HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.132 W Main St.70-80a
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
//— -g0
I. DATE SUBMITTED: - 1-7— 10 - C17 STAFF:
2. APPLICANT: /
rya
3. REPRESENTATIVE: Io.f&7L
r,
4. PROJECT NAME:
5. LOCATION:
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
7. REFERRALS:
`Attorney
-,'Engineering Dept.
_Housing
Water
City Electric
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 1'4 Z
Subdivision
Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
No. 7y—
_Stream Margin
_8040 Greenline
_View Plane
-'Conditional Use
Other
Sanitation District _School District
Fire Marshal _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks _State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric Other
Mountain Bell
Council Approved Denied Date
10. ROUTING:
Attorney Building Engineering Other
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Arthur's Restaurant, Request for Expansion of a Conditional
Use
DATE: December 1, 1980
This is a public hearing pursuant to Section 24 -3.3 of the
Municipal Code to consider the applicant's request to renovate
and expand Arthur's Restaurant, a conditional use in the O,Office
zone district. The restaurant, which is located on the north-
east corner of Third and Main Streets (Lots K, L, M, N and the
east one -half of Lot 0, Block 58), is permitted as a conditional
use in the 0, Office zone in structures which have received
individual historic designation. The modification and /or expan-
sion of a conditional use, however, requires the review and
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to issuance
of a building permit. In considering such a request, the Commis-
sion must determine:
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all require-
ments imposed by the Zoning Code,
2. Whether the proposed use is consistent with the objectives
and purposes of the Zoning Code and the applicable zone dis-
trict, and
3. Whether the proposed use is designed to be compatible with the
surrounding land uses and uses in the area.
As the attached letter indicates, the Commission approved a simi-
lar request in June of 1979 for an enlargement of the restaurant
to approximately 8,212 square feet, an increase of 5,150 square
feet over and above the existing facility. The current appli-
cation, which represents a substantial reduction from its prede-
cessor, involves new construction total only 1,142 square
feet. The new facility, after renovation, will total approxi-
mately 5,291 square feet.
The Planning Office has reviewed the applicant's preliminary
plans and has determined that the proposed renovation and
expansion is consistent with the objectives of the O, Office
zone district, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Based on Planning's and Engineering's review of the applicant's
plans, the proposed renovation and expansion also appear to
comply with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code. Sixteen
parking spaces are required and sixteen have been provided on
the applicant's site plan. Similarly, the total square footage
of the new facility is well within the zone district's permis-
sible FAR.
The Planning Office therefore recommends approval of the applicant's
request to renovate and expand Arthur's Restaurant subject to the
following:
1. The renovation and expansion complying with all requirements
imposed by the Zoning Code, a final determination of com-
pliance to be made at such time as the working drawings are
submitted for a building permit.
2. Receipt of HPC final approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Memo: Arthur's > ^�nditional Use Expansion
December 1, 198%
Page Two
3. No utilization of the second floor of the relocated ARI
building without prior approval of the Planning and
Zoning Commission via the Expansion of a Conditional Use
process.
4. Any disposition of the remaining vacant portion of the
applicant's 49' lots also being subject to Planning and
Zoning Commission review via the Conditional Use process.
i- SPEN PIT KIN kEGI®NAL BUILDING ®Er-.ARiMET'L T
November 10, 1980
Dick Wilhelm
132 West Main
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Building permit #4134, Arthurs Restaurant and
A.R.I. Building at 132 West Main Street
Dear Dick:
With regard to the above mentioned permit application, I
want to briefly discuss what this permit covers.
As per the agreement between June Cantrup and•the City of
Aspen, this permit ( #4134) covers the foundation walls and
the subsequent sub -grade work only.
Structrual remedies on the A.R.I. foundation are to be in
accordance with recommendations made by E1 Dorado Engineer-
ing of Glenwood Springs.
Footers beneath the slab on grade are to be added as per
the original plan submission. Should your contractor have
further questions in regard to this matter, have him contact
me at his convenience.
Prior to issuance of a permit for any above grade work we
will need your architect to submit plans indicating correc-
tive measures to reinforce the existing sub -floor at the
A.R.I. Building in conjunction with the balance of the
proposed link -up plans.
Also, prior to any plumbing work, you will need to apply
for a plumbing permit and pay the additional P.I.F.
assesment to the water plant. An electrical permit
application will also be necessary.
Any above grade permit can only be granted after final P &Z
as well as H.P.C. approvals are granted for the expansion.
Should you have any questions in regard to any of the areas
I have outlined for you, please feel free to inquire at your
convenience.
lI rb I addock
xc: Sunny Vann, Bob Edmonson, Wayne Chapman, Fred Crowley,June Cantrul
506 East i? ain Street Aspen, Colorado E31611 303/92S-5973
December 1, 1980
City of Aspen
Planning Department
205 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention:
Dear Sunny:
Sunny Vann
RE: Conditional Use Application
for Lots K, L, M, N and East 1/2
of Lot O, Block 58, City of Aspen.
This letter will clarify for the purposes of a
conditional use application concerning the above- described
property the authority of the applicant (David Moss) to
bind himself and present owners of the property. The appli-
cation involves four and one -half City lots. The applicant
has an option to purchase the above - described property and
a right to occupy the property until he exercises such option.
Further, as to lots K and L owned by June Cantrup
and lots M, N and 1/2 of O owned by Hans Cantrup, they
authorize the applicant David Moss to act as their attorney
in fact to bind them in the same fashion as if they themselves
were the applicant. Finally, the undersigned June Cantrup
and Hans Cantrup will execute any additional documents required
to effect the enforceability of any conditional use permit
granted by the City oyf Aspen under this application.
Sincerely
Da i Moss
AGREED TO:
ne Cantrup
j.S,
Cantrup
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
ffA
DATE: November 26, 1980
RE: Arthur's Conditional Use Expansion
Having reviewed the above application for expansion of a conditional
restaurant use in an Office zone and made a site inspection, the Engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. Apparently this expansion was approved previously for an even
greater square footage and a reduction from required parking.
This application was approved without benefit of referral to
this office and has now returned sporting a square footage
reduction from the original expansion request. Rather than
dwell on the improper manner in which the first application
was approved, I will treat the revised application as a first
referral and comment accordingly.
2.
Parking shown on the revised site plan is inadequate at 15
spaces requiring 15.86 or 16 spaces to meet the three per
;,�,
1,000 square foot criteria. It is our feeling that Arthurs
o
0 — I
represents a major parking impact in the Lodge and residential
1
area surrounding it. While, under the Code, we can only
require three spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, I
am inclined to feel that 16 spaces is minimally adequate. The
revised site plan indicates 15 spaces squeezed up between the
property line and the building. This arrangement allows no
l\
extra space to accommodate snow removal. In addition, per my
conversation of November 20, 1980 with Welton Anderson, I
understand that the second floor of the A.R.I. building has
inadequate ceiling space and is not intended for renovation
or use. For this reason, it has been excluded from all floor
area calculations for the purpose of required parking. Any --
✓{
._
approval of this site a 2P__ plan should be contingent on the li -
cant agreeing not to use the upper floor for any purpose.
3.
There is no trash requirement in the underlying "0" district.
It is our feeling, however, that trash generation by a res-
taurant of this size will be very significant and that the
j
minimum requirement of a space 10' deep by 20' long should be
attached. Some size reduction may be appropriate to maintain
adequate parking and we would be willing to work with the
applicant toward an adequate solution.
HBC INVES-MENTS
450 S. Galena
Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
November 25, 1980
City of Aspen
Planning Dept.
Attn: Sunny Vann
205 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny:
Regarding the application on Arthur's Chinese Restaurant which was heard by
the Historical Preservation Commission on Nove:t)er 25, 1980, I hereby confirm
the following statements which were presented at that hearing:
a) The remaining part of the excavation not now covered by the ARI building
will be filled in;
b) Fence will be removed;
c) Landscaping and other irrprovements to the adjacent lot will be constructed
per the plans presented by Welton Anderson at the November 25 UPC hearing.
d) i understand that the application, as originally presented, includes
land under my ownership. If necessary, I agree to sign as a co- applicant
for this project.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please don't hesitate
to call me.
Sinner ly,
s B. an JI
NO P M4
CIT
130
aspe
PEN
reet
1611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Edmondson, City Attorney
*Sunny Vann, Planning Office
Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Department
DATE: November 24, 1980
RE: Arthur's Conditional Use Expansion
Attached is a revised site plan submitted by Welton Anderson
amending a recent submission for a conditional use expansion at
Arthur's restaurant in response to concerns expressed by this
office.
Also, please note that this item is now scheduled for consider-
ation by the Planning & Zoning Commission on December 2, 1980,
not December 16, 1980; you may wish to respond to Sunny before
then.
Aspen /Pitkin Fanning Office
130 south 4jena,;street
aspen 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney, Bob Edmondson
City Engineer, Dan McArthur
Building Inspector, Clayton Meyring
FROM: Planning Office, Sunny Vann
RE: Arthur's Conditional Use Expansion
DATE: November 17, 1980
The attached application requests an expansion of 1,142 square feet of
additional kitchen, waiting anjor dining areas. This item is scheduled to
come before the Planning & Zoning Commission on December 16, 1980.
May I have your comments by December 5th. Thank you.
11 12 t6 0 it A T' D U 11
TO Aspen Planning and Gomm COhvi ssl.Oa
FROM C. Welton Anderson, Architect,representy,
David Muss, Applicant
RE Arthur's Restaurant W -:a ?licat.ion for expansion
of condit: una1 use
DATE . Novewber 13; ?980
In June of 1975% the Aspen Planning & Zoning Co_mission. approved
David Moss' application for the e lergemont of Arthur's Chinese
Restaurant to app_oximu tcly 8,212 square feett of ground floor,
dining and kitchen area (an increase of 5,115 square feet including
ARI) _foll_owinq extensive revision by the HI'C.
Dlumarous delays have forced David Moss to greatly reduce thn PrOPOsed
new construction to only 1,142 square feet of additional kitchen,
waiting and /or dining areas. The total_ building, including the
relocated former 1,051 square foot ART building, will bring the
ground floor :square footage of Arthur's Chinese Restaurant to roughly
5,291 square feet.
The partial new basement will house (finally) adequate restroom
Eaciliiies with the remainder planned as mechanical and storage.
It is unlikely that tiny sicn ficant dining facilltios coui d he
housed in either the now partial basement or the second floor OF
the TRI building due to service access, structural and 002r con-
With 135 lincar feet of < :1l -cy :cuss, no parxing reduction rcq:;e!:
should ho rorlydred.
Your ear . n.•t consideration of this siqnificantly rc iucec, Pre•a- :.rn. :;h•
approind, o„exly -revic ad an d somcwtat redundant appticaiion wl l__. Ac
g c tly DopinKated.
• R
/t
loop, azkIntina i "id h0sr t cha'i'r: A C.hur' s Chlnepo Pas Laurin'-
O
r
Y.
01-IM
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
May 22, 1979 - Tuesday
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
REGULAR MEETING
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Aspen Institute Resolution
B. Housing Overlay Ordinance
III. NEW BUSINESS
-A. AVVNA Special Review
B. Arthur's Restaurant Conditional Use Hearing
C. Z G Builders Subdivision Exemption
D. Gordon - Stream Margin Review
E. Shoaf's Riverside Subdivision Exception
F. Hoag Subdivision - P.U.D. Exemption
-G. FAR Proposed Ordinance
H. Rio Grande SPA - Proposed Amendment for Parking
I11. ADJOURN MEETING
-2-
SZIecial Meeting Aspen Planning and 'Zoning Commission May 22, 1979
situation was bad and supported the new screening proposal
and moving the trash .service area to the inner part of the
alley.
Norm Burns, a member of the HPC, asked how they would re-
view this application since one of the three buildings
is historically designated. Klar suggested that they
pursue having the whole complex historically designated.
Klar moved to approve the application for the expansion of
Arthur's Restaurant and the expansion of the conditional
use as well as to reduce the off - street parking spac.G Yo
20 to 15- -and to approve the additional possibility of the
two additional emleyee bedrooms and _11 of his is con- _
motional upon meet.i.n� with To Dunlop and solving s~ -3 ing,
screening and landscaping, etc, so twat- t it is compa i e
i e residential area it surround- g -,—TT dstrom seconaea
All
Anderson stepped up to his position as commission member.
ZG Builders, Jolene Vrchota of the Planning Office introduced the
Subdivision application. This is an application for subdivision for
Exemption a nearly completed duplex on Lot 38, Filing 1 of the
West Aspen Subdivision. The Planning Office recommends
approval with conditions. The City Attorney and the City
Engineer recommend approval with conditions.
Gideon Kaufman noted that two of the conditions were satis-
fied. There are separate taps and the drainage was con-
structed per the City Engineer's requests. He had a
problem with the condition that the driveway be a maximum
of 18 feet since there are two double garages. The code
calls for this maximum to minimize curb cuts but Kaufman
noted that there are no curbs in this area. He said he
would resolve this with the City Engineer.
Hedstrom moved to recommend exemption from the subdivision
regulations for the ZG Builders duplex on Lot 38, Filing
1 of the West Aspen Subdivision inasmuch as such exemption
will not conflict with the intention and purposes of the
regulations and subject to the following conditions:
1) the property shall be deed restricted to a six -month
minimum lease term with no greater than two shorter tenan-
cies in any claendar year, 2) the width of the driveway
curb cut shall be as worked out to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, 3) the drainage provisions of the subgrade
garage meet the approval of the City Engineer, 4) separate
water taps and meters be provided each of the duplex units,
Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Gordon Grice introduced the application. The applicants are
Stream Margin Review beginning full subdivision review and this will come througY
P &Z. The house is located 20 -30 feet above the stream with
a steep slope. There is need for a public trail easement
through the property. The Planning Office and City Engineer
recommend approval subject to the grant of an adequate
trail easement.
Klar moved to approve the application requesting stream
margin review for the Gordon residence contingent the
granting of a trail easement through the property,
McDonnell seconded. All.in favor, motion approved.
Shoaf Riverside, Grice introduced the application, This property is located
Subdivision just above Herron Park. He noted the floodplain line on
Exception the map is incorrect. They are requesting exception from
the conceptual stage of the subdivision procedures. The
Planning Office feels this is appropriate since the utili-
ties exist, etc. They request splitting the 30,000 square
1
fl ( : A � : n RiJ l ' I I : J i . I ` i l ilNf. Cp. nFNV,:H R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S
,s ectu+ Mle ting A`;Iln Planningi and lo.i.nq (umniss;on ay 27, 197'7 _
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on May 22, 1979,
at 5:00 PP4 in the City Council Chambers. Plumbers present were Charles Collins,
John Schuhmacher, Perry Harvey, Welton Ander.,,on, Olaf Hedstrom, Nancy McDonnell,
and: Joan Klar. Also present were Karen Smith, Jim Reents and Joe Wells of the
Plarininq Office, City Attorney Ronald Stock and City Sanitarian Tom Dunlc'p.
Approval of Minutes
Schuhmacher moved to approve the minutes of April 3 and
April 1.0, as amended, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor,
motion approved.
Waive Notice of
Harvey moved to waive notice of this special meeting,
Special 17eeting
McDonnell seconded. Roll call vote: Schuhmacher, aye;
Anderson, aye; Klar., aye; McDonnell, aye; Harvey, aye;
Hedstrom, aye; Collins, aye; motion approved.
Old Business
Klar moved to table the old business (Aspen Institute
Resolution, Housing Overlay ordinance) to 9ednesday,
May 23, 1979, at 5:30 PM, McDonnell seconded. All in
favor, motion approved.
AVJNA Special
Anderson stepped down from the commission for this and
Review
the next item.
Reents noted that this is an application for the approval
of the FAR bonus for employee housing and a reduction in
the required parking. The applicant proposes to build a
450 square foot studio unit to house an on site employee.
The Planning Office recommends that this unit be restricted
to the low income category. They propose to provide two
of the required five parking spaces.
Schuhmacher moved to table this application to the next
regular meeting; McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion
approved.
Arthur's Restaurant, Reents introduced the application. This is an application
Conditional Use for the expansion of an existing conditional use. They
wish to expand the existing facility with the acquisition
of the ARI building to a total square footage of 7400 on
13500 square feet of property, .55:1 FAR. They request
15 of the 20 required parking spaces. HPC gave prelimi-
nary approval with conditions. Reents noted this does meet
the intent of the Master Plan and is within the residential_
scale.
Anderson said the third building, to be built between the
existing Arthur's and the ARI building will be built the
same width and character as the existing surrounding
buildings. It will be centered between the two and have
connecting hallways. Arthur's has a nationwide reputation
with the main criticism being the smallness of the waiting
room. They wish to put the waiting room in the middle
building and expand the dining room to the ARI building.
There will be one entrance. The trash service will be
moved down the alley which is vacated. They are hoping
to get a liquor license for this premises.
Norm Burns Burns lives across the street from Arthur's and said the
parking situation is not bad.
Gideon Kaufman Kaufman noted that most people walk or ride the bus to
Arthur's. He did note that the waiting room situation is
unbearable in the winter and many older people are not
able to eat here because of the small room and length of
wait.
Collins noted a letter from Harry Weiss objecting strongly
to the expansion. Collins noted that this backs up to a
residential neighborhood. Ile had noticed the trash situ-
ation was bad and supp
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RE: Arthur's Conditional Use Hearing
DATE: May 22, 1979
This is an application for the expansion of Arthur's Restaurant on Main
Street. Under the current zoning code of the City of Aspen, any expansion of
a conditional use requires a new conditional use hearing.
On a total of four and one half lots (13,500 square feet) the expanded
structure is proposed at 7,400 square feet. Of that total, approximately
6,000 square feet would be commercial space and the additional 1,400 square
feet would be two one bedroom employee housing units.
Besides the expansion of the conditional use, the applicant is requesting
reduction of the required off - street parking from 20 spaces as required by the
Code (3 per 1,000 square feet of commercial and one per bedroom for the employee
residences) to fifteen spaces.
There has been one surrounding property owner, Mrs. Harry Weese who contacted
this office and stated her opposition. Her major problem was what she considered
unsightly trash storage with the current operation and that she didn't have a
desire for this unsightliness to expand.
The Historic Preservation Committee has a hesitancy to take final action on
this project until expansion of the conditional use and special review approval
were granted. They feel they cannot act on the exterior until the square footages
are set by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Z G Builders Subdivision Exemption
DATE: May 18, 1979
This is an application for subdivision exemption for a nearly - completed
duplex on Lot 38, Filing 1 of the West Aspen Subdivision. The 16,000 square
foot lot is located in an R -15 zone on Sierra Vista Drive.
The Planning Office agrees with the applicant in stating that exemption in
this case is appropriate because land use impact will not increase.
Comments from both the City Attorney and Engineer have been collected.
The Planning Office recommends approval of subdivision exemption conditioned on
their provisions as follows:
1. The property shall be deed restricted to a six -month minimum lease
term with no greater than two shorter tenancies in any calendar year.
2. The maximum width of the driveway shall be 18 feet.
3. Drainage provisions for the substantially subgrade garage shall be
designed to avoid drainage from the street into the garage by way
of the driveway, to meet the approval of the City Engineer.
4. Separate water taps shall be run into each of the duplex units.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado '81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 18, 1979
TO: Planning_ -& -- Zoning Commission
FROM: Ron, Stogy ck
RE: Housing Overlay Ordinance
Based on your comments of May 1, 1979, I recommend that
the Housing Overlay Ordinance be amended as follows:
Section 24 -9 1/2.7. Procedure for Designation of
Housing Overlay District.
A Housing Overlay District shall be designated in
accordance with the provisions for rezoning as out-
lined in Section 11 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code, provided that there shall be no limitation on
when an application may be submitted.
Section 24 -9 1/2.8. Standards.
Sites or areas may be included within the Housing
Overlay District provided the proposed development
is appropriate for the neighborhood considering
bulk and density.
RWS:mc
IT
i
t
®!
M FCKO WOLI.NINO CO., 0K"V" RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
ORDINANCE NO.
.(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
BONA FIDE LOW, MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME
HOUSING WITHIN A HOUSING OVERLAY' DISTRICT;
PROVIDING FOR MULTI -FAMI LYRES IDENTIAL USE WITH
INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY; AND PROVIDING
FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH HOUSING OVERLAY
DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary to establish a Housing Over-
lay District to encourage the development of bona fide low, moder-
ate and middle income housing by allowing for a multi - family resi-
dential use together with increased residential density, and,
therefore, to create a lowered per unit land cost for such devel-
opment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has
reviewed and recommended the following proposed amendment to the
City of Aspen Zoning Code,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is
hereby amended by the adoption of Article IX 1/2.
ARTICLE IX 1/2. HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Section 24 -9 1/2.1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Article is tc provide for present and
future housing needs of the community by authorizing the
development of bona fide low, moderate and middle income
housing free from speculative investment influence and for
primary residential use by local residents. It is the intent
of this article to promote such housing by allowing an
increased residential density, and therefore a lowered per
unit land cost, for selected development.
Section 24 -9 1/2.2. Housing Overlay District.
There is hereby created a Housing Overlay District which,
subject to the standards set forth in this article( may be
used as permitted in Section 24 -9 1/2.4.
„,„, CO., o.„,,.,, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Section 24 -9 1/2.3. Applicability.
The Housing Overlay District shall be applied according to
the provisions of this article and shall have the effect of
superimposing the-permitted uses and minimum lot area for
dwelling unit requirements of this article upon the site or
area so designated. The remaining area and bulk
requirements, parking requirements, and supplementary
regulations of the zone district in existence at the time of
Housing Overlay District Designation shall remain in full
force and effect unless varied by the City Council on the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Section 24 -9 1/2.4. Permitted Uses.
The following uses are permitted in the Housing Overlay
District:
(a) One - family dwelling
(b) Two- family dwelling
(c) Multi- family dwelling, if one half or more of the
dwelling units constructed on the site or area are
deed restricted within the terms of Section
24- 10.4(b)(3)
(d) Townhouses, if one -half or more of the dwelling
units constructed on the site or area are deed
restricted within the terms of Section 24 -10.4
(b)(3)
(e) Accessory buildings or uses
Section 24 -9 1/2.5. Required Minimum Lot Area per Dwellin
Unit.
Sites or areas included within a Housing Overlay District
shall have the following required minimum lot area per
dwelling unit:
(a) For sites or areas located in the R -6 zone the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 4,500
square feet, unless one -half or more of the
dwelling units. constructed on said site or area are
deed restricted within the terms of Section
24- 10.4(b)(3) then the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be 2,250 square feet.
(b) For sites or areas located in the R -15 zone the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 10,000
sq. ft., provided that a duplex is permitted on a
minimum lot of 15,000 sq. ft. subdivided as of the
effective date of Section 24 -3.4. If one -half or
more of the dwelling units constructed on said site
” or area are deed restricted within the terms of
Section 24 -10.4 (b) (3) then the minimum lot area
per dwelling unit shall be 5,000 sq. ft., provided
that a fourplex is permitted on a minimum lot of
15,000 sq. ft. subdivided as of the effective date
of Section 24 -3.4.
(c).For sites or areas located in the R -30 zone the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 15,000
sq. ft., unless one -half or more of the dwelling
units constructed on said site or area are deed
restricted within the terms of Section 24- 10.4(b)
(3) then the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
shall be 7.500 sq. ft.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Hoag Subdivision - P.U.D. Exemption
DATE: May 18, 1979
A�
The attached letter of application requests exemption for the mandatory
P.U.D. requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code. The requests relates to Lot
4 of the Hoag Subdivision located off Ute Avenue, City of Aspen.
The application was referred to City Engineering whose recommendation is
for approval of the exemption subject to five conditions. That complete memorandum
to the Planning Office dated May 17, 1979, is attached for your review.
The Planning Office recommends you approve the exemption subject to the
conditions outlined in Dave Ellis' memo.
OAV10 LAWRENCE HOPKINSe
ARCHITECT ANO PLANNER
gaX 9,• •6P4M• COLOR -00 014111 (3oal VIS -2401
April 10, 1979
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Respectfully submitted for exemption from mandatory PUD procedures
are these schematic drawings of a "duplex" for the Hoag -3- Venture,
to be located on Lot No. 4, Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen.
The lot has 21,832 sq. ft. and the structure will cover 1,550 sq.
ft, approximately. The total area of the "duplex" will be about
39300 sq. £t., excluding porches and overhangs.
The following is offered for your consideration in review of this
project:
1) All utilities are located in Ute Avenue. Water pressure
should be 40 to 60 pounds pressure.
2) Access is directly off Ute Avenue with additional road
above the building site.
3). No unstable slopes or rock, land or mud slides are in
evidence. No unusual soil conditions were encountered
in ier the excavation for the residence on Lot No. 2.
The stand of mature evergreen trees within which the
building is situated indicates lack of avalanches in
that location. There have been low velocity snow slides
in the near vicinity, but main chute is 100' west of
Lot No. 2, and 330' from this structure. Special con-
sideration will be given in structural design of the
building to possible avalanche danger.
4)'Natural watershed, run -off, drainage, soil erosion or
water quality will not be adversely effected.
V."
T-
•—
�-
4141, +,�
.,.C,w ,F t.ra,.. � .:....
•,.r^...••..•.• x � •
_ ... ..• �,- r...... ---� ..n•.e _
_. �
� •,
ILR
•
W5
_2•
j) A "duplex" in this location would have negligible
effect upon air quality.
6) The building shall be dug into the slope so as to af-
fjord protection from possible avalanche. It shall
be located behind large trees so that it will be par-
tially screened from view. Trees will tower above it,
and few trees will be removed, none of major importance.
Driveway and parking will require minimum grading and
no tree removal.
7) Most material from the excavation will be hauled away.
Minimum fill will be used onsite. The design of the
structure has been based upon preserving the trees and
the natural character of the land. No trees shall be
out for construction purposes.
8) Building placement and height permits the evergreen
trees to dominate the site as they do now. The height
of the structure "steps" with the slope. The "open"
part of the site will remain "open ". If the required
parking can be allowed on the upper road, the view of
the site from 'lte Avedue would be unimpaired.
Our request for exemption from PQD requirements is predicated on
a design that will have minimum 'impact on the site, neighborhood,
and community. In 1977 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
a "duplex" that I designed for Lot No; 2 in this subdivision. The
slope on this site is 10% less, and the trees offer more screening
on Lot No. 4 We submit our design of the residence on Lot No. 2
as evidence as what can be done on a difficut site, and feel that
our design for Lot No.4 will have even less impact.
V rY tru urs,
David L. Hopk±Ks
DLH:prf
Encl.
T F
� e
f
,i a pr(q.�.y ii�TY'r.a AJR.rh )tirY •..w.,.y.x- �-_ _ .. �..— ..�w..... _�'��wT.
c: ti
1 � _VIII
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Joe Wells, Planning Office
RE: Proposed FAR's /VR's for the R -6, R -15 and R -30 Zone Districts
DATE: May 18, 1979
I am forwarding to you for your information a.copy of the draft Ordinance
which was prepared for Council at their request for the May 4th agenda. This
draft represents our first attempt at an Ordinance which Council has been
requesting for over two years. Your recommendations both in regard to not adopting
FAR's and VR's as well as the FAR's and VR's you recommended in response to
Council's insistence, have both been forwarded to Council upon your action.
This draft Ordinance, on the other hand, represents an initial recommendation
by our office as permitted under the terms of the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
contract with City Council.
As you may know, the first reading of the proposed Ordinance is quite
often a formality required by the Code to get the matter on the table for
discussion and to schedule a public hearing. This Council, in view of the
many delays to get a draft for their consideration, requested that we get
something to them in at least rough form so that they would have an opportunity
to complete the work that they began if they should choose to do so. In
any case, we are inviting the three new Council members to participate in the
work session which has been scheduled for May 31st at which time we will discuss
all of the previous recommendations as well as conduct a field trip of some
20 to 30 buildings on which we will have calculated the FAR's.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Joe Wells, Planning Office
RE: Proposed FAR's /VR's for the R -6, R -15 and R -30
Zone Districts
DATE: May 11, 1979
We are forwarding to City Council a draft Ordinance amending
Certain definitions in the Zoning Code, adding additional
definitions, amending Section 24- 3.7(e) Measuring floor area
for floor area ratio, adding a new Section 24- 3.7(f) Measuring
volume for volume ratio all in regard to the Floor Area Ratio
and Volume Ratio proposals you requested.
The Building Inspector has received a copy of the Planning
and Zoning Commission's resolution which was passed recently
so that that Board's recommendations to you of several months
ago would temporarily prevent the issuance of permits to
buildings not in conformance with their recommendations. In
our view those recommendations are liberal and will therefore
deal with only the largest of permit applications. we also
asked that a clause be added so that the recommendations
would lapse in mid July if Council chooses not to act, since
we do not feel the recommendation is sensitive to the problem
of the significantly substandard -sized lot. We did not want
to see the recommendation left in place if this Council does
not act and the issue is then left to the new Council who
will want to become acquainted withthe Code before considering
any changes or additions.
The City Attorney has not had an opportunity to fully review
this draft and there will most likely be some amendments,
but the substance of the proposal deals with those areas
which our office was not satisfied with previously. We are
also aware that in order to allow this Council to complete
the work on this proposal which was initiated perhaps two
years ago, it must be heard on lst reading Monday and be
published for a Public Hearing on June 11. At the June 11
hearing, or at an earlier date if Council wishes, we intend
to show slides to acquaint you with some of the•buildings
which prompted this ordinance, as well as to provide you
with information on the alternative proposals and comparisons
to the standards established by other governmental agencies
in the region.
To summarize the direction we took in drafting this proposal,
we tried to deal with the adverse impacts of the proposal
on substandard sized lots by drafting the regulations on
the basis of lot square footage, rather than simply applying
one standard for all lots in each zone district. The same
floor area . ratios are used for all three zone
districts, but they vary relative to the size of the lot.
We also considered the question of including or not including
basement and subgrade space'.in the calculation. Briefly our
recommendation in that regard is to strengthen the definitions
so that if the square footage meets the standards in the
Building Code for natural light, ventilation and emergency
exit it is included in the floor area calculation and if it
does not it is.exempt from the calculation.
e.
Aspen City Council
FAR's /VR's
May 11, 1979
,
We are including for your review the pertinent definitions
as they are presently drafted in the Code:
24- 3.1(b) Basement: That area of a structure fifty(50)
percent or more of which is below
grade, subordinate to the principal
use of the building, and used for
parking, storage and other secondary
purposes. Those areas beneath a
basement shall be designated sub-
basement(s).
24- 3.1(k) (2)Floor Area Total floor area of building(s) or
Ratio structure(s) as it compares to the
.(External) total area of the building site.
24- 3.1(ee) Subgrade: Any story of a structure which is
one hundred(100) percent below grade.
24- 3.7(a) Accessory Accessory buildings (and uses) shall be
Buildings permitted in every zone district:
(and uses) 1.).An accessory building is defined
as a detached subordinate building,
the use of which is customarily
incidental to that of the principal
building or to the principal use
of the land and which is located
on the same lot or parcel with
the principal building or use.
Accessory buildings shall not
be provided with kitchen or bath
facilities sufficient to render
them suitable for permanent
residential occupancy.
24- 3.7(e) Measuring 1) In measuring-floor area for the
floor area purpose of calculating floor area
for floor ratio, there shall be included that
area ratio: area within the surrounding exterior
walls (measured from their exterior
surface) of a building or portion
thereof, exclusive of vent shafts
and courts. The calculation of
floor area of a building or a
portion thereof shall include any
area under a horizontal projection
of a roof or balcony even though
such areas are not surrounded by
exterior walls when such areas are
necessary for the function of the
building.
2) For purposes of calculated external
floor area ratio, there shall be
included basement and subbasement
areas in CC and C -1 Districts except
any such.basement or subbasement
area devoted to parking. In districts
other than: CC and C -1, subgrade and
parking areas shall be excluded from
external floor area ratio calculations.
Areas dedicated to mechanical opera-
tion of buildings shall be excluded
from external floor area ratio
calculations in all districts.
Aspen City Council
FAR's /VR's
,say 110 1979
`You will note that there are no volume ratios proposed in the
Ordinance. After much effort to simplify the calculation pro -
--cedures we have concluded that if the floor area ratio calcula-
tion is strengthened, there is very little gained by adding a
-volume ratio calculation. In contrast, it is a significant
administrative task for the building inspector and a burden on
the landowner as well to provide the necessary documentation
just to accomplish the calculation. We have included the
definitions to illustrate the complexity they require. Because
.Of the difficulty in envisioning a reasonable ratio our
previous recommendations have by necessity been liberal
ones, in any case, and we anticipate that in virtually every
,case the FAR would be the controlling calculation. We would
recommend that you drop consideration of the VR.
� .N W �� � 1n � �� w
1.ed O \
ORDINANCE NO.
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24 -3 OF THE -ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF
BASEMENT, SUBGRADE, AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATION
MEASURING FLOOR AREA FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO; AND FURTHER
BY THE ADDITION OF A DEFINITION OF VOLUME RATIO, AND
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATION FOR MEASURING VOLUME FOR
VOLUME RATIO; AND FINALLY BY AMENDING AREA AND BULK
REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIOS,
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES, AND VOLUME
RATIOS FOR THE R -6, R -15, AND R -30 ZONE DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen wishes to
amend Section 24 -3 of the Municipal Code for the benefit of
the City of Aspen,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 24- 3.1(b) be repealed and reenacted to read
as follows:
(b) Basement: That area of a structure fifty
(50) percent or more of which is below grade,
subordinate to the principal. use of the
building, and used for parking, storage and
other secondary purposes. Those areas beneath a
basement which is subordinate to the principal
use of the building, and used for parking,
storage and other secondary purposes shall be
designated subbasement(s).
Section 2
That Section 24- 3.1(ee) be repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
(as) Subgrade: Any story of a structure which
is one hundred percent (1008) below grade and
which is subordinate to the principal use of the
building, and used for parking, storage, and
other secondary purposes.
Section 3
That Section 24- 3.7(e)(2) be repealed and reenacted to
read as follows:
(e) Measuring floor area for floor area ratio.
(1) In measuring floor area for the
purpose of calculating floor area ratio,
there shall be included that area within
the surrounding exterior walls (measured
from their exterior surface) of a building
or portion thereof, exclusive of vent
shafts and courts. The calculation of
floor area of a building or a portion
thereof shall include any area under a
horizontal projection of a roof or balcony
even though such areas are not surrounded
by exterior walls, provided, however, that
such areas shall not be included in the
calculation of floor area of a building in
the residential or lodge districts if such
building is used for a residential purpose
and the area under a horizontal projection
is not necessary for the function of the
building.
(2) For purposes of calculating external
floor area ratio, there shall be included
basement and subbasement areas in CC and C1
Districts except any such basement or
subbasement area devoted to parking. In
all districts other than CC and Cl, parking
areas and those subgrade and subbasement
areas not in conformance with the minimum
requirements for natural light, ventilation
and emergency exit for the applicable
occupancy group in the Building Code of the
City of Aspen shall be excluded from
external floor area ratio calculations.
Basement areas and those subgrade and
subbasement areas meeting the minimum
requirements for natural light,
ventilation, and emergency exit for the
applicable occupancy group shall be
included in external floor area ratio
calculations. Areas dedicated to
mechanical operation of buildings shall be
excluded from external floor area ratio
calculations in all districts.
Section 4
That Section 24 -3.1 be amended by the addition of
Subsection (ff) which reads as follows:
(ff) Volume ratio: The numerical statement of
the size of a structure measured by volume to
the area of its building site.
Section 5
That Section 24 -3.7 be amended by the addition of
Subsection (p) which reads as follows:
(p) Measuring volume for volume ratio:
1. In measuring volume for the purpose of
calculating volume ratio, there shall be
included that volume within the surrounding
exterior walls and roofs (measured from
their exterior surface) of a building or
portion thereof, exclusive of chimneys,
vents, and siiailar structures. The
calculation of volume shall include any
above -grade area beneath interior space
even though such areas are not surrounded
by exterior walls, but shall not include
any area under a horizontal projection of a
roof or balcony. In the event that a
portion of a structure surrounds an open
court area or a lower portion of the same
structure, the volume to be calculated
shall be defined by the plane established
by the highest points of the surrounding
roofs.
2. For purposes of calculating volume
ratio, there shall be included in all zone
districts all above - grade• enclosed space,
.including accessory buildings. Below -grade
spaces shall be excluded from the
calculations.
Section 6
That Section 24 -3.4 to be amended by the addition to the
area and Bulk Requirements Chart the following external
floor area ratios in the R.61 R.151 and R.30 zone
districts:
External floor area ratio and maximum allowable building square
footage:
For 0 to 5,000 sq. ft. lots:
For 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. lots:
For 10,000' to 20,000 sq. ft. lots:
For 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. lots:
For 30,000 to 45,000 sq. ft. lots:
For lots over 45,000 sq. ft.:
.5 to d max.
.3 to a max.
.25 to a max.
.175 to a max.
.1.42 to a max.
.122 to a max.
of
of
of
of
of
of
1500 sq.
2500 sq.
3500 sq.
4250 sq.
5500 sq.
6500 sq.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
Section 7
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of the
ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 8
That a public hearing be held on this ordinance on
1979, at 5:00 P.M. in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published
once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law
the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held at the City of Aspen on the day of _,
1979.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of
, 1979.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Gordon - Stream Margin Review
DATE: May 17, 1979
The Planning Office has received an application requesting stream margin
review for the construction of a single family residence on the Sheldon Gordon
property. You will recall having reviewed several applications relating to this
property in the past. At the present time the property is in the process of
being subdivided into two parcels. This requested stream margin review approval
is in relation to the removal of the existing residence on the parcel and the
replacement of that residence with a new one.
Dave Ellis of the City Engineering Department has reviewed the application
and comments that, There appear to be no problems in terms of the flood plain
hazzards since the building site is from 15 to 20 feet above the maximum flood
stage of the Roaring Fork River as shown on the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood
Plain Report. The grading for the improvements would also be sufficiently removed
from the river as not to create any adverse impacts on the stream channel or
vegetation." A site inspection was conducted today specifically with regard to
the location of a needed public trail easement paralleling the river. The
applicant's attorney, Tom Wells, is in agreement that the location for that trail
is the best location possible. Prior to the final approval of the subdivision,
that trail easement will need to be precisely defined and platted on the sub-
division plat.
At this time the Planning Office and the Engineering Department recommends
approval of the stream margin review subject to the grant of a trail easement.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Shoaf's Riverside Subdivision Exception
DATE: May 17, 1979
The attached letter requests exception from the conceptual subdivision
requirements for the proposed Shoaf's Riverside Subdivision. The proposal is
to divide the 30,010 square foot parcel approximately in half so as to create
a second single family homesite. The zoning is R -15. The subdivision request
is in accordance with the exception from the Growth Management Quota System
identified in Section 24- 1O.2(d):
"The construction of one single family residence on a lot
subdivided after the effective date of this article where
the following conditions are met:
1. The tract of land that was subdivided had a pre- existing
dwelling.
2. No more than two lots were created by the subdivision."
In this case there is one single family residence in existence on the
parcel so the exemption from growth management is appropriately applied to the
parcel.
We have received comment from the City of Aspen Water Department, Aspen
Metro Sanitation District, Mountain Bell, Holy Cross Electric, Canyon Cable
TV, and Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, all of whom have indicated no problems with
serving the proposed subdivision.
Dave Ellis of the City Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed
subdivision and recommends you approve the exception from conceptual review with-
out condition, as there appear to be no unsolvable problems. Dave did point out
that there are steep slopes involved on the property but the property does contain
a reasonable location for a second homesite.
Based onthe comments received to date, the Planning Office recommends you
approve the exception from conceptual review without condition. This will allow
the application to procees to the preliminary stage.
s �. N✓
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RE: AVVNA Special Review
DATE: May 17, 1979
This application is for the approval of the FAR bonus for employee housing
in the "0" Office District. The current code amendment allows a .75 to 1
FAR for the permitted uses in the "0" Office District with a bonus of .1 to 1
additional commercial office space when the applicant commits to building
deed restricted employee housing with a .15 to 1 FAR; the entire project would
then have a 1 to 1 FAR.
The applicant proposes to build a 450 square foot studio unit to house
an onsite employee. The Planning Office recommends this unit be restricted to
the low income category (36e/sq. ft. /month maximum rental) and that approval
be given for the bonus FAR.
In addition, the applicant is requesting parking reduction for the office
space (in the "O" Office District, required parking can be reduced from 3 to
1.5 per 1,000 square feet of professional office space). The proposal includes
approximately 1,500 square feet of commercial space and they are requesting
a reduction to providing two off street parking spaces. The project also
includes two dwellings, one of which would be the employee unit. The applicant
is requesting that no parking be provided for the employee unit and because
of the constraints of the site, only one off street parking space be provided
for the additional residence. Under the current code residences within the
"0" Office District shall require one off street parking space per bedroom.
I believe this requirement may only be reduced by the Board of Adjustment as
the dwelling unit proposed would not be deed restricted as employee housing.
MEMORANDUM
70: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RE: Arthur's Restaurant Conditional Use Hearing
DATE: May 17, 1979
.Under current code, an expansion of a conditional use has to apply for
.a new conditional use special review. Arthur's is proposing to expand their
-restaurant by the addition of 2,935 square feet of commercial space and additionally
(under the FAR bonus provision) 1,420 square feet of employee housing space.
The employee housing would be by special review from the bonus FAR.
1. The enlargement of the conditional mse adds approximately 100% to the
existing operation.
There has been one surrounding property owner, Mrs. Harry Weese who
contacted this office and stated her opposition. Her major problem was what
she considered as unsightly trash storage with the current operation and that
she didn't have a desire for this unsightliness to expand.
The Historic Preservation Committee has a hesitancy to take final action
on this project until expansion of the conditional use and special review
approval were granted. They feel they cannot act on the exterior until the
square footages are set by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Rio Grande SPA - Proposed Amendment for Parking
DATE: May 17, 1979
We have recently received a request from the Police Department and City
Manager to examine the possible amending of the Rio Grande SPA plan in order
to accommodate a police impound lot behind the industrial buildings that now
house a number of car repair shops. In order to manage parking downtown and to
keep the area from becoming congested with abandoned or illegally parked cars,
the Police Department has been undertaki.ng a towing program over this past winter
season. What is needed is a place to store the towed cars that is safe from
vandalism and theft in order to keep the cars at a location close to City Hall
where persons may claim their automobiles within a reasonable amount of time.
The City has been using the area as an emergency location for these cars. The
area is currently comprised of landfill and it is elevated above the level of
the Roaring Fork River because of this landfill. It is an area that has been used
-for parking of cars that are to be or which have been repaired.
It is proposed to locate cars here for a period of at least three days when
they could be removed to a more distant parking lot is the cars were not claimed.
The Police would like spaces for approximately 50 cars. The City Manager has
suggested that we try to minimize the number of cars that would be parked in this
location by insuring that cars would be towed to another location after three
days. It has also been suggested that this area could be bermed substantially
enough to hide the cars. The Police have requested a fence that they could lock
for security purposes.
I would like to discuss this looking at the plan preliminarily on Tuesday,
May 22, 1979 and then ask whether the P and Z would set a public hearing for
consideration of amendment to the SPA plan. I would like the P and Z to be
thinking of some of the pros and cons and some of the history of approval of the
SPA. Among the things that occur to us are:
1. The disadvantage is that the lot is proposed for an area currently
zoned Greenway. Within the Greenway are iermitted trails, picnic
areas, passive recreation areas but no building or structures. Parking
and recreation is permitted in the zone immediately to the west
Where the existing parking lot and playfield are located. This
proposal would reduce the Greenway space.
2. On the other hand, with the current topography, the parking can
be located above the river to an extent that persons walking along
that riverfront greenway need not see the cars in the lot, particularly
if they are bermed. There is a chance that these cars could be viewed
from other portions of the Rio Grande property.
3. We will need to check with the City Engineer about the feasibility of
using that as an impound lot over the long term. I understand that
at least some of that fill is intended to be removed for use in the
Mill Street improvements.
4. The site is about the most convenient site among those available to
the City for the impounding of cars which must be removed from the
downtown streets.
cc: Mick Mahoney
Rob McClung
Dave Ellis
HARRY @HUES
chicago washington miami
May 16, 1979
Mr. Charles Collins, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
1301 South Galena Street.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Collins:
As the closest neighbor to the new Arthur's Restaurant, I
object strongly to the expansion of the conditional use
application.
The restaurant as operated is in my opinion a public nuisance.
It has had numerous citations for non - compliance, and although
improvements have been made in illegal exhaust ventilation and
unsanitary conditions, the loading functions spill out on the
public right -of -way with the garbage and trash in full view at
the curb at First Street. The garbage dumpster is at the
curb, and there are various items of cast off furniture,
kitchen equipment and containers as well as hosing down,
cleaning of utensils, scullery noise, cooling traysof food
accessible to dogs, jackanapes of undisciplined help at all
hours, help's vans parked out front for repairs and maintenance.
I would modify my objections in some degree if:
1) Truck loading dock functions were in the alley with
20 ft. setback from property line in vacant lot.
2) The alley view were screened equivalent to the
yellow historic shed now temporarily located across
from Given Institute.
3) No liquor license were allowed.
Sincerely,
H RRY WEESE
Jac: Mr. Jim Reents
architects engineers and
planners for structures urban
design landscape land
planning interiors graphics
product design industry
transportation energy and
ecology (312) 467 -7030
10 west hubbard street
chicago 60610
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: JOLENE VRCHOTA, PLANNING
FROM: DAVE ELLIS, CITY ENGINEERC T _ fL
DATE: May 9, 1979 d
RE: Subdivision Exemption (ZG Builders) -
Lot 38, Filing 1, West Aspen Subdivision
After reviewing this application for exemption, the engineering
department recommends approval. Although we are recommending
approval, there are a few items which we feel should be noted
for the record:
1) From observing the construction it would appear that the
intent is to have a driveway the full width of the two garages.
The maximum width for driveways in the R -15 zone is 18' as
established in Section 19 -101 of the municipal code.
2) The garage floor level is substantially below the street grade.
Precaution should be taken to avoid drainage from the street
into the garage by way of the driveway.
3) Finally, we would suggest that where
that separate water taps be run into
than using a common water tap. This
water service much simpler for both
utility.
jk
cc: Gideon Kaufman'
there is new construction
each duplex unit rather
makes management of the
the owners and the water
P�4CA� 020
Co+wu�c� -tio:
oj Ao 41��c
pa)�4�
LA
ow
U
4,
A
it
q�
1
;i
t. , l.n .'w.,, �I�C .•. x�. N,d r'. !. ���Y...^.r x' _ y .. 4 _-p. .• ._^'o
_ ...+7 q
1
. oil 14
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado; 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 20, 1979
TO: Jolene Vrchota
FROM: Ron Stock
RE: ZG Builders Subdivision Exemption
I have reviewed the application for the above - described sub-
division exemption and I recommend approval subject to the
property being deed restricted to a six -month minimum lease
term with no greater than two shorter tenancies in any
calendar year.
RWS:mc
1
v
r
-2' a !t.' ,*' �", . '
_ . _... ._
/4
��i:114r,
'•�.'+4
1
.
1
1
I
1
s 6
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
FROM
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Request is hereby made on behalf of ZG BUILDERS (here-
inafter referred to as "applicant ") under Section 20 -19 of the
Aspen, Colorado, subdivision regulations for exemption from the
term "subdivision" with respect to the real property described
as Lot 38, Filing 1, West Aspen Subdivision, City of Aspen,
Colorado. It is submitted that an exemption in the case would
be appropriate.
The application involves subdivision of a duplex under
construction. A subdivision of one (1) lot with a duplex on it
creates conditions whereby strict compliance with the subdivision
regulations would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use
of its land. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the
property will have interest in the land; and there will be a
condominium declaration applicable to the property which will
not in any way increase the land use impact of the property.
An exemption in this case will not conflict with the intent and
the purpose of the subdivision regulations which are directed
to assist the. orderly, efficient and integrated development of
the City of Aspen, to insure the proper distribution of
population, to coordinate the need for public services and to
encourage well planned subdivision.
The granting of this application will not undermine the
intent of the subdivision regulations, as it is clearly within
the area intended for exemption under Section 20 -19. The
building is already in existence, and there will be no charge
in density which is presently in line with the desired populatior
density for the property.
In addition, this application does not include property
that would come under the purview of Ordinance 39. This duplex
has never been within the low, moderate and middle- income
housing pool that is of primary concern to the city. Each side
has a value of approximately four hundred fifty thousand dollars
($450,000.00). The structure is brand new and has not as yet
been issued a CO.
In the event additional information is necessary, I will
be happy to supply it.
The applicant would appreciate your consideration of
this application at your next regular meeting.
Dated: April 11, 1979.
eon Ka man
Attorney for ZG BUILDERS
-2-
i
y
oMOPeRD mmtsmIND Co.. DENVER
RECORD
O F
P R O C
E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning
and
Zoning
Commission April 10, 1979
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on April 10, 1979,
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, E
iielton Anderson, Olaf Hedstrom and Nancy McDonnell. Also present were Karen Smith
and Richard Grice of the Planning Office and Mayor Stacy Standley.
PMH Housing and Mayor Standley was present to
Transferable P &Z. He said the idea of TDR
Density Rights County explored about five ye�
to drop consideration because
to adopt it. The adoption of
of TDRs more workable.
introduce this item to the
is something the City and
3rs ago but the County had
they must wait for the state
the GMP made the concept
Based on a survey of tourists, most prefer lodge accommo-
dations but choose a condo because of the state of many
of the lodges in Aspen. Most developers opt to build
condo units because of the profit and management advantages.
He stated his concern for the increasing number of employees
that must move downvalley to continue to work in Aspen.
This effects the attitude of the employees and the town.
He noted the location of the lodges in question on a map.
Most of these lodges are nonconforming in their zones and
cannot do extensive repair and renovation. Most of these
lodges are located out of the lodge districts and are not
easily accessible to the commercial core.
He gave an example of how the concept would work: a twenty
unit lodge which is worth roughly $600,000 would be bought
for $300,000(the land remains with the owner) and the
owner would receive 10 TDRS($30,000 /unit divided into the
replacement cost of $300,000). These TDRs are exempt from
GMP and can be used by the developer or sold to another.
The city gains these units as employee housing and the
developer gains tourist accommodations. Standley noted
that Hans Cantrup presently has two lodges that he is
willing to trade with this system and the city would gain
this employee housing. Standley noted that these TDRs
could be sold one by one by the developer if he wishes.
Collins asked if this would increase the density in the
tourist zone. Smith said yes but not above the allowed
FAR. Standley said he estimated 12 -14 lodges that could
use this tradeoff. He noted that some would need to install
kitchens and most would need some renovation.
Hedstrom said he liked the way it scattered employee housing
through the community instead of one big employee housing I
project.
Hedstrom moved to endorse with enthusiastic approval the
PMH and TDR proposal contained in the memorandum of March
30 and request the Planning Office to advise the commission
on these questions: 1) Can the proposal be implemented
without additional legislation, 2) Is there a proposal on
the mechanics of doing so, Anderson seconded. All in favor,
motion approved.
Master Plan, Anderson moved to table the Master Plan on Roaring Fork
Roaring Fork East East and Buttermilk areas, McDonnell seconded. All in favor,'
and Buttermilk Areas motion approved.
Victorian Square Grice introduced the application. Garfield and Hecht wish
Condominiumization, to condominiumize the offices with no rental units :involved.
Subdivision City Engineering has no problem with the application and
Ezemption recommend approval without condition. The City Attorney
and Planning office concur.
-2-
6
Hedstrom moved to recommend exemption from the subdivision
regulations the proposed condominiumization of the Victoria
Square Office Building inasmuch as the purposes and intents
of the regulations have been satisfied and there will be
no increase in density and no residential units involved, g
Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Buckwheat Subdivision Grice introduced the application. He noted that the public
Preliminary Plat hearing was opened and closed at the last meeting. The
proposal is to split this parcel into two pieces, one which
would contain the eight unit Buckwheat apartments and the
other parcel would be 6,028 square feet and contains an i
existing single family dwelling. No additional development
rights would accrue from this subdivision. The owner wishes
to sell the single family residence to the occupant. i
Grice noted that the Water Department claims no responsi-
bility for the six inch service line which connects to the
trunk line. The Fire Marshal feels an additional fire ;
hydrant will be necessary. The City Engineering Department
has five conditions suggested for approval. The Planning
Office recommends approval subject to the conditions
requested by the various departments.
Hedstrom moved to grant approval of the preliminary plat
submission of the Buckwheat Subdivision subject to the
following conditions: 1) the.installation of a fire hydrant
as requested by the Fire Marshal, 2) the acknowledgement
of responsibility for the six inch service line connecting
the two buildings to the Aspen Metro Sanitation trunk line,
3) satisfaction of the City Engineer's five problems con- j
tained in his memorandum of April 2, 1979, McDonnell Ij
seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Downtown Nolan Rosall of Gage Davis and Associates was present to I
Beautification, deliver a slide presentation on the proposed Mall expansion
Mall Expansion and the Downtown Beautification proposal.
Program
Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, McDonnell seconded.
All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.j
DMAD ,,,,,,,,L„ „, „aCO..CKHVWR RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
(d) For sites or areas located in the R -40 zone the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 20,000
sq. ft., unless one -half or more of the dwelling
units constructed on said site or area are deed
restricted within the terms of Section
24- 10.4(b)(3) then the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be 10,000 sq. ft.
(e) For sites or areas located in the RMF, CC, S /C /I,
C -1, L -1, L -2 or CL zones the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1,000 sq. ft. for a studio; for lots greater
than 9,000 -sq. ft., 1,250 sq. ft. for a one
bedroom, 2,100 sq. ft. for a two bedroom; and
3,630 sq. ft. for a three bedroom; for lots of
9,000 sq. ft. or less, 1,200 sq. ft. for a one
bedroom, 2,000 sq. ft. for a two bedroom, and
3,000 sq. ft. for a three bedroom; and for a
unit with more than three bedrooms or with two
baths or more the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be established by special
review.
If one -half or more of the dwelling units
constructed on said site or area are deed
restricted within the terms of Section 24- 10.4(b)
(3) then the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
shall be as follows:
500 sq. ft. for a studio; for lots greater
than 9,000 sq. ft., 625 sq. ft. for a one
bedroom,1,050 sq..ft. for a two bedroom, and
1,815 sq. ft. for a three bedroom; for lots of
9,000 sq. ft. or less, 600 sq. ft. for a one
bedroom,1,000 sq. ft. for a two bedroom,and
1,500 sq. ft. for a three bedroom; and for a
unit with more than three bedrooms or with two
baths or more the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be established by special
review.
(f) For sites or areas located in the RR zone the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be 2
acres, unless one -half or more of the dwelling
units constructed on said site or area are deed
restricted within the terms of Section
24- 10.4(b)(3) then the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be 1 acre.
(g) For sites or areas located in the 0 zone the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be as
follows exclusive of accessory dwelling units:
6,000 sq. ft. for a single family, 3,000 sq.
ft. for a deplex, with all other dwelling
units as follows: 1,000 sq. ft. for a studio;
for lots greater than 9,000 sq. ft., 11250 sq.
ft. for a one bedroom, 2,100 sq. ft. for a two
bedroom, and 3,630 sq. ft. for a three
bedroom; 'for lots of 9,000 sq. ft. or less,
11200 sq. ft. for a one bedroom, 2,000 sq. ft.
for a -two bedroom, and 3,000 sq. ft. for a
three bedroom; and for a unit with more than
three bedrooms or with two baths or more the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be
established by special review.
., "WoCo.•,.„,,.M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
If one -half or more of the dwelling units
constructed on said site or area are deed
restricted within the terms of Section
24.10.4(b)(3) then the minimum lot area per
dwelling unit shall be as follows exclusive of
accessory dwelling units:
3,000 sq. ft. for a single family, 1,500 sq.
ft. for a duplex, with all other dwelling
units as follows: 500 sq. ft. for a studio;
for lots greater than 9,000 sq. ft., 625 sq.
ft. for a one bedroom,1,050 sq. ft. for a two
bedroom,and 1,815 sq. ft. for a three bedroom;
for lots of 9,000 sq. ft. or less, 600 sq. ft.
for a one bedroom, 1,000 sq. ft. for a two
bedroom, and 11500 sq. ft. for a three
bedroom; and for a unit with more than three
bedrooms or with two baths or more the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit shall be
established by special review.
Section 24 -9 1/2.6 Application for Housing Overlay District
(a) An owner of a site or area in the City of Aspen
may apply for inclusion of such site or area within
a Housing Overlay District.
(b) An application for inclusion of such site or area
within a Housing Overlay District must be
accompanied by two copies of a proposed site plan
prepared by an architect, landscape architect,
engineer, land surveyor, or planner. The plan
shall include the following:
(1) Materials described under Section 24 -8.7 of
the Municipal Code.
(2) The total number of dwelling units proposed
for the site categorized by proposed type,
square footage, number of bedrooms and batns,
construction method, probable construction
cost, probable sale price or monthly rental,
type of project financing, and marketing
program; the name and experience of the
proposed developer; evidence of the
construction method, quality and cost, and
sales or rental costs of prior projects; and,
evidence of the performance bondability of the
developer.
Section 24 -9 1/2.7. Procedure for Designation of Housing
Overlay District.
A Housing Overlay District shall be designated in
accordance with the provisions for rezoning as outlined
in Section 11 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code,
provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
not hold a public hearing as provided in Section 24 -11.5
nor shall there be a limitation on when an application
may be submitted.
i
,
R
,, BLTS,,,„, Co., e.„,,.,, RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Section 24 -9 1/2.8. Standards.
Sites or areas may be included within the Housing
Overlay District provided the City Council shall find
that the proposed development is appropriate for the
neighborhood considering architectural design, bulk and
density.
Section 2
Of any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance
which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
Section 3
That a public hearing
Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
hearing notice of the sale
of general circulation wit
on this ordinance be held on
1979, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which
shall be published once in a' newspaper
hin the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held on the day of , 1979•
Stacy Stan ley III
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
,,,0 "mo PUBLI.HING CO., ,w"m RECORD O F P R O C E E D I N G S
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of
, 1979.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
-4
1
�wwowe,L mzwmC Co., oµ...
RECORD
O F
P R O C
E E D I N G S
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning
and
Zoning
Commission April 3, 1979
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on April 3, 1979
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins,
John Schuhmacher, Olaf Hedstrom, Nancy McDonnell and Welton Anderson. Also
- present were Karen Smith, Joe Wells and Richard Grice of the Planning Office,
City Attorney Ronald Stock and Assistant City Engineer Dan McArthur.
Approval of Minutes Anderson moved to approve the minutes of March 6, March 13,
and March 20, 1979, as amended, McDonnell seconded. All
in favor, motion approved. Hedstrom abstained from voting.
Aspen Institute Collins submitted a memo to the P &Z stating nine reasons
why he did not feel the Institute is ready for further
consideration by the commission at this time (memo in
public hearing file in City Clerk's Office). He asked for
the opinions of the commission members who supported his
memo.
Schuhmacher moved to table the Aspen Institute application
indefinately, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion
approved.
Wells supported the motion to table the application because
he did not feel the Planning Office had received adequate
information from the Institute. He asked for guidance in
the separation of the application..
Andy Hecht, attorney for the
with tabling the application
it indefinately.
applicants, had no problem
unless the commission tabled
Code Amendment
Anderson moved to adopt Resolution #3, 1979, as presented
Trash Access
by the Planning Office, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor,
Resolution
motion approved. Schuhmacher abstained from voting.
Employee Housing
Hedstrom moved that the commission go on record supporting
Unit Parking
the proposed code amendment regarding employee housing
Requirement
parking requirements as written in the Planning Office
memorandum of March 29, 1979, and request the Planning
Office to prepare a resolution for amendment to Section
24- 4.1(c) and set a.public hearing on the proposed amend-
ment, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Buckwheat
Collins opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Preliminary Plat
Collins closed the public hearing.
Public Hearing
Hedstrom moved'to table the Buckwheat Preliminary Plat to
the April 17 meeting, McDonnell seconded. All in favor,
motion approved.
Kuen Fourplex
Grice introduced the application. The Planning Office
Subdivision
recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined
.Exemption
by the City Attorney and the City Engineering Department.
Hedstrom moved to recommend approval of the subdivision
exemption for the condominiumization of the Kuen Fourplex
located on East Cooper Avenue between Original and West
End Streets subject to the 400 square foot single bedroom
unit being deed restricted for a period of five years to
the price occupancy guidel =nes under the PMH ordinance
(price guidelines adopted by City Council) and the other
three units being restricted to six month minimum leases
and no more than two shorter tenancies in any calendar year
and further subject to the four recommendations of the
Assistant City Engineer in his memo of March 23, 1979,
McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Helmich Grice introduced the application. The Planning Office
Subdivision recommends approval subject to the revision and resubmittal
Exemption of the improvement survey as outlined to the satisfaction
-2
of the City Engineering Department and subject to the
conditions suggested by the City Attorney.
Hedstrom moved to recommend subdivision exemption for
the purpose of condominiumization of the Helmich duplex
located on Lot 28, Filing 1, Nest Aspen Subdivision, subject)
to the following requirements; the property be deed restric -'
ted to a six month minimum lease and no more than two
shorter tenancies in any calendar year, at least one unit
be deed restricted to the price and occupancy limits of
Ordinance 39 for five years and revision and resubmittal of
the improvement survey including the items itemized by the
Engineering Department in the Planning office memorandum
of March 28, 1979, McDonnell seconded. All in favor,
motion approved. li
Schuhmacher moved to adjourn the meeting, Anderson seconded.
All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM
�J/Lf .�/Oi171�
Shery V i.mmen, Deputy City Clerk
-&L-A-,
60,44-L.--Yx ouk. s
C- pie pptc--
wk", t
0/0 tl4q� �w
P ® 196X 9 '7 /
Oo6
009. eeX' %3 4
6, SAIVI
6, SAIVI
� 0 v7 / iZ
0Q ,
162!� A PEA
,�?/s Gr/� �,,
n4-,O,� / elt,� , JO,� -x
0( ; �.
✓F- ®. 6 CX 3/0 %
is -7y
17
"""Z A/O .
/�/� / ✓,� ado
pia -7y
tom.K
66 A P
1,0
"d
l° /3d2e� Af
6.
�. �� XD
kc C g
bJ� , 3 / S�L,coJ .
P ® I3
/ � % LJe-a
/a vi
��-�,
oeo 61�?,?l
117�
zi�ii
F. 6f2. /o/
Zx�
O: 6). tg6�r y�P'
1.",16 sZ;l
h! is -7y SEC � �� � .�
6 /o„��2c�r° ii �j�� C� �r�,�2�,� � dao/
- GCd ��-� Gv
i.� � iZa d�
C�i�'- Cve �i�i�
C
Mrs. Donald Saunders
231 Encino Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78209
rT
wov<d
tie
c�
CA 4tll
_
7U �
^ CIO d
Q U.� ��J �
�
u�a
vx
a�
October 5, 1476
Mr. Hal Clark
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to recommend approval of the changes requested by
Arthur's Restaurant.
This neighborhood has missed the convenience of a nearby restaurant
and looks forward to its re- opening,
Respectfully,
P
/' R
`,V &)4?r
ASPEN /PIT
130 s
aspe
K ng Department
,� : street
0
�.k i 16 11
FOR FILE: Arthur's Restaurant
Conditional Use Granted by Planning and Zoning Commission, October 19, 1976.
Subject to Plans on File for Remodel and Parking - 6 spaces.
owl ..IN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Arthur's Restaurant Expansion - Conditional Use Hearing
DATE: October 1, 1976
This is a request by David Morse (represented by Architect Welton
Anderson) for conditional use approval of an expansion to Arthur's
Restaurant. The proposal would add significant kitchen space to
the existing kitchen, add four (4) dining tables to the existing
capacity of 18 tables; add six (6) off - street parking spaces (none
exist now); and add improvements to reduce non - conformance with
building and sanitation code requirements. A remodel plan will be
presented to the members at your meeting.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. Restaurants are a conditional use in the Office
zone in designated historic buildings. As such,
an expansion requires conditional use compliance.
2. A restaurant has existed on this site for an
extensive period. The remodel does not significantly
increase the capacity of the restaurant, and
does provide basic improvements to the facility
such as off -site parking; building and sanitation
code improvements; and general refurbishing.
3. State laws prohibits:a liquor license for Arthur's
due to its proximity to the Middle School. This
fact tends to reduce the amount of late hour use
of the restaurant.
The building is in process of receiving historic
designation. At first reading before Council of
the ordinance designating the building as historic
will be October 6, 1976.
We anticipate designation approval by Council on
October 12.
The Planning Office recommends tabling of the request
until your October 19 meeting. We support granting
the expansion request.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FORMERLY WESTERNER
P. O. BOX 1756 PHONE 303 - 9253822
Sept. 28, 1976
51r. Hal Clark
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Box V
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the notice in regard to the upgrading and improving Arthurs
Restaurant.
Almost daily our guests request information about a nearby place to eat.
Most of them prefer to walk, many of our guests are elderly and have had
to reluctantly use a car to drive closer to the downtown area for their
meals.
Arthur's Restaurant is just two short blocks from us, and we strongly re-
commend you allow the necessary improvements to make possible the upgrad-
ing of a much needed family eating place.
L IiThae
se
Owner
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Welton Anderson
Planning Office
Arthur's Restaurant
September 30, 1976
The following schedule is enclosed for your use on the procedures
for approval of a building permit for Arthur's Restaurant.
October 6 Special meeting with City Council
first reading of the ordinance
(emergency status) designating the building as a
historic building.
October 12 Council's second reading of the
ordinance. Effective immediately.
October 19 Continuance of Conditional Use
Public Hearing - P & Z action.
October 26 HPC - Final application and public
hearing (notice published on October
7 - submitted to Times on October 6.)
xc: Stacy Standley
ill Kane
,Bill Clark
Sandy Stuller
CITY � ®F 'ASPEN
130 south galen' street
aspen, colorado, 81611
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on
October 26, 1976, at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers before
the Historic Preservation Committee to consider the final applica-
tion for historic designation of Arthur's Restaurant. The prop-
erty is located at 132 W. Main St., Block 57, Lots K through L,
Aspen Townsite, Aspen, Colorado.
A copy of the application may be examined in the office of
the City /County Planner during normal working hours.
/s/ Margie Wilson
Deputy City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times October 7,- 1976.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Aruthur's Restaurant - Conditional Use
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on October
5, 1976 at 5:15 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
in Council Chambers, City Hall, to consider the request for expansion
of Arthur's Restaurant located on Lots K -L, Block 57, Aspen Townsite.
Restaurants are a conditional use in the Office zone and as such an
expansion of the existing restaurant requires a conditional use hearing
and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A copy of the request may be examined in the Asepn /Pitkin Planning
Office during normal working hours.
C. welton anderson
architect
box 9946
aspen, solo. 81611
(303) 925 -4576
Hal Clark
Planning Office
Rer Arthur's Restaurant
Dear Hal,
15 September 1976
Attached please find conceptual sketches for renovations
of Arthur's Restaurant on Main Street.
As you know, Arthur's has changed hands three times in the
last two years for various reasons. The Health Department
has long objected to inadequate restroom facilities and
unsanitary and unsafe conditions in the kitchen. There are
of course various points which do not comply with the new
exit and handicapped requirements of the Uniform Building
Code. At present there is also no off - street parking.
The new owners of Arthur's wish to alleviate the problems
mentioned above, and to greatly upgrade and renovate the old
Victorian inside and outs including new siding and paint,
carpet, drapes, wallpaper, and an old -style stamped tin
coffered ceiling.. Proposed also is a ramp for wheelchairs
to conform frith Uniform Building Code Section 33 -Ai an
extended front entry porch(Section 3303), a second exitwaa
(Section 33 -A), and new rebtrooms to conform to Sections 1105
and 1711 and Environmental Health Standards.
This upgrading will be consistent with the spirit of the
proposed Historic district on Main Street., and provide a top
quality restaurant within walking distance of the many
lodges in this area not now served. All of this upgrading
will of course cost money. To offset some of the cost of
bringing the restaurant up to standards, an increase in the
seating capacity of 4 tables is proposed over the existing
capacity of 18 tables. Six new off street parking spaces
will be provided with the removal of the burned -out shed
behind Arthur's, and we are attempting to negotiate a lease
with the adjacent property owner to provide the two spaces
additionally required by Ordinance 11.
The owners of Arthur's plan to continue the traditional Arthur's
breakfast,menu, and to serve a first class Chinese dinner in
the evenings.. State law prohLbits a liquor ]irense because of its
proximity to schools.
Let me stress the need for prompt action by the Historic
Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission
on this application. Arthur's cannot reopen with the old
kitchen and bathrooms, and if the new facilities cannot be
provided before the Winter Season, I am afraid it may never
reopen. Arthur's has gone downhill physically in the last
few years, but with the approval of the proper committees
we can turn this around.
Please schedule the application for Arthur's Restaurant for
the next meeting.
Sincerely,
/ - yf + ♦ L 1/
V
1 '
M
ti v.
�fL�S
- S �J,'
�7
_ 13 . T
L- S
L- s
D=
� ilND2�
/f
je-'.Iml
Jet91);L
LrW�S V,CZwz, �� Z2 6E
Q P�Akon'1
6i-'( 32 90
C B C
.14 F
/4—
J�. W. LU,1,1as
tD15 G(11LSG /U FA;LL/A;i5 ;,r
- -C I ct4c &Rs PE LUGLr - 3 rifir 6�wvc S���c�rc / 21 p�
i7
N1CK � Delcre5
qc(3-
- rs 5) i(o
t
L/ETTL.LGij rvt�
�YE'da
-34tc` rcffc�,jo<
}� /c tifcc'�
� c{ti1 C{ei.S X /VIOYi?J)'d
/,ic'�
%U - L7/ EA,ClA)&
4(.IE -/ S..4p ^,TDA1i0 / .- ".7X,AS
C
11 SlC�� JGHAu a JR.
- 2�'`; i �c n�
j/«r��f?��- Idt" -, ec. C,C
l4�-f
(Ul�i �, Louis
' bnitVii€
i
k �J v Arl f7 €ti ! rD Lrti - ,v 175c
/
16
F" � E7 lLQG4;�:3rvl • CCA/2�./1�_ - '��-`f 2Q og
,
G� •�J �+1i5y1ctr��� Ou", /-74) �rpr7rl /fix
0 U / IC, /"0'ZLJ �tD rs `-v 6P 7
P-� TL;aVeC-_ f,r-v zf5 80
1C 43(0
Sic %.tti SC'l�;vl
D; s,2�114 AJo. (f . )Zf
� r cs- £ /,j 5
,
"D pi,c.v�';55, C�p�ruc%OC�2(1 �'11/
i� -No lis'-,,c�a -u�T� iLvSS 'l
•l�cs3t SR
,1 — m Llllt (Z(r r'R1 '1Cr1� C It�C 9 WiL�r�,IZEP�i�nS iie I�}��1jcslkc;cl�� �Jc
�j'G�ti�/ C 4 / �`/rrr1 S JJc�vY c�` - i�c y 27 g7
7 5 t lqk`' L.d9 - ��'� 8� •7-7
j /ail ,7a L - P5a� 10 l
jLA, C - nc Anp ss
i L � - lej
t
Public Notice
street
81611
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that a public hearing will be held
before the Historic Preservation Committee on Octo-
ber 26, 1976, at 1:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,
City Hall, to review the restoration for restaurant
use of Arthur's Restaurant. The restaurant is located
at 132 W. Main Street, Block 58, Lots K and L.
A copy of the plans can be examined in the City /County
Planning Office during normal working hours.
/s/ Margie Wilson
Deputy City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times October 7, 1976.
CITI
130 so
aspen,
PUBLIC NOTICE
PEN
street
81611
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on
October 26, 1976, at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers before
the Historic Preservation Committee to consider the final applica-
tion for historic designation of Arthur's Restaurant. The prop-
erty is located at 132 W. Main St., Block 57, Lots K through L,
Aspen Townsite, Aspen, Colorado.
A copy of the application may be examined in the office of
the City /County Planner during normal working hours.
/s/ Margie Wilson
Deputy City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times October 7, 1976.
�.Y
dra v r v rJ
101 W. Main Street, Aspen, Colo. 81611
October 18, 1976
Hal Clark
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Sir:
We Have many guests who have missed the convenience of Arthur's
restaurant. Therefore, we would hope approval is given for the
new kitchen in order for the restaurant to re -open this coming
season.
pk /JF
Sincerely,
Joseph Fiumara
Manager
October 18, 1976
Hal Clark
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Sir:
In reply to your notice regarding the extension of Arthur's
I would like to go on record in support of approval.
Sincerely,
/3toC�/ 5-/ Z,tC q +/ ct, /ZC� S
JON DAVID SEIGLE
ASSOCIATE
BRUCE KISTLER
LAWYER
P. O. BOX 3107
212 SOUTH HUNTER STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Hal Clark
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Hal:
0
October 18, 1976
TELEPHONE:
303- 825 -1037
Regarding the notification for a hearing concerning
Arthur's Restaurant kitchen expansion, I would like to
voice my recommendation for approval.
Si cerely,
Bruce Kistler
BK:11
1144L
ilsfw» , C Z&nf1.-
a.d A44„, 3t. ( /3s W.✓ �y.•i,, cG�nctl�►
G�a►.e�+ yh sw. Stint f t -o++�- i4 ft'� . I�oa„�G�.,�c
1 W 1 s4
ym� T�
PUBLIC NOTICE
Aruthur's Restaurant - Conditional Use
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on October
5, 1976 at 5:15 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
in Council Chambers, City Hall, to consider the request for expansion
of Arthur's Restaurant located on Lots K -L, Block 57, Aspen Townsite.
Restaurants are a conditional use in the Office zone and as such an
expansion of the existing restaurant requires a conditional use hearing
and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A copy of the request may be examined in the Asepn /Pitkin Planning
Office during normal working hours.
len/Pilkigmning Office
130 s street
aspen, 81611
pF 10
- rv-
MG;;c ME1,N AX
1�;N��SZp
Aspen/Pitk' nning Office
130s street zvD
aspen 81611
ko Wa field &
rqe VIcenzi
adow Lake Lane
s on, Texas 77027
Nick & Delor Gust
Box 3796
Aspen, Co rado 81611
October 5, 1976
Mr. Hal Clark
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr, Clark:
I have received the notice regarding the enlargement and improvement
of Arthur's Restaurant and wish to voice my enthusiastic approval
of this action. In this neighborhood we have all missed a good
place to eat, especially for breakfast.
We need Arthur's and look forward to its early re- opening.
Sincerely,
Ql--Qe-
Qctober 5, 1976
Mr, Hal Clark
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Hal:
I have the notice about Arthur's re-opening and enlargement. Please
regard this as my complete approval of this step. We are all very
used to Arthur's in this neighborhood and always found it a great
convenience and a good place to eat.
Hope this does not get tangled up with red tape so we have to wait
a year to have Arthur's back with us.
Sincerely,
C. welton anderson
Architect
box 9946
aspen, colo. 81611
(303) 925 -4576
Hal Clark
Planning Office
Ret. Arthur's Restaurant
Dear Hal.
15 September 1976
Attached please find conceptual sketches for renovations
of Arthur's Restaurant on Main Street.
As you know, Arthur's has changed hands three times in the
last two years for various reasons. The Health Department
has long objected to inadequate restroom facilities and
unsanitary and unsafe conditions in the kitchen. There are
of course various points which do not comply with the new
exit and handicapped requirements of the Uniform Building
Code. At present there 1s also no off - street parking.
The new owners of Arthur's wish to alleviate the problems
mentioned above, and to greatly upgrade and renovate the old
Victorian inside and out= including new siding and paint,
carpet, drapes, wallpaper. and an old -style stamped tin
coffered ceiling.. Proposed also is a ramp for wheelchairs
to conform With Uniform Building Code Section 33 -Al an
extended front entry porch(Section 3303)0 a second exitwa:?
(Section 33 -A). and new restrooms to conform to Sections 1105
and 1711 and Environmental Health Standards.
This upgrading will be consistent with the spirit of the
proposed Historic District on Main Street, and provide a top
quality restaurant within walking distance of the many
lodges in this area not now served. All of this upgrading
will of course cost money. To offset some of the cost of
bringing the restaurant up to standards, an increase in the
seating capacity of 4 tables is proposed over the existing
capacity of 18 tables. Six new off street parking spaces
will be provided with the removal of the burned -out shed
behind Arthur's, and we are attempting to negotiate a lease
with the adjacent property owner to provide the two spaces
additionally required by Ordinance 11.
The owners of Arthur's plan to continue the traditional Arthur's
breakfast menu, and to serve a first class Chinese dinner in
the evenings. state law prohibits a liquor license because of its
proximity to schools. -
Let me stress the need for prompt action by the Historic
Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission
on this application. Arthur's cannot reopen with the old
kitchen and bathrooms, and if the new facilities cannot be
provided before the Winter Season, I am afraid it may never
reopen. Arthur's has gone downhill physically In the last
few years, but with the approval of the proper committees
we can turn this around.
Please schedule the application for Arthur's Restaurant for
the next meeting.
Sincerely.
W W &