HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.Wesson Building.1978
~
~.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice
RE: Wesson Parking - Special Review
DATE: November 30, 1978
This application requests permission to vary the parking requirement in
the O-Office Zone from 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 1.5 spaces per
1,000 square feet. The parking would serve the proposed Wesson ~ffice
building which will be located on lots H and I, Block 25 on Main Street.
This property consists of the two vacant lots on the corner of 5th and
Main adjacent to the Shaw home. Justification presented for the request
is primarily based on a comparsion of this proposed building with the
7500" square foot Aspen Dental Arts Building. The attached letter in-
dicates that while the Aspen Dental Arts Building is considerably larger
than the proposed Wesson Office Building, they have never experience a
parking problem even though there are only five usable parking spaces be-
hind the building. The second reason presented by the applicant is his
concern for the character of the block. Dr. Wesson does not want to
build a building which would be so massive as to be out of character
with the rest of Main Street. He preferred to build a smaller building
and provide the minimum parking spaces required by the Code to accomodate
this building than to build a larger structure in order to financially
justify underground parking.
Dave Ellis and I have discussed this application at length and agree that
the proposal is reasonable prOVided that he does meet minimum parking re-
quirement of the Aspen Municipal Code which is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square
feet. As the proposal stands now, it does not technically meet the 1.5
parking spaces per 1,000 square foot requirement. With only six parking
spaces provided, the building could be no larger than 4,325 square feet
and it is proposed 4,440 square feet.
We recommend you approve this special review request with the und~rstanding'
llhat mir]imum p9-rking requirements of the Aspen Munici-pa~ Codewil.J he meet.
sr
1"""0.
""'"
r-'"
--
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Wesson Parking Special Review
DATE: November 20, 1978
Attached, please find a letter providing additional information
which attempts to justify the parking proposal. I plan to request
that the item be tabled until we have had time to re-evaluate the
proposal based upon this new information. Can you respond in time
for the December 5 P&Z meeting? I would need your comments by
November 28.
//
^
.~
1Mlham Wejjon, 'JJ.'JJ.S
November 20, 1978
Planning & Zoning commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To the Members of the Commission,
This letter is to clarify my application for a
parking variance as provided in Article IV Section 24-4.5
of the Aspen Municipal Code. I have been doing
business in the Aspen Dental Arts Building for the
past seven years and my experience is that there has
always been sufficient street parking, even with the pre-
sence of the Mesa Store, Swiss Chalets, Christiania
Lodge, the recent Ploradora Building, and other
professional offices, boarding houses and lodges in
the immediate area. This bUilding houses two full
time dental practices, a downstairs dental lab, and
four upstairs apartments, and we have never experienced
a parking problem even though there are only five
usable parking spaces behind the building.
The parking requirement which seems reasonable
in the downtown core area poses an unreasonable
hardship on a small lot at the West end of -cOim. The
primary reason I selected this location was because of
easy access and convenient parking for patients, and I
feel the added financial burden of underground parking is
unjustified since my experience in the present location,
as mentioned above, is that we always have had more than
sufficient parking ~or patients and personnel alike.
Also, a considerable amount of planning on the logistics
of underground parking has been done between me and Tom
lvells, who .is my architect. First and foremost is my Idsh
to do a project that is a credit to the City of Aspen, one
that is esthetic and .n1ich compliments the quality that
originally attracted me to the Aspen area. All the parking
alternatives we have studied force us to raise the
building five to nine feet above the sidewalk, which
results in an ungainly situation for a small lot such
as this and destroys the character of the entire block.
My next door neighbor and I are working tovlard making
his three lots, which already have a house on them, and
my two lots result in a visually pleasing apProach to
420 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONe: 303-925.4411
"....,
,-"
-2,..
town from the west end, onlthat is not out of scale
or overdone. Requiring more par]cing in this par.ticular
place appears to us to accomodate the automobile at
the cost of losing landscaping, the character of the
block, and the esthetics that give long term value.
I prefer long term value to a short term gain since I
am committed to the beauty of the town that is my home.
I feel that this type of project in this location
is a valid reason for the existence of the variance
and review process, and hope that my request meets
with your approval.
Sincerel~' ,
17~~
William Wesson, D.D.S.
l'il"i/Sp
-~
r-..
^
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Office, Richard Grice
Wesson Parking - Special Review
November 16, 1978
This application requests permission to vary the parking requirement in the
O-Office zone from three spaces per 1,000 square feet to 1.5 spaces per
1,000 sq.ft. The parking would serve the proposed Wesson Office building
which will be located on lots H and I, Block 25 on Main Street. This property
consists of the two vacant lots on the corner of 5th and Main adjacent to
the Shaw home. Justification presented for the request is that the present
requirement would force the owner to use 58% of the land for parking. The
alternate proposal would result in 48% of the land area being used in land-
scaping, 34% building coverage and 18% for parking.
The application was referred to City Engineering.
a site inspection and reviewed the schematic site
are as follows:
1. The proposal does
1,000 square foot
building could be
posed to be 4,440
Dave Ellis has conducted
plan. Dave's comments
not technically meet the 1.5 parking spaces per
requirement. With only 6 parking spaces the
no larger than 4,325 square feet and it is pro-
square feet.
2. Two other corners at this intersection presently have lodges and
there are a number of other commercial uses in the area. There
is a growing tendency for intensive uses in the area. Although
parking in the area is not a drastic problem now, it probably will
be in the near future.
3. Three spaces per 1,000 square feet may not be necessary, but certainly
more than six spaces.
4. The Board of Adjustment has denied similar applications including
the Floradora which resulted in the construction of underground
parking.
5. This building does not presently exist and therefore the option of
meeting the parking requirement still exists via the design process.
6. The applicant has provided no information for purposes of justificaUon
based. upon uses.
The Planning Office concurs with Engineering and recommends denial.
~fAL TO l30AIIn OF ZON] NG A1~Tt1UlT
Cl TY OF ASPEfl
DATE
10/16/78
CASE NO.
Aspen, Co. 81611
ADDRESS 420 W. Main
PHONE 925-4411(w) 925-1947(h)
ADDRESS 420 W. Main
Aspen, Co. 81611
APPELLANT William Wesson
OWNER
William Wesson
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
Main St. Block 25, Lots H & I
( S t l' e e t & N u m b e r 0 f Sub d i vis ion t3 i k. & L 0 tr~ 0 :T--
Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
CASE NO.
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS:
Request the parking requirement of 3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. be
reduced to 1.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. The present requirement
forces the OI'lUer to use 58% of land for parking. The 'attached
alternate proposes 48% in landscaping, 34% building coverage
and 18% for parking.
Will you be represented by counsel?
Yes No, x
SIGNED:~;.....--fr~-
Appellant
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
.
Status
Signed
PERMIT REJECTED, DATE
APPLICATION FILED
MAILED
DECISION
DATE IF HEARING
SECRETARY
DATE
'!~>Pt,-" TO BOARD or ZOl~ I NG rJ ur:r:rlT
CITY OF ASPErJ
10/16/78
CASE NO.
DATE
APPELLANT William Wesson
ADDRESS 420 W. Main
Aspen, Co. 81611
PHONE 925-4411(w) 925-1947(h)
ADDRESS 420 VI. Main
OWNER
William Wesson
Aspen, Co. 81611
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
Main St. Block 25, Lots H & I
(Street & Number' of Subdivision' l3ik. & Lot ITo:-T--
Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
CASE NO.
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF II DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHO\m~G JlJSTIFICATlnnS:
Request the parking requirement of 3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. be
reduced to 1.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. The present requirement
forces the owner to use 58% of land for parking. The attached
alternate proposes 48% in landscaping, 34% building coverage
and 18% for parking.
Will you be represented by counsel?
Yes No, x
SIGNED:M~~
Appellant
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
.
Signed
Status
PERMIT REJECTED, DATE
APPLICATION FILED
MAILED
DECISION
DATE IF HEARING
SECRETARY
DATE
, ,
IV\.t>-J H
"~.'
~"--'._._._~'_<?_------
o
o
o
-
....'t"
'I A
-j.) ..,
1- -.'
('
.~
I 1\
,,~
2
4-
GI
c;:,
~
~J L~Y
...l..
Tlnll 0" .MlEn
~ATlC
51-n:::.. ~ .
......aN
~.- WIILL8 . ASSOCIAT88 / ARCHITIICTII
t~~.
",""OJCCTl
L.oe ANO'lEL..
uno D'ET1:.RtCH~~T Ct...U,rtfIJRIHT 1m
i
l
l--\O P--. T\--\
If, \ t\
)(C,=I-O
HtOJCCT NO.
DftAWINQ NO.
l~; rfl.
i
DATI:
1\