sq.ft./Two Bedroom
9. Open Space Requi rement
None
10. Parking Requirements
Per Sec. 24-4.4
Office -.3/1000 sq.ft.
Resi den t j a 1 -. J /bed room
- 3/4/studio
11. Size of Existing
Mounta i n Forge Faci 1 i ty
1436 sq.ft.
1.4 '1-1. :L
12. Surrounding Zoning
0, CC
13. Historic Designation
None
,-\
,"""\
FORGE Proj ect
Special Reyiew Submission
14. Program Proposal
It is allowed, by Code, to build-out the balance to the existing Forge
facility of the allowed 4500 sq.ft. 'per the .75:1 F.A.R. allowed.
An additional .25:1 external F.A.R. allowed by special review for em-
ployee housing permits an additional 1500 sq.ft. maximum for this
purpose.
From the foregoing, the following program is constructed:
For the existing F.A.R. (on 60' x 100' site) in 0 Zone:
Existing Mountain
Forge
Space
Structure
sq. ft.
sq.ft.
sq. f t.
14-4-1,"'2-.
4041.5
548'),.7
S\!J;' 0
4.50 sq. ft.
2- 680 sq. ft.
-'
1130 sq. ft.
5630 sr. ft.
Studio Apartment
2~Bedroom Apartment
1: 'Y'~!:-rr~ 9 '6 I .\~ ".', e Sub-Total
, _~ 'TOTAL,. ",,',
!) OJ ~~\\~+\rG9- parkin9~P\aces ~ 1 .~ p~ ~~~~{
pPvv-'"l~ ~',)I t) "^ \ '--1 . b ,) fUi! V \
<;; P7C'o":=;' Gnp 1 oyee l10us 1112: !
) '^ \ , \-r'~
I ......-SJ ," 'VI,'
\ 'f 1'\ '
l I
J n ! ,,". .,-
f'v 0"'/1 ..:..-
6542. q
(/v-.-,C
I
" tr ;':"1
.;:;:, ,\ I ""
\,
~'
C"{"-",,r:_
'_itJ'-.;/,'
\.\~ \~~
.::::.:;.--,
,....
+ !-,',\\ i1J
/' :)
~, n
'""" "
y ,..,'
,
;:,
'"
The need for
the proposed
requested to
m€nt and one
employee housing in Aspen is understood by the owners of
project. Within the zoning parameters as outlined, it is
construct two employee housing units, one studio apart-
two-bedroom apartment.
These units would be occupied by Forge employees. Once offered to and
occupied by Forge employees, the remaining unoccupied units would be
offered to other qualified occupants. All units would come under em-
ployee housing restrictions. '
The request for employee housing is comprised of 1 studio apartment
(450 sq.ft.) and one two-bedroom apartment (680 sq.ft.). Rental
structures will be calculated on the most recently adopted housing
price guidelines.
~
,~
FORGE Project
Special Review Submission
16. Off-Streel Parking
Sections 24-4.5 and 24-4.6 of the City of Aspen Zoning Code provide
for a reduction of required off str~et parking spaces in the "9" zone.
This is accomplished through special review by the zoning commission.
By this process it is requested that the number of required spaces be
reduced to 6 from the required 12.
Due to the one office nature of the project with on site employee
housing, traffic generation wi 11 be minimal. In addition, with the
C-C zone across Monarch Street to the east, there is excellent
pedestrian access to and from the downtown area, and all major public
transportation. In addition, fewer parking spaces would allow more
green space to be landscaped.
,t),
,..."
"-',
Servi ces
1. Water System
A 6" main presently exists on Hopkins Street and a 12" main presently
exists on Monarch Street directly adjacent to the project site. This
would allow a maximum H" water service to the project. A preliminary
review by Mr. James Markalunas indicated a 1" water service line as
likely being adequate to provide service without creating unmanageable
impact upon the treatment plant, currently operating at about 75% capa-
ci ty.
2., Sewer System
The site is presently served by an 8" sewer 1 ine in serviceable condition
located in the alley in the north between Main Street and Hopkins Street
directly adjacent to the site. '
A prelimi~~ry review of the proposal by Mr. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen
Sanitatio~District indicated no unmanageable impact upon the treatment
plant, which presently is operating at 75-80% of capacity. By 1980,
with 50% expansion (1 million gallons per day) the plant will be operating
at slightly more than 50% capacity.
3. Power
Electricity is presently supplied to the existing facility through single-
phase transmission underground from the adjacent alley to the north. Use
will impose no substantial impact on existing faci I ities.
4. Telephone
Adjacent to the power line in the north alley is sufficient capacity for
fifty service lines, fourteen of which are presently in use. Review by
Leon Peach of Mountain Bell indicated ample capacity for providing service,
Cable television ,is available from the north alley of sufficient ci3pability
to serve the project, according to Haus Von de Kamp of Canyon Cable.
5. Natural Gas
A, 4" main presently exists in the north alley directly adjacent to the
property. ' There presently are nO moratoriums, and, according to Mr. Wi lIard
Clapper, none are foreseeable. Natural gas is avai lable through a U" line,
should it be decided upon as an energy source.
^
:~j
Services
6. Fire Protection
The project is located approximately two blocks from the fire station
which would enable an appropriate maximum response time. A fire hydrant
located within 150' at the corner of Main and Monarch would serve the
project site. According to Mr. Willard Clapper adequate static pressure
exists and there are no identifiable problems with regard to fire pro-
tect i on.
7. Storm Drainage
To avoid expansion of any public drainage systems, the drainage control
for this project would collect, retain, and disperse all surface runoff
through sufficiently sized on-site dry wells.
~';
8. Publi~~Transportation
The project site presently
and Pitkin County Transit.
sently are no further away
is being served by both the Aspen Free Transit
All four city routes and the county route pre-
from the project site than 1 block.
,'-"
,~
CITY OF ASPEN.
MEMO FROM SUNNY V ANN
~/2B
:it /!/G:! plW~~ ,
tV.4!/);IH?I~*-,,1 d4#JP,.#)'7,-/ ~~-c{.. ~
~~~JI'!~.
~~~ g Hi ~i4
., ./
/ V ~ .' ~ ... P' .
'dfY;/];~7" "I' ~ '.J~l,' ./ ,<2 ~
cI / f'/., /
I; /'f2 r~ ~J I1dJ~I.~r
~~!l~7f1
Ji :J~~t" ~P'P'
t2- ~."" it . .".r, ~, J
LI. I j, If:, / /7
j/'" ~T./~J4;7M_'" d~(/'L
dd/!? I,; :L~/' :I/,"I/~: ~
--~~ . f .
/ I'
r'\
r'\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: The Forge Building - Special Review, Employee Housing #15-80
DATE: June 17, 1980
On June 3, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted the Design
Workshop special review approval pursuant to the density bonus provisions
of the Municipal Code to utilize the .25:1 ratio bonus provided for in the
'0', Office zone district to expand the Mountain Forge Building, located
at 230 West Hopkins Street. The applicant also requested and was granted
special review approval for a reduction in the number of required off-
street parking spaces. The applicable external floor area ratio in the
'or, Office zone district is .75:1. The allowable buildout of the appli-
cant's 6,000 square foot lot is therefore 4,500 square feet, with an addi-
tional 1,500 square feet (600 commercial/office, 900 employee housing)
permitted by special review, The applicants have included in their proposed
expansion an approximately 900 square foot, two bedroom employee housing
unit which will be rented within the Cityrs moderate income housing price
guidelines,
The applicantrs request for special review approval to utilize the density
bonus and parking reduction provisions of the Code requires only the appro-
val of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All employee housing units,
however, constructed pursuant to Section 24-10.1~ are subject to the special
approval of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The Commission's approval of the applicant's request for
the FAR bonus was conditioned upon receipt of Council approval for the
proposed employee housing unit and the execution of all required deed res-
trictions prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant is
therefore requesting special review approval for a moderate income housing
unit to be constructed as part of the Forge Building office expansion.
The Aspen Metro Area 1979 Employee Housing Demand Report indicates a clear
and urgent need for this type of housing within the Aspen area. The Plan-
ning IJfficetherefore recommends that Council grant special review approval
for the construction of a 900 square foot two-bedroom moderate income
housing unit as part of the expansion of the Mountain Forge Building. Such
approval, however, should be contingent upon the execution of all required
deed restrictions prior to issuance of a building permit.
.~ )V'
A'll'J!
/i 'i-:'
f'l It
fl/ r,AI
(~{JI rP'
[; i; V
.~
(;( "s *)
( \r~ \\
\,<) \ ,9
"-~;
G(\ ,,\
~\" '.)
\\.
,-,.,
,-,.,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: The Forge Building, Special Review, #15-80
DATE: May 28, 1980
On January 22, 1980, the Commission granted Design Workshop special review
approval pursuant to the density bonus provisions of the Municipal Code
to utilize the .25:1 ratio bonus provided for in the 0, Office Zone dis-
trict to expand the Mountain Forge Building located at 230 W. Hopkins Street.
The applicant also requested and was granted special review approval for a
reduction in the number of required off-street parking spaces. Subsequent
changes in the applicant's programmatic requirements, however, have neces-
sitated the modification of the original development program as submitted.
These modifications are significant in scope and impact and therefore
require reprocessing of the applicantrs original requests for special review
approval.
Floor Area Bonus
The applicable external floor area ratio in the 0, Office Zone district is
.75:1. The allowable build-out for the applicant's 6,000 square foot
lot is therefore 4,500 square feet with an additional 1,500 square feet
(600 commercial/office, 900 employee housing) permitted by special review.
Under no circumstances can the buildout exceed 6,000 square feet.
The applicant's original and revised development programs are summarized
below. Essentially, the applicant's programmatic modifications result
in a decrease in the amount of employee housing provided and a corres-
ponding increase in the amount of additional office space and overall
building size, It should be pointed out, however, that the revised pro-
gram still complies with the applicable density bonus criteria. (The Code
requires that .15:1 of the bonus floor area be approved for residential
space in accordance with adopted housing price guidelines for low, moderate
or middle income housing.)
Existing Forge Building
Additional Office Space
Employee Housing *
Ori gi na 1
1,436 sq.ft.
3,044
1,150
5,630 sq.ft.
Revised
Subgrade **
1,436 sq.ft.
3,649
900
5,985 sq.ft.
1,174
Total 5,630 sq.ft. 7,159 sq.ft.
The original program called for one studio and a two
bedroom unit while the revised program tentatively calls
for two studios.
Subgrade is excluded from FAR calculations.
Subtotal
* Note:
** Note:
While the revised development program results in a significantly larger
building at the expense of employee housing space, it nonetheless complies
with the density bonus provisions of the Municipal Code. The Planning
Offi ce therefore recommends approval of the aDDl i cant's request J.m:..-a-----.
:25:-1 FAR bonus sUbject to: 1) the approval of the aPr1.i.sant~sJ.e.vj..se.,L.sj.ie.-
-pTifnoY-fhe "Ei'-grrieeffii"g-"DE:p~rtmel1J; ,2) tne:--:-receijiC O.fto.uR~--i--1--a-wrova-l-"f-or
-Jne'''proposed" empl o,yeehQJJsingJmi ts, "and 3,) the, execu.t.i...o,n.....oLall..,.r...aq_u.tri'!sL
d~..r:E!str]c;E~ripr;Qr, to. issuance of a bui 1 di ngperrnit... ..
Parking Reduction
The Municipal Code required three off-street parking spaces per 1,000
square feet of additional office/commercial floor area in the 0, Office
Zone with provisions for reduction to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet by
special review. Residential uses in the 0 Zone require one space per
/)
\'-xV
~\
c'
\!J '
Memo to Aspen P ~,
Re; Forge Bldg, S~ec, Review Reprocessing
May 28, 1980
Page Two
--
bedroom with no prov1s10n for reduction, Based on these criteria, the
applicant's revised program will require sixteen off-street spaces,
fourteen for the office addition and two for the employee housing unit as
compared to the original program requirement of twelve spaces, nine for
the additional office space and three for employee housing, The original
program's parking requirements, however, were reduced by P & Z to eight
spaces based on the provision for reduction to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square
feet outlined above. The applicant is requesting that this parking reduc-
tion be reaffirmed for the revised development program.
The Planning Office recommends that the applicantrs request for reaffirma-
tion be denied and that a minimum of nine spaces be required, seven for
the proposed office addition and two for employee housing. (Seven spaces
represents the maximum premissable reduction for office expansion currently
allowed under the Code utilizing the 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet reduc-
ti on criteri a,) Any approval of a reductj_Qn__tiLDille.~JlA~e_s_.$,h9U.ld.be~-CDn-
d it i oned _ upona,r:aYNW31D1LglliJr_OvaT--0f' "th!'Lapplkan.t~' spr:oposecLpa,rkJng_ ",
,Ta:t~utbY ~hE!.En.9tlleering_J:l@ArJ:iD~eiii :- ,-
'V
1-, ' _, _
"j'-.,U\3-.C'] \,/iiJYl',-l))Jhl\
,I "
I
~
."
:2 ..;1-',
//t~
!
~ f
,"
v),"~,
,.
il
(
I
,
?4.
"
p,
,
d-
r'..'.
() -. ~,
<,\....j ;,'\...L J ,l-f~\/
r
JyV~f:fd -/c...J /'--", CC-00V'
1"-"
I"-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sunny Vann, Planning Office
Jay Hammond, Engineering Office~
May 19, 1980
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Reaffirmation of Parking Reduction at The Forge Building, 230
E. Hopkins.
Ail"
"'~.
This memo is to reaffirm the Design Workshop's request for a
reduction in parking at the Forge Building to 8 spaces as approved
by P and Z on January 22, 1980.
On January 29th, I met with John Wheeler of Copeland, Hagman,
and Yaw and we discussed various parking configurations given the
constraints imposed by the space available. In short, we agreed on a
configuration having a 6 foot space for a trash dumpster on the west-
erly property line, four spaces east of the 6 foot corridor) placed 2
against the building and 2 immediately behind them off the alley. The
two spaces against the building will be designated "employee only".
The remaining 4 spaces are along the alley.
The configuration was agreed on due to the office nature of
the structure and zone, due to the housing of employees on-site, and
in an attempt to provide landscaped space adjacent to the alley rather
than paving the whole area.
At the time I met with John, I also informed the Building
Department of the reduction and approved configuration.
,r---.,
r---.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Forge Building Parking Reallocation
DATE: May 5, 1980
The attached is a letter requesting the reaffirmation of the parking real-
location granted for the Forge Building located at 230 W. Hopkins. This
application is to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on
June.3, 1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments no later
than May 20, 1980? Thank you.
,,,.....,
I~,
6/3
~
(I
design workshop, inc.
415 s. spring
aspen, co 81611
303-925-8354
M E M 0
FROM:
Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Don EnSign'~
April 29, 1980
TO:
DATE:
Design Workshop, Inc. respectfully requests that you reaffirm
the parking realocation previously granted for the Forge
Building at 230 W. Hopkins based on the revised design and
site plan.
A building permit has been issued for the building. Because
the plans do not reflect our programmatic requirements as
owners and occupants, we have found it necessary to modify
the design and site plan. A summary of the program is as
follows:
Existing Forge 1436 Sq. Ft.
Office Space 3649 Sq. Ft,
Employee Housing 900 Sq. Ft.
Sub Total: 5985 Sq. Ft.
Basement 1174 Sq. Ft.
Total 7159 Sq. Ft.
The ordinance requires three spaces per 1000 Sq. Ft. of office
floor area plus 1 space per bedroom for the residential area.
It allows for a reduction by special review to 1.5 spaces
per 1000 Sq. Ft. of office area. The required parking for
the new plan is 3 times 3.649 plus 2 for the employee unit,
for a total of 13 spaces. By special review a minimum of
1.5 spaces times 3.649 plus 2 for a total of 7 spaces could
be required.
community development
land planning
landscape architecture
Aspen PlanniC & Zoning Commission
Page 2
r--,
On January 22, 1980 the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved a petition requiring 8 parking spaces for the
proposed expansion. Our request at that time reflected the
same program as our redesign and was approved based on: 1)
most of the employees of Design Workshop, Inc. do not currently
drive to and park at work; 2) the site is within two to
three blocks of both downtown malls and Ruby Park bus station;
3) the employee units are intended for the use of Design
Workshop, Inc. employees who should not require automobiles;
and 4) there are approximately 10 on-street parking spaces
bordering the property. We request that you reaffirm the
parking reduction resolution of January 22, 1980 for the
revised design and site plan.
/"'"'"
i"""
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: The Forg~ Building, Special Review
DATE: January 22, 1980
Pursuant to the density bonus prov1s10ns of the Municipal Code, the
applicant is requesting special review approval to utilize the .25:1
rati6~ bonus provided for in the 0, Office -zone district to expand the
Mountain Forge building located at 230 W. Hopkins Street. The
Code requires that .15:1 of the bonus floor area be approved for resi-
deatial space in accordance with adopted housing price guidelines for
low, moderate or middle income housing. The applicant is also requesting
special review approval for a reduction in the number of required off-
street parking spaces. The applicant must receive the necessary spe-
cial review approvals from the Planning & Zoning Commission and enter
into an agreement with the City to deed restrict all employee housing
units prior to receiving a building permit.
Floor Area Bonus
The applicable external floor area ratio in the 0, Office Zone district
is .75:1. The allowable build-out for the applicant's 6,000 square foot
lot is therefore 4,500 square feet with an additional 1,500 square feet
(600 commercial/office, 900 employee housing) permitted by special review.
Under no circumstances can the buildout exceed 6,000 square feet.
The applicant is proposing to construct an additional 3,000 square feet
of office space. This addition plus the Forge Building's existing 1,436
square feet totals 4,480 square feet, or approximately 20 square feet
less than the allowable buildout of 4,500 square feet. The applicant also
wishes to construct two employee housing units, hence the necessity of
applying for the .25:1 floor area bonus. In order to comply with the
City's housing guidelines, however, the proposed studio and two bedroom
employee units require a minimum of 400 and 750 square feet, respectively
While the resulting 1,150 square feet of employee housing exceeds the
permitted .15:1 floor area bonus, it is well within the .25:1 maximum
floor area bonus for the zone district. The existing buildllng plus
the additional office space and employee housing therefore total;approx-
imately 5,630 square feet, substantially below the lot's maximum build-
out of 6,000 square feet.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's request for a
FAR bonus and recommends approval subject to the satisfactory provision
of on-site trash facilities. The Planning Office concurs with the
Engineering Department's recommendation with the additional stipulation
that all required deed restrictions be executed and the necessary trash
facilities provided prior to the applicant obtaining a building permit.
Reduction in Parking
The Municipal Code requires three off-street parking spaces per 1,000
square feet of additional office/commercial floor area in the O,Office
Zone with provisions for reduction to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet
by special review. Residential uses in the 0 Zone require one space per
bedroom with no provision for reduction. Based on these criteria, the
applicant's proposed expansion will require twelve off-street spaces,
, nine for the office addition and three for the employee housing units.
The appl i cant requests that the number of required spaces for the offi ce
addition be reduced from nine to six and that the employee housing parking
requi'rements be waived in their entirety.
,r-.
~ Forge Bldg. Special Review
, Aspen P & Z, Jan. 22, 1980
Page 2
Given the design of the proposed expansion siite, constraints prohibit
the provision of more than six regulation spaces. The Engineering
Department, however, has agreed to a minor relaxation of its requi'rements
with regard to the size of individual space. To allow the applicant to
reduce the number of spaces provided to eight, the Planning & Zoning
Commission must approve a reduction in the number of required spaces
per 1,000 square feet of expansion from three to one and one-half. As
stated above, this reduction is consistent with the provision of the Code
and is supported by the Planning Office. The resulting parking require-
ment would be three spaces for the employee housing units and five spaces
for the office addition.
The Planning Office recommends denial of the applicant's request for a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces from twelve to six, and
instead recommends approval of eight spaces subject to the conditions sti-
pulated in the Engjneering Department's memorandum dated January 17, 1980.
\
\
\
,I""'--,
I""'--
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office *
DATE: January 17, 1980
RE: Employee Housing Special Review, The Forge Building,
230 E. Hopkins.
Having reviewed the above submission and made a site inspec~
tion, the Engineering Department recommends the following:
1) That the applicant supply further information regarding
on-site trash facilities.
2) That the employee housing and resulting FAR ratio bonus
be granted following satisfactory clarification of
.', item #1.
3) That reduction in required parking be weighed in consi-
deration of my memo of January 7. I would recommend
that parking requirements be reduced but not to the ex-
tent requested by the applicant. This creates a pro-
blem in that the site constraints prevent utilization
of any more than 6 spaces. The applicant should be re-
quired to provide 8 spaces set parallel to the rear
lot line along the east and west property lines each
space being 8'9" x 18' which is slightly narrower than
the code requires but would be sufficient in this case.
~
,
~,'~. P:Wt~#/
~~
;-.
MEMORANDUM
RE: Reduction in number of parking spaces for' proposed Forge
Building
I have been asked to comment on the appropriateness of al-
lowing the Forge Building, to reduce its parking from the code re-
quirement of 13 spaces to 6. Th~ Planning and Zoning Commission
is empowered to do this under current sections 24-4.l(c) and 24-
4.6 however the following points should be considered.
1) The required parking should properly be calculated as
follows:
A) Residential, 3 bedrooms (employee) = 3 spaces
B) Non-residential, 3 spaces/l,OOO s.f. = 10 spaces
TOTAL = 13 spaces
2) Under section 24-4.l(c) the Planning and Zoning may
recommend reduction or elimination ,of the required parking
in low, moderate, or ~iddle income housing projects to
Council for their approval. Under this section, the ,3
'employee spaces may be eliminated.
3) '-Under section 24-4. 6~h::: Plar..r..:.=:; ::r..:i ~:::n:.r..; ::-.::yredu-ce
the requiteIllent-perl'iOOO::;<;tud'l.t; l.."ec. iv'l. c.he- .L'''''''C1J.n~ng 3;239
square feet from 3 to a min~mum of 1.5 spaces resulting in
a required 4.86 or 5 spaces. Under the criteria of this sec-
tion the following should be considered:
A) Projected traffic generation - It would seem reason-
able that under the same reasoning by which the code
was written 13 vehicles needing space wIll be generated
by this construction and that reduction of the required
parking will result in the remaining cars parking in
the rights of way surrounding the property.
B) Site characteristics - As noted in ,John Wheeler's
letter of December 28 there is room on the site for all
.13 cars if they utilize an improper parking arrangement.
,Otherwise excess vehicles will have to park on the streets.
C) Pedestrian access - Pedestrian access to the site is
excellent and well within range of the downtown area.
-"
.
.
Page 2 ~
Re:' Reduction iJ!l"""'umberof parking Spaces f proposed Forge
Buil4;ng
D) Availability of public transportation- The site
provides access to all City transportation systems.
. ,J
--'
.
-,
Copland Hagl11aryaoo"w LtdArchilects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colo.~ 81611 303 9252887
28 December 1979
Mr. Dan McArthur
City of Aspen ,
'Engineering Department
130 South Galena, Street
Aspen; Colorado' 81611
Dear Mr. McArthur:
In regard to the Forge Building at Hopkins and Monarch Street (north-
west corner), the number of parking spaces required by Code Sec. 24-
4.1 (b) is for the increment only. Total new construction is at
4,194 sq.ft., with 3 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. for a totai of 12.582
or 1-3 spaces ~
In addition, of the 4, 194 sq. ft. , 955 sq.ft. is' for employee housing -
I studio and 1 2-bedroom unit.
a.) @ I space per bedroom
b.) @ 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
= 2 spaces
= 9.7 or 10 spaces
There is enough space to accommodate this number of automobiles.
However, ,by review, a reduct,i oni n the number of spaces from 3 spaces
per 1,000 sq.ft. to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. would put our parking
at 6.29 or 6 spaces. All of which have direct access and allows for
more green area.
We request acceptance of this for the following reasons:
i .)
r"";^,,,,;ty to tv"" ,,;Jows for access by public transportation.
Once there a car is not necessary, as every part of town
is within walking distance.
Fewer cars will allow more area to be landscaped rather
than paved.
2.)
3.)
Very truly yours;
J
;!l~n~
John C. Wheeler
JCW!g
"
,1
/-tALL
,
I.
--0'.......-
I
I
1
I
'I
I
. I
I I
~
I I
I
. ,
k~EN
em.J.q1o
I(
/
-I'
L/VlNG/r:fIWlJJG
13&o~
- /
/
_L__
I. l-
~~b/l!DCJllll
<\'( .1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
---1
f/ALL.
I!5A:T"f!
THE FORGE PROJECT.
,EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT PLANS
2 BEDROOM SI%E680 S.F. 1
STUDIO SIZE 450 S.F. 0
, .
I
5,
NOR~
I
10
!5 '/ lie
,
r-.,
I J . " I
z C Jo ""
'0 <lPF -- ar'~ "".,...,'"
~
,
S~:4'.
!!!><.di ..s0.>.I'
~ s...c '-S.vT
r-..-,-----......-- --...---
'1!1!f:jP use. ~U/.(r} I ;;;VF-~ ~ILDJM;
:$,q: l.ev~. ~. ~i.:fg'..
~ tlvs~ ".1.11'-'2"
------.....
tJI.JJ#~l9"r17oe~~'-'"..
-....--------- ~
7 0$) 1/ ~".05
THE FORGE PROJECT,
SITE
PLAN
I
0'
10
I'
, -',
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i- '~~
I
'I.' " " '
.1,.
_~--"""'"._""-."",';.:;..,._-"_",c,
"
~..&.~II:.
("'I4~'4"f'~ o.~c ,I
}'If.l;W~.e.CGlt.eu:'1+/
NOR-E)
I
50
; ','
, .
".
, "
. '
."
_I
25
,~
d'IJUD ~
til l'
~() Z
IJI
~
Z ~
ITfi\1
~
11\
,
I
!
" l:l_ ,)
.il
. ~
~ q,
~-
~-
.1""'\
~
!11
\ - - - -.., ,
L.,_,_ _ _ \,
I
~~-
'-..........,
~I!~
~i ~
%
U
--l~
Il'''''''
~+-~
II'~ '\:'I)
l' :no 0\
:I
~
~
:I:
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
!!l '} ~ ..,
i ~ ! j
~ ~! i
!: t; ~
jij ~ ~
(11 \II
~ .-.,
,
~~ 1-- -----l
,
,
I ,
I
~ 3: ,
,
~I ~ cl\
_ [11 ~
l ~ it ~ 3 ~ ~ H
~ z ~
cJ\ :n -\ g
. .
~ ~ ,
UUU' ~ __J
u~~
z
:;:;;;~ 0
~;~ ~
~:n~ ~
o
tII
III
~
i
~.
!
I!' ~.
ql Il'_
W \i.
~~~ ~
~,l):b IJ
U~
B~ ~
...
o.
g.
r-------- - - -- -,-------
I ] I
I ~ I
I I
11 -----, I
I J ~
: ~
L__
~
!
r------------ I
I / / .
I ~ ~ ' ~/./ c, ~
~ :>;///" '
I ~, . "
L___ __.l.
~
: !
L__
!
z
o
--l
,
,
.
,
__J
--l
,
,
"
"
,
,
,
__J
,
~
J!
- ~:
6@
3i
" IJTIU
~
2i
~
i ~
~
cI\
t
z
i (j)
f[j
I
~
:::r
C!- r\). 0 ~
\II 11'. 2
~
ii. 0 Jl
t.
~-