Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.iz.Apex Building.1973 LARRY DES & ASSOCTIVFES architects and planners October 30, 1973 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Members : Attached are revised plans for the Sherman property located in the central core of the City of Aspen. These plans are rough design studies which incorporate Lots G, H, I, 0, P, Q, R and S of Block 94, City of Aspen. As you know, the original building complex, de- signed for Lots G, H, and I, was denied approval under Ordinance 19 several months ago. We have spent a great deal of time, working with the Planning Department, revising our original concepts in order to comply with your vision for the future of the central core area. The new plans incorporate all of the lots controlled by the owner as per your desire and are intended to establish area, bulk, and density parameters for your perusal. The Planning Department has recommended a hotel use for this property. The buildings, as now envisioned, cover 8,121 square feet which leaves 33% open space as opposed to 25% open space in the previous plans. The density has been reduced by 36.8%. The location of the structures has been placed per the recommendation of the Planning Department. There are three buildings, the tallest (five stories) being laced nearest the Elk Building. The second structure (two stories) , which will house all facilities and public access, is envisioned as a con- necting structure between two structures which will be hotel rooms only. The third building which is adjacent to Hunter Street is three stories, ill keeping with the existing structures at that end of the lot area. The entire design has been implemented in such a way that it will protect the visual continuity of the area and not overwhelm existing structures. Codes have been adhered to and the buildings do not interfere with existing view plains. While it would not be economically feasible to reduce the number of units for a hotel oper- ation the basic design concept can be altered should the Planning and Zoning Commission feel that the five story/three story set-up is not desireable. -continued- parlour"l3'•the brand building•p.o.box 3900•aspen,colorado 81611.303-925-3390 Planning & Zoning Commission -2- October 30, 1973 The design is geared to implement the current city transportation plans. The two-story central entrance is designed to encourage the pedestrian oriented mall plans for Hyman Street and the owners will purchase parking from the City and provide a shuttle from both the airport and the City parking lot for guests and employees alike. In order to receive financing for such a vast project it is necessary to provide potential parking within the limits of the lot area and the building is designed in such a way that parking can be provided on the site should the transportation goals for the City change in the future. Access for the shuttle system has been provided through the alley, thus further implementing the desire for pedestrian oriented traffic only on Hyman and Hunter Streets. The area behind the Hunter/Hopkins structure could be used for additional vehicular access in the future should the desires of the City be amended. We feel this plan best ties in with the existing circulation system in the central core area. The plan calls for a total of 116 hotel units (including 4 suites) and 30 units to accomodate employees approximately. It will be a full- service hotel providing "old world ' accomodations for its guests. While it is obvious that any increase in tourist accomodations could put a further burden on the already bulging seams in Aspen, it is just as obvious that proper accomodations which fill a need will allieviate rather than promote congestion. There is only one true hotel existing in Aspen now. Visitors should be given the opportu- nity to choose this form of lodging. The hotel business is a dying art which needs to be revived. We can provide the kind of service and facilities which can be a tremendous asset to the community without adding any further complications to the community' s current problems. We look forward to discussing these plans and working with you to implement a final design which will enhance the plans for the future of Aspen. Sin.c9y you s, GL / arry Wind- 1.711--,NORAW, A TO: City of Aspen, Building Inspector FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning SUBJECT: Apex Building - Ordinance 19 Disapproval or Conceptual Presentation DATE : Sr-p:_etibor 25 , 1.973 At its meest; IE.: on September 18 , 1973 the Planning Commission denied application for the. Apex Building under Ordinance 19 3 : Viej4 based on the following considerationF : 1. Lot coverage excessive at proposed location. 2, heighr and hufl C.XCCEsirEl at proposed location. 3, Coneion of addition,-1 use and traffic excessive in teinA.:, of existing circulation systeJ,, 4. /4-11'n.Lzes lard use according to e>_isting zoning now the subject of reconsidcfation by the P 6'; Z and found excessive for the site. 50 Historic Preservation Ce=ittee recommendation find- ings on the pro-lc:et : a) "Overvelming in terms of size, bulk and scale ithot would dwarf the private homes on the north and west of the property. " b) Exterior design riot complementary to historic core area . 6 . The Commission' s need to evaluate development plans for the entire ow-nership in this critical cent ral area 3 oc ati on Cl \ Aspen Planning Commission DATE: ( cc : Sherman 6: Co. CITY C7 ASPEN aspen ,cQ ch '` c o, emu box v December 6, 1973 Ute Village Condos Riverview Condos Sherman Hotel FOLLOWING LETTER SENT TO THE ABOVE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS Dear Pursuant to the request of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the Aspen City Council at its November 26th meeting authorized the immediate employment of an urban economist to analyze the economic impact of yours and similar projects and to test the validity of and impact of the master plan (updated) land use recommendations. These developments result in procedural dilemmas under the provisions of Ordinance 19, most particularly section I.D. which requires action within 30 days of an applicant' s presentation. We are planning to request all tabled applicants to make their presentations at the 12-11-73 meeting for the benefit of the anticipated economic study. However, it is apparent that any well reasoned and complete analysis cannot be returned within the 30 day period. Consequently, we are requesting voluntary with- drawal (without prejudice) or tabling of your project pending the outcome of the city sponsored economic impact report. Please advise us if you will be prepared to make your presentation in December 11th and how you would like to proceed at that time. Very truly yours , Donna Baer Planning Office i 'r(a � 4� Specia � Meeting - Aspen Planning & Zoning December 11 , 1973 Sherman Hotel Larry Windes and Randy Weedum were present representing the developer for the Sherman Hotel. Windes explained that the Commission had requested that they give a comparison of their present proposal to what was pre viously allowed. Windes explained that they had done a comparison based on existing projects , related the total density above grade and the density per lot, and compared the percentage of open space. • Chairman Adams questioned the applicant as to how they could justify this much density. Windes explained that they were relating this to the commer- cial core from information received from the Planning Office. Weedum stated that the developer must have so many rooms to make the project economically feasible. Vidal stated that previously, the Commission had stated that it felt there must be a reason why hotel rooms were not being built. Agreed that size and volume relates to full-service hotel. Further stated that he is not bothered by the number of rooms if the massing of the project is satisfactory. Woulc: like to see some new accommodations of that type in the com- mercial. area. Stated that his concern is with view corridors • and massing. Jenkins stated that he agreed with Vidal , basically. Stated his concern was with the collection of lots and the destruc- tion of existing buildings. Chairman Adams stated that he would object to any increase in tourist beds due to the lack of information as far as the transportation system is concerned. Stated he did not want a project of this size until after the transportation pro- blem is answered. Windes pointed out that Sherman had agreed to provide a shut- tle service in lieu of guests driving cars . Jenkins stated that no matter where you build the hotel , the people are going to go where they want to ski . Stated that Aspen needs a corresponding increase in tourists to the in- crease in permanent resident housing. Felt this was the best place to put tourists . Chairman Adams pointed out that they have not been able to relate the number of beds to how much the transportation sys- tem would cost. Does not feel that the Commission should make a decision on a project of this size until that cost is arrived at. Jenkins again stated that the Commission should determine how large they would like Aspen to become. Need to estab- lish a goal and then zone for that goal . Vidal explained that housing reacts to a demand, and that skiing creates a demand. Stated that if Aspen al .l-ows the skiing facilities to expand, let the community respond to that expansion with other facilities . E i- i t l '- Ii Special Meeting AspenPlanning & Zoning December 11 , 1973 Jenkins stated that he didn ' t feel Aspen was obligated to provide housing for everyone who wants to live here. Vidal stated that if the Commission wants to limit growth, should limit the expansion of ski areas. Windes explained that they felt a need exists for a first class hotel in Aspen . Windes submitted a model of the pro- ject in order to provide an idea of the size and density. Weedum pointed out to the Commission that one floor of one of the buildings is to be employee housing. Vidal pointed out that the Commission had previously indi- cated that there could be a trade-off between commercial space and hotel space. Further stated that he was in favor of a pitched roof over a square roof . Ute Village Ed Baker, of. the Alpine Land Company of Denver was present Condominiums ` to make the presentation. Baker stated that this was a request for 77 units, with a • mixture of condominiums, apartments , and two single-family dwellings . Further stated that of these 77 units, there would be 43 townhouses, with a mixture of 2 , 3 and 4 bedrooms . Also 14 patio houses and 2 single family dwellings and 18 apartments. Baker stated that most recent zoning allows 29 units per acre, but they are proposeing just slightly over 10 units per acre. Baker further stated that 220 of the project is devoted to lower cost housing. Further pointed out that there is an 8" sanitary sewer 150 ' from the western corner of the site and that located within Ute Avenue is a new 12" water main and 4" gas main. Stated that they were not sure if there would be gas available to serve the project, but that Holy Cross had informed them that there would be adequate elec- tricity to service the project entirely electrically . Baker stated that the anticipated development schedule would be to begin construction within 1 year and complete construc- tion within 3 years. Baker stated that he felt this project was consistent with the intent of Ordinance # 19 Pat Maddalone was present and questioned the Commission on what considerations there were in addition to the economic consideration. Bartel stated that the Commission must consider the environ- mental factors , citizen attitude and the availability of public facilities to serve this project. Bartel furr. t.her stated that the Planning Office would like the economic considerations at the earliest possible stage. Gillis questioned the number of people that this project would accommodate. Baker stated that they could not say at this point . -3- F , P.c '1c Meeting �` ? i2 Planning Zoning November 1 � I , Bill Cailie , City Fire Marshall , stated that they would like to be able to get behind the buildings due to the steep grade.-- Further, would like to see sprinkling wall • structures . Ed DelDuca, Assistant�.,�J_�t:.�tll:_ Ci Gy Engineer, stated that t 1E?y would like an agreement on an improvement vomit district for that public road . Ms . Baer stated that the Planning Office felt the circu- lation problem is solved.. Developer is providing 24 parking spaces . Chairman Adams stated he would like to table. the consider- ation of this proj ect until some of the problems . had been cleared up. Jim Reser, from Tri--Co Management Company , stated that Willard Clapper had given. approval to the proposed access . Concensus of the Commission was to table consideration of the project. Expressed concern on the access from a public road , width of turnaround , and access out of the area. ORDINANCE #191 Chairman Adams stated that the Commission had discussed. REVIEWS the problems facing them with Ordinance #19 reviews . Stated t a t the consensus of the Commission. was to table all the projects under the -co-ncnptual presentation of Ordinance #19 , based on the following reasons : (1) would like cost-benefit considerations on a project-to-project basis ; want to begin the economic impact evaluation C_ land-use concepts repi:esented by the map and the mixed . residential category in particular; Attorney Jim Moran was present and questioned the Com- mission to explain exactly what additional i_n information they are requiring - need to know exactly what the re- quirements on "economic impact" includes . Bartel stated that in the near future, the Commission would be able to give the specific requirements as to what type of information they will require . Stated that the second phase of the requirement is a cost-benefit comparison for the Commission to review for the long- run. economic impact evaluation . Chairman Adams stated the Commission would try to make a determination within thirty days, but didn ' t want to be pushed into any fast decisions . Further stated that the consensus of the Commission was that tourist-accom- modations should not be in mixed-residential . Moran questioned the Commission on just exactly consti- tuted c:ed a tourist accommodation or resident ident accommodation . Bartel 7stated. that the Planning Office and the Commission n want to be specific in writing on what use information will be required .. Wonld hope to be able to give . e -i I c example.. in Aspen as to what was ''.:eit by the different ent categories . - - - - Moran questioned the Commission on when the public could expect these answers, and Bartel replied that this would FTC(4';r1 c : 1UU Regular Neeting Aspen Planning & Zoning November 20 , 1973 be en immediate work item for the Commission . When questioned as to whether or not the Commission was seeking the same information on single-family dwellings , Chairman Adams stated that the impacts connected with single-family dwellings was not as great, Sc) problably would not be tabled by the Commission. Vidal stated that the evolution of the OrdinanceM map was a compromise and that the attitude has been that it was still an open-type thing and represented a compro- mise. Chairman Adams stated that the additional information was needed in order to determine the impact on public facili- ties , the environment, and natural resources . Bartel stated that during the budget considerations , the Planning Office didn ' t feel it needed earmarked funds for environmental studies . • Concensus of Commission was to table all Ordinance i].9 Conceptual presentations at this time . Gillis made a motion to adjourn the meeting , seconded by Johnson. A].1 in favor, motion carried . Meeting adjourned at 6 : 30 p.m. 6;- Secretary - (2/1 • • • • . LA MY WINI)I-4'S & ASSOCIATES architects and planners SHERMAN HOTEL - Analysis of size and density in relation to the previous City of Aspen Zoning Ordinance. Size as related to lot area CC--1 (max. height of building section) Lot area X 2 = Allowable F.A.R. 24,000 sq. ft. = lot area 24,000 X 2 = 48,000 sq. ft. 48,000 sq.ft. Open space in addition to req. space bonus CC-1 (Max. height of building section) 2 sq. ft. for every 1 over the required 25% required of 24,000 sq. ft. = 6,000 sq. ft. Sherman Hotel has 8,126 sq. ft. open space 8,126 - 6,000 = 2126 x 2 = 4,252 sq. ft. 4,252 sq. ft. Interior arcade space bonus CC-1 (min. lot area) #4 2 sq. ft. for every 1 of interior arcade Sherman Hotel Arcade space = 1110 sq. ft. 1,110 X 2 = 2,220 sq. ft. 2,220 sq. ft. TOTAL ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. ABOVE GRADE 54,472 sq. ft. parlour"li'•the brand building•p.o.box 3900•aspen,Colorado 81611•303-925-3390 LARRY WIN])ES & ASSOCIATES architects and planners Page 2 Sherman Hotel Sherman Hotel above grade by floor +5 ' level 12,680 sq. ft. +15 ' level 10,580 +25 ' level 10,580 +35 ' level 5,040 +45 ' level 5,040 Total 43,920 sq. ft. Allowable 54,472 sq. ft. or 10,552 sq. ft. under allowable Allowable number of dwelling units or number of persons to lot area CC-1 (Min. lot area) #1 Hotel, Motel lodge - Allowable = 750 sq. ft./ limited unit Sherman Hotel = lot area plus open space bonus and arcade bonus 24,000 + 4,252 + 2,220 = 30,472 sq. ft. 30,472 / 750 = 40.62 limited units (assuming 4 persons per dwelling unit) 160 persons #2 Boarding house, Rooming house, Dormitory - Allowable = 500 sq. ft. / limited or unlimited unit (4 persons per unit) 30,472 / 5oo = 61 dwelling units 244 persons parlour`B'•the brand building•p.o.box 3900•aspen,Colorado 81611.303-925-3390 Page 3 Sherman Hotel Sherman Hotel 114 rooms ( 2 persons) Not limited units per se since no kitchens. 228 persons 4 suites (unlimited) 2-4 persons = 16 persons Total persons on site 242 persons j Jv LARRY WINDES & ASSOCIATES architects and planners AREA BREADDOWN BY FLOORS -15 ' level Basement -- locker rooms, mechanical rooms, 15,680 •i/l, \ storage, hotel laundry (future parking) �; 5 ' level Solarium -- lobby, bar, saunas, swimming pool, 15,336 employee housing, hotel rooms +5 ' level Mezzanine -- restaurant, kitchen, hotel rooms 12,680 !�.W, +15 ' level Meeting room -- meeting; room, hotel rooms 10,580 -,.z( 10,080 +25 level Hotel -- hotel rooms 4 +35 ' level Hotel -- hotel rooms - 5,040 \-J-45 ' level Hotel -- hotel suites 5,040 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 74,436 Total rooms -- 8 floors @ 14 each -- 112 1 floor suites -- 4 1 floor employee 30 housing • parlour"13'•the brand building p.o.box 3900•aspen,colorado 81G11.303-925-3390 LAST WINDES & ASSOCIAl'ES architects and planners ARE BREADDWN BY FLOORS -15 ' level Basement -- locker rooms, mechanical rooms, 15,680 storage, hotel laundry (future parking) -5 ' level Solarium -- lobby, bar, saunas, swimming pool, 15,336 employee housing, hotel rooms +5 ' level Mezzanine -- restaurant, kitchen, hotel rooms 12,680 +15 ' level Meeting room -- meeting; room, hotel rooms 10,580 +25' level Hotel -- hotel rooms 10,080 +35 ' level Hotel hotel rooms 5,040 +45 ' level Hotel -- hotel suites 5,040 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 74,436 Total rooms -- 8 floors @. 14 each -- 112 1 floor suites -- 4 1 floor employee 30 housing parlour"15' the brand iu lding-po.box 3900•aspen,colorado 81611.303-925-3390 / Sz-r----041 -.-- L i/ (-I 7/27)L. 41- 7 j/17).--114-2---v1"' • /64__ It-C 2 e ' ' L.. i_ i_e_.i /(112 4 °1- ) lb ) -, /;lee jf ) 6 --r i 7— ‘---6 , 4 -) 91 zot_A_A-z- (7L__ 62, ,/ , 11 1_,) /C;2 7/ - 73 <3/2- XI e-7141. 4-) December 6, 1973 Mr. Larry Windes P. 0. Box Aspen, Colorado Dear Larry, The applicants who were tabled for Ordinance 19 review on November 20, 1973 have been requested to make their presentations at a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 11, 1973 . The City Council has authorized the immediate employment of an urban economist to conduct the studies recommended by P & Z. This meeting will be for the purpose of collecting information for those studies , and it is not anticipated that action will be taken by P & Z. Although the Shertian Hotel project has been withdrawn at our request, with no prejudice to your standing under I.E. of Ordinance 19, this would be an appropriate time to make your presentation. Please advise us if you are pre- pared to make a presentation on December 11th. Your truly, Donna Baer Planning Office RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM•J C.F.Y..%ECKFL B.B.3 L.CU. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning - November 6 , 1973 Vidal stated that he felt Ordinance #19 did not except the building of duplexes, but just made them subject to review. Jenkins stated he would like to see a Master Plan for the five lots owned by Mrs . Beck. Feel that in that area since there is a mix, should continue the mix of duplexes and single-family dwellings . Chairman Adams stated that he telt the West End was al- ready over-developed. Mrs. Beck pointed out that one of the five lots would re- vert to her brother, 2 lots would be used for a single- family unit, and the other two lots would be used for the duplex on the corner. Stated that she would be living in one side of the duplex and anticipated relatives living on the other side. Dick Kienast was present and stated that the neighbors in that area would like to see the area go back to single- family units . Vidal made a motion to approve on the five lots one du- plex on three lots , a single-family unit, with no fur- ther construction allowed on the duplex lots . Seconded. byiGillis. All in favor, with the exception of Chair- man Adams who was opposed. Motion carried. Durant-Galena Ms. BAer explained that the proposed building was on the Building site of the old swimming pool and included 2 lots in the central area. POinted out that there would be 9 , 000 sq. ft. of floor space and the building would be 28 ' high. Vidal stated that he would like to see a Master Plan for the entire z block rather than just the 2 lots. Further pointed out the flexibility of this site. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office felt this should be referred to the City Council for intentions on that site for parking. General concensus of the Commission Was for applicant to withdraw his request at this time and meet with the owner of the other lots on that z block. Perhaps could come to some agreement for development of the entire z block. Applicant withdrew his request. VISherman Larry Windes and Randy Wed.um were present representing Hotel the developer. Submitted a letter which, stated their pro- posal. Explained that the proposal included 8 lots of Block 94 . Stated the buildings cover 8 , 121 square feet which leaves 33% open space . Stated that he density had reduced 36 . 8% from previous proposal . Further stated there would be three buildings , one five story building, a two story building and a three story building. Stated these build- ings would not interfere with the view planes . Windes stated that the devloper wished to buy-out all of his parking requirements . • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Fo,,m C.F.HOECKFL B.B.8 L.CJ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning_.& Zoning November� N G , 1973 Vidal stated that he felt the developer could not elimi- nate 100% of the parking, and should provide soma. Commission discussed height and massing of the buildings , Felt that they had tried to keep the height on the north side down. Vidal stated that the 1-1 ratio is low for the core area. Chairman Adams stated he would like to see some other alternatives. Windes stated that they planned to handle transportation for guests in lieu of guests bringing their own vehicles. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office considerations for this project were : (1) density in terms of people - impact in numbers must be evaluated; (2) transportation plan needs to be evaluated; (3) recommend tabling for • further consideration by the Commission Vidal pointed out that the developer had reduced com- mercial space for hotel units and that the floor area ratio proposal was low. Pointed out that this repre- sents a trade-off. Further, subject to validation of AR and density before the Commission could proceed. Geri Vagneur left the meeting. Commission suggest applicant return with better massing plans, which would also designate heights of surround- ing buildings. McClain Stream Ms. Baer explained that this was a request to add an Margin Request additional room of 10 ' x 15 ' . Stated the residence was located in Calderwood. Applicant submitted photographs of the site. Johnson made a motion to approve the proposed stream margin request on the condition that if there is a trail on the river plan designated, applicant must donate the easement. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE, #19 # Bartel explained that the amendment included the follow- AMENDMENT ing: (1) makes clarification on what is exempted and permitted; (2) allows Planning Office to make deter- minations on remodel-type proposals , with the concurrence of the Commission. Explained that this would be interior remodel only; (3) includes provision for setting density. Bartel pointed out that the amendment would require a public hearing by the City Council , but would like to have a recommendation from the Commission. Johnson made a motion to recommend the changes included in the amendment, seconded by Gillis . All in favor, motion carried. Gillis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jenkins . All in favor, motion carried . Pieeting adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m. • c, , ii i ,.., f , , 1 5eAgiti,-vy•--e-4---sn....--/ ,v -,ili 0' `f l 6i-C1 fl 4 1, 0,...„4„) iiii o 4 (4/-2-4-v/ , 1, , , )44-,04--x-, -)V-t,,,,,a„_2 Ii _ //� .,,,,,„„6ate 71- ige-- .--&-A4--o - fi e ,�, ..— _ - - i f / 'Y-3 ),),<-6,- --4 ,‘ok---- .4 :6,1r-c." ti , , .0 • 1 1 2. d/Q. /1r(---ii- c-41-e-- _.2.4:,_,,e, 1 1 --ePe`il'"2- -' &-Lvt-e-ix-t ci.„(,,:t.±..4.) ;? C2/ . j44_„_, 1tQ )4A14.11 , / i , i . I ZP I° Crly)i)atALa,a, ,,,,_,„ _,,_,t_ 1 1 .� _ n r i,e d to . . 1 .1 , 1 1 1 1 1 , i 1 1 1! P. D. EDX V c ASPEN, reDf..C.IRIAI'0 Shc:rman & Co . 1563 Willingharp. Atlanta, Ga . 30337 RE : Ape.-,1 Building Refund Disapproval of Conceptual Prcf.T. ntatior Oct. 11, 1973 Attached clv...c 17,. in the amount of $954 . 56 as tbe 752, refund on Pcrmit 340-73 dated 7- 26-73 . Permit denied by Af,-.1pc..'r. Plze,nning Commission on Oct . 2 , 1973 under Ordinance 19 . July 26 , 73 pd. on27277 $ 50 Aug. 2 , "73 pd . or 2737 $1272 . 75 Your plans; Ei"..CC in our offi(...,=-2, please pick up vithin 30 dys . Clayton Ti. 1.-Jey5-..ingsLitild.lr,11 In!,:pc:Ltor Departmcni... SOC . cc: Plannincj .• Cl <<Le , n I „[`.x.11'. REtC'o I c , otl ng Aspen p :I I P Ic n? nc; £: Zoning Octo ? : 2 , 1 9 i: fleeting called to _ G= by CI . iL1n n Adaign at 5 : 15 p.m. with C e Vidal , Barbara Lewis , Bryan cI.:•I1 O T Jack r >17 cT and Geri Vagneur. Also pr'C'sP.?Z C 1. Ci ty/Court y Planner Herb Bartel. and Assistant Planner Donna Baer. Barbara Lewis I nd-e a motion on to approve the, minutes of September 18 , 1973 , seeond by Geri Va._ neur. . Al]. in favor, motion carried, Re olut.ion i 23e, Chairman Jim Adams read Resolution 4 23a, a resolution Series o 1973 passed by Council and suba:i.tted to the Commission : "WHEREAS , the City Council has a constant concern for the housing needs of the employees in and around • the Aspen Area; and WHEREAS , the City Council wishes to impress the seriousness of this concern on the minds of the members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission so that in. their planning deliberations and review of construction projects they give adequate consideration to the cre- ation of moderately priced housing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO : • 1. That the concern of the City Council for the needs of Aspen Area employees for adequate housing he expressed and, by copy of this Resolution, be directed. to the chairman of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission, 2 . And that said Commission in all deliberations be and hereby is directed to give adequate consideration in formulating planning recommendations or approving building developments to the need for the creation of moderately priced housing for employees of the Aspen Area. " Apex Building Assistant Planner Donna Baer asked Commission members Disapproval if they had all received copies of the Planning Office Memorandum on the disapproval of the Apex Building . Jenkins made a motion to accept the disapproval sub- mitted by the Planning Office , seconded by Vidal . All in favor, motion carried. Oklahoma Flats Bartel explained that the Resolution for the rezoning Rezoning of Oklahoma Flats had been drafted and forwarded to the City Attorney, due to the fact that it comes under Ordinance r9 and will have legal status for one year. Further stated that Commission would receive copies off the Resolution with. the next agenda. City Prop arty -- Bartel request that the Commission make a site inspec- i..1 Acre Site Lion of the 1131 Acre parcel. Stated that. the Engineer- Plan i.ng Department had staked the boundaries . Request the Commission view: (l) ex' ention of 113 eoker Street: ; (2) property along river; (3) general configuration of property. Site i.I:lnpect__i.on was scheduled for October 3rd at 12 : J5 p.Ir,, , and Cct _, :l_,_st>>.ou would meet in the i'1-<<.T:21:i nc7 Office . Her Lc'1. ntat cd t h:. t_ the Plensing Office had received a solo matic 'den of site recjui rei'lentn of the Pont Office . Discussed the s_iye and parking . I'urt.her that. Pont_ of i lee had not Icon receptive to a 2'-st CJyy II-H1 . OF PRO G s °!CIS 100 LCave; As Ten F1 ant 1 n ', G oni-nr �_ Se telpher 18 1�4 i ...._.Q,_ ...__.,..._.,_.._n. °.°- Meeting was called to order by a airman Jim Adams at 5 : 15 p .m. with Chuck Vidal.., Bruce Gillis , Bryan Johnson, and Jack Jenkins . Also present Assis- tant Planners Fred Wooden and Donna Baer. Minutes Chairman Adams pointed out a correction to the minutes of August 30, 1973 as follows : McEntyre Apartments , Ordinance #19 Review - "Commission concensus was to deny the request". Commission concurred with the correction. • • Jenki , , , fn,- S 100 t v Il ul at Mee tinn Aspen I'l < n,1in,g __ " e tee bei 18,J97,3 Ms . Baer pointed out that the project had been re- duced by approximately 9 , 000 square feet . Chairman. Adams explained that the Commission could either accept the request with conditions or deny the request. Felt that it was still too intensive of use in that area. • 'Vidal_ pointed out that since the developer owned an adjoining lot , would like to see a plan for use • of the total property. _ Felt it would be more bone- _ subm1tted' a Master Plana Gillis stated that he would like to see the developer produce a less grandiose building, and felt they could still realize .a profit. Johnson stated that he would like to see some area • removed from the top of the building. • Jenkins explained that he felt the Commission would be obligated to let everyone who owns land in the com- • mercial core develope to that extent. Felt the • proposed building was too much in that light . • _��t;;,.,�:.a=-�.:e :.v;..:;..,,.�T:,w 4= •: ,. :,-�:.,:.._. d� :� L��s� n� _t.h o z s s. on; Naha t;�.th�;:: t.' . - . density allowable would be and could they provide " 'ti• .�"r: • '' • .ter' •4: :L.• .. -•�'' some • Chairman Adams stated that the Corrmission 'could direct ..'S..- ..:v►V.�:fi..s..!:r� �:t• �t,,,.. •r�•• t C..v. •' Y. .�.: •- ._5..... Y" + •'�;Y the -P1anhibg Offi'ce 'td' tarite up ,a<:c'e'ri a7` ati `•stare' trig' reasons for their objection, which would dive the de- veloper some guidelines . Vidal suggested that rather than denying it, ask them to wait until some criteria were established, and to develope a Master Plan. Jenkins stated that everything that has come in under Ordinance #19 has come in at the maximum density. Ms . Baer stated that the Planning Office , too , would • * like to see a c dncept presentation "for the whole pro= perty. �' . -- : . - Johnson made a motion to deny -the request and authorize• the Plannning Office to send them a written denial with ,:... ,......_ ,,.,. ... ....,....,..the-.reasons: for .denial- stated in . the.. .letter. . Seconded -..:...., by Gillis . Chairman. Adams stated that everyone had a general idea what the Commission was trying to say. Windes suggested a study session with the Commission and the developer in order to receive direction. Could inc Luce the Planning Office . nEcoun 100 Leaves Meetino- Asnen Planninc 7onino Sentember 18 19/3 - Moran stated that the problem resulting from a denial is that the workability from that point is difficult. Questioned the Commission on what mid-range or low- range density would be . Vidal stated that this would be related to the capa- city of that particular land and the problems it creates . In the core area, .the attitude of the Com- • mission could be to increase the density after Or- dinance #19 . Vidal stated that the massing of the .j.-..s,•significant.„ _not just • . , square footage . Moran question the Commission on their meaning of intensity, • • . - • • Jenkins stated that in gener, Aspen is presently well-balanced, and questioned how much bigger the members of the Commission would like Aspen to ' become. Moran stated that it wasn' t possible to conceptualize until there was some framework. The only guidelines • . . . • presently are current zoning. • id.z1• .:131%a-ined. he-.',a pp ro ach' to cut density in if across the board, and this • • •- • • hasn t solVed thesproblems . Need *CO estiblisch * sbme • • . • . constraints and evaluate them. Criteria need to start • being developed . Further „pointed out. that .the Comt.- • mission ha a year to come up with the number that • Jenkins had asked for. • Main Motion Gillis, aye ; Johnson, aye ; Vidal, aye ; Jenkins , nay; Adams , aye. Motion carried. Les Rocheuses M . Baer asked the Commission if they had seen the Air Pollution report and recommendations of the state . Further stated that there was 1 fireplace/ unit in this project, and felt that the Commission should consider the impact . - .• . •.• . . • • .. . • Ms . Baer further pointed out that the Planning Office felt . the. density was too. high for .anything on, that .side . ••- • . A • ...of. 'Need • mechanisms to .inSure-permanent • • ‘ *:• • : •* ' háisin additiOn stb'a* COvelian-E' aCcOmPariying 'Old deed-. * • *Pointed out that the applicant had presented • this pro- -ject -asTermanent. housing. -- - - - Don Fleisher stated that he had found the covenant is a good tool to use . Stated that the first covenant the Commission had suggested they commit themselves to was for 6 months . Vidal questioned the Commission on (1) What is per - • manent residency ; (2) how do you guarant,ee. permanpnj . , residency? NOTE-O-G RAM ©THE DRAWING BOARD • BOX 5O5 • DALLAS,TEXAS CITY OF ASPEN P. O. BOX V • ASPEN, COLORADO B1611 M E S S A G E R E P L Y TO Planning Dept. DATE L DATE July 26, 1973 Attached permit # 340-73 and 1 set of plans for SHERMAN & Co. to be submitted at earliest date to P&Z . Balance of permit fee will be paid before meeting of August 7th. Building Dept. BY SIGNED INSTRUCiDN, rD ,ENDCR: TIONs 1.KEEP YELLOW COPY. 1. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES wllH CARBON INTACT. i. API1E Rt Lr Irf IACI JH Kr TO RE.L LIVER_ . -. ti sue KE,P P■,rK ,.pi Y, RETU RN w■,iTF COPY TO SENDER. CITY OF f 'EN CITY'Of 4 776 2 FINANCE;DEPARTMENT '' C FINANCE DI CASH'IER'S: RECEIPT CASHIER' No. _ C`' ❑ Bldg. & Wiring ❑ Misc. & Short Checks ❑ Bldg. & Wiring ❑ Bicycle License ❑ Sales Tax License ❑ Bicycle License ❑ Cigarette Tax ❑ Business License ❑ Cigarette Tax ❑ Contractor License ❑ Spec. St. Assess. ❑ Contractor License ❑ Court Fines ❑ Tow Ticket ❑ Court Fines ❑ Dog License ❑ Traffic Ticket ❑ Dog License ❑ Dog Impound Fee ❑ Maps, Codes & Zoning ❑ Dog Impound Fee ❑ Employee Registration ❑ Zerox Copies ❑ Employee Registration ❑ Other ❑ Other. ` , ; RECEIVED RECEIVE OF: OF: ,GENERAL ADDRESS L6 r�ONs-r6d 6.1161J ..-. ) OF .103 . . , 533 East Hopkin, TERMIT _ e#2`i: S WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WO K DESCRIBED BELOW. 1 9_12 CLASS OF WORK: NSW _ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK ❑ C`WN kd .. 1568 Willingham 404 NAME _ CD. _ ADDRESS Atlanta,Ga. 30337 PHONE 768-8737 et LICENSE LICENSE® NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER U INSURANCE QC CI a- ADDRESS _ PHONE • vSUPERVISOR DATE CERTIFIED FOR THIS JOB NAME --- LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT NO. G,H,I BLOCK NO. 94 ADDITION Townsite _ SURVEY ATTACHED® DESIGN A uc. BY Pessman BY Larry Windes & Assoc. PE NO. AREA(S.F.) HEIGHT NO. TOTAL OCCUPANCY AT GRADE (FEET) STORIES UNITS o GROUP DIV. fIN. ❑ SINGLE ❑ ATTACHED❑ TOTAL TYPE FIRE BASEMENT UNFIN. O GARAGE DOUBLE ❑ DETACHED❑ ROOMS CONSTR. — ZONE - DEPTH FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AGENCY AUTHORIZED DATE BY BELOW FLOOR Z GRADE _ BUILDING REVIE W 17 FOOTING SA CEILING ZONING Q SIZE B Z EXTERIOR CONC. ❑ PARKING FUN. WALL ROOF ® THICKNESS • MAS'Y ❑ is. PUBLIC HEALTH THICK CAISSONS ROOFING SLAB ❑ &GR.BEAMS LI MATERIAL ENGINEERING MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE — EXTERIOR THICKNESS 1ST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR. ALL 8 STUD SPACE SIZE 1ST FLR. 2ND VFLR. 3RD FLR. REMARKS All Commerical Submitted to P_&_2_on 7-26-73 — NOTES TO APPLICANT: FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925-7336 FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OF WORK 722,000 . -` APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL FEE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. FILED T P PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. 848 . 50 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOUBLE CHECK ❑ 424 . 25plc ' ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL RE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE ❑ CASH ❑ .7:a :27 2 .7 THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BC OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.❑ BUILDING DEPARTMEN-T PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATIO SUSPENION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME, SIGNATURE ..: /'• . i'1 or . -' ��_ .,,. . /�:J`' :.,- �.� :-dlr >'may „ "-'° APPROVAL BY DATE APPLICANT: ,> _, i - _ --- E DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE. # RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT THIS FORM IS A PE MIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED HERE ,: . 7_2.6-73 340°73 INSP'ECTOR'S COPY FINANCE DEPARTMENT CASHIER'S L 2EIP'i No.,^ ❑ Bldg. & Wiring ❑ Misc. & Short Checks ❑ Bicycle License ❑ Sales Tax License ❑ Cigarette Tax ❑ Business License ❑ Contractor License ❑ Spec. St. Assess. ❑ Court Fines ❑ Tow Ticket ❑ Dog License ❑ Traffic Ticket ❑ Dog Impound Fee ❑ Maps, Codes & Zoning ❑ Employee Registration ❑ Zerox Copies ❑ Other RECEIVED OF: • i a • SHEIVAAN Nir C i'iWAit INC . 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30337 404/768-873 7 July 16, 1973 Building Department City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: Reference is made to city lots G,H and I, Block 94, City and Township of Aspen, Colorado. This is to advise you of my desire to improve the property beginning on the date of closing of my contract to purchase it on September 8, 1973. This is also to serve as an application for a building permit to construct the improvements. I have hereby attached a check for the fee for the per- mit in the amount of $848.50 as payment in full, subject to confirmation to me of your receipt of same. The improvements proposed for the site are to be one structure of steel and concrete construction totalling 45,122 gross square feet including the sub surface improvements. The above enclosed fee was determined from an estimated hard construction cost of $16 per gross square foot, which is slightly higher than we are experiencing elsewhere. The use of the building will be approximately 30% office, 50% retail and 20% storage. It is my understanding that the new Ordinance 19 is about to become effect- ive, and we are happy to comply with its provisions. However, we are at the mercy of a great many schedules committed to in our planning prior to Ordinance 19 being contemplated, and this puts us at a disadvantage in certain matters that affect us internally. It would be greatly appreciated if this application can be processed quickly so that we can immediately begin the further required reviews without violating any of our existing commit- ments. sHrttpAAN - '�i C pAMt INC, Page Two July 16, 1973 This letter is being submitted to you through the Project Architect, Mr. Larry Windes of Aspen, who will be able to furnish any information needed to assist your review. If additional questions arise, please contact me. Yours very truly, LeRoy B. Sherman III LBS:jn Enclosure Lightweight concrete fill will be used in floor - - - - for sound deadening purposes and on the roof to create a permanent surface, and to provide adequate slope for drainage. DIVISION 4. MASONRY 20% of exterior wall area will be prebuilt brick panels lifted into place and welded to the steel frame of the building. Stair towers will be reinforced concrete block to provide adequate fire separation and to also resist horizontal shear and wind loading. DIVISION 5. METALS 5A. Structural Steel Structural frame of the building will be pre- fabricated, bolted and welded wide flange steel beams and columns with open web steel floor joists and corrugated steel floor decking over the joists . Exterior wall framing will be 2"x4" metal studs. Interior wall partitions will be either metal or wood studs,depending upon economy. All- metal -flashing will be galvanized iron as - - - - will be vents and ducts exposed to the outside of the building. July 15, 1973 DIVISION 1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS General requirements will be listed in the complete specifications. DIVISION 2 . SITE WORK We will be excavating to approximately -30 feet in grade with exterior continuous footings and interior pad footings being excavated to a depth approximately 4 feet lower. A system of earth- work retainage will be incorporated into the design of the exterior retaining walls in order to prevent the unstable gravel and loose rock from caving. DIVISION 3 . CONCRETE Poured in place, reinforced concrete will be used for footings of retaining walls, ramps, exterior stairways, and exterior sidewalk at grade. Major window elements will be reinforced concrete precasted and lifted into place. These window elements will form 80% of the building facade and will be welded to the structural steel frame and within themselves be used structurally to resist horizontal shear and wind loading. • DI�SION 6. CARPETTTRI will be wood studs Interior wall partitions Door to economical considerations) . (subject will be of wood. and window mullions and trim base trim will also be of wood. Door, window and will be used in wood trim Additional decorative as leasehold improvements not a shop interiors Full thickness part of these specifications • be used foil-back f�.berglas Batt insulation will stud walls for thermal insulation in exterior s and elected interior nd combined with sound board in s walls for acoustic insulation. Rigid insulation concrete will be used at the roof with lightweight fill over._ PROTECTION roof, DIYSION 7• MOISTURE built-up asphaltic,Roof membrane will be asp rapet to interior roof drains . Metal pa sloped alvanized iron with roof will be standing seam g galvanized iron cap and fascia. e silicon or equal to accommodate Caulking will be the 'on and contraction that exists in expanse climate• wide temperature range in this DOORS, WINDOj°TS AND GLASS DIVISION doors will be wood and metal as required Exterior Interior. doors to meet fire resisting standards. will be wood panel doors and combinations of wood and glass . Windows will be shop-built wood units, by Pella or equal, set into the precast concrete openings at the exterior walls . Protected fire openings are required along the west facade. Window units will be modified to accommodate more restrictive fire rating. Finish hardware will include panic hardware, and adequate security locks will be used where required. Exterior glass will be 3/16" sheet crystal in casement frames and 1/4 polished plate for larger fixed glass areas. Glass will be tempered where required for safety purposes. DIVISION 9. FINISHES Expanded metal lath with full thickness stucco over will be considered as an alternative for exterior wall surface in lieu of brick as a cost consideration. Interior walls and ceilings will be 5/8" gypsum board with drywall texture. Interior surfaces will be painted with Latex base interior paint or enamel where required. DIVISION. 10. SPECIALTIES Skylights will be metal frame with wire glass plastic glazing to meet fire requirements. Toilet room accessories will be by Kohler or equal. Metal stairs will be prefabricated. DIVISION 11. CONVEYING SYSTEM Primary elevator will be 7-10 passenger oildraulic by Otis or equal. Secondary freight elevators serving the lower three levels, having access off of the alley, will be oildraulic sidewalk elevators by Otis or equal. A dumbwaiter system will be installed to serve upper floor restaurants if required. DIVISION 12. MECHANICAL Plumbing and heating supply lines will be copper. Waste and vent lines will be cast iron or copper as specified by the mechanical consultant. Roof and terrace drains will initially be tracked to dry wells beneath the lowest floor level with provisions for tying into future storm drains when installed by the City. Operable casements and double-hung windows will satisfy ventilation requirements on all but lower 2 levels--these levels being ventilated by . mechanical air handling equipment. Heating will be by gas fired boiler with recircu- lating hot water tied into fan coil units . Building will not be refrigerated. DIVISION 13 . ELECTRICAL Artificial lighting will be provided by multi- circuited incandescant fixtures in office and shop areas. Shops will be individually metered for the accurate accounting of excessive tenant requirements. Existing overhead power lines will be installed underground as per City of Aspen requirements to allow for uninterrupted view along south facade of building. Capacity and phasing of service will be determined by electrical engineer . • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FC„!!'” C.F.N.ECKEL B.B.T L. -Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 30 , 1973 Chairman Jim Adams called the meeting to order at 5 : 15 p.m. with Barbara Lewis , Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, and Geri Vagneur. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planner Donna Baer. Strandbourg Ms. Baer submitted the plans for the Strandbourg residence Residence on West Bleeker. Further explained that this was exempted from Ordinance #19 review, but felt Commission should take a look at the plans . Ms. Baer pointed out that Clayton Meyring, City Building Inspector, had reviewed the plans thoroughly and they had met with his approval. Barbara Lewis made a motion to approve the plans as sub- mitted, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Apex Building - Ms. Baer pointed out that the Commission had 30 days from Ordinance #19 August 9th to make a conceptual decision. Review Ms. Baer explained that the Commission had been concerned with the intensity of the project at the previous presen- tation. L. B. Sherman was present, and explained that he originally had suggested the sub-basement be a health club or a night club, but was now suggesting it be a storage space with a street elevator where large trucks could back in without obstructing alley traffic. Explained that a number of businesses in the core area had expressed a need for this storage space. Chairman Adams pointed out that one thing which he was objecting to was the fact that the project had seven floors. Felt there was too much going on in that small of a space. Did not want a huge traffic generator. Sherman suggested small electric trucks . Further pointed out that Windes, the architect for the project, had worked with the Building Department on the building and had planned it within the City Code. Jenkins stated that he felt the project was too over- whelming. Randy Wedum that the top floor would have one major room, the next floor would have 6 offices, the next would have probably 1 sandwich restaurant, the next would have 4-6 shops of boutique size, and the last would have 4-6 larger shops . Windes suggested that possibly the City should consider some type of rent control. Felt this building is a solution to that problem. Chairman Adams suggested they scale the project down. Jenkins read a letter submitted by the Historic Preservatic Committee objecting to the size, bulk and scale of the project. Reitterated the idea of scaling down the project. • Lewis stated that didn ' t feel the storage area should be in the core area. Sherman pointed out that moving it out would face the same problems that now exist. a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM.7 C.F.M]ECKEL 8.B.8 L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 30 , 1973 Chairman Adams suggested the possiblity of 4 floors rather than 7, or possibly dropping 2 stories off the • building. Suggested they design something imaginative that would be more apt to meet the approval of the Commission. McEntyre Apts. - Ms. Baer explained that this project would be located Ordinance #19 at 324 W. Hopkins , next door to the A-Frames . Explained Review that it was a proposed 11-unit studio apartment building on 9, 000 square feet, which is 3 lots. Under Ordinance #19 is mixed-residential . Jim Gibbons , representing McEntyre, pointed out that their first thought was to build a restaurant, later decided that would rather build apartments. Gibbons pointed out that they were qualified for 12 units. Further pointed out that they had applied for a building • permit prior to Ordinance #19, but due to a technicality, they were not in time. Gibbons stated that this- was to be quality, low-cost housing with off-street parking, and access by the alley only. POinted out that there was no view problem and • that the project was directly in line with the Applejack. Stated that the project would clean up the area and eliminate the burned out building that is now present on the site. Jim Breur stated that there would be less than 50% site coverage with 12 parking spaces, 4 of which would be �Ts.;,Kyii A,••„1:;\ (., .r. ir"'•:w. fi•O . +-.S<:TT`e3."'F3?`2�1o!�ct�. _ _.,,,•;;?:�:`.... .s-..fr::•?,Z rt-"'�f .. ' ,a}.�. .:r; r�� .;•.tY,;.„�. _ .•/.��f Ms. Baer explained that the Planning Office recommendation for this site was 4 units or 2 single-family dwellings for the following reasons : (1) general growth control ; (2) 11 units too dense; (3) that block has no multi-family units . Chairman Adams gave a brief background of the reasons why the Commission is sitting on '.that area and the transpor- tation problem. Gibbons stressed the advantage and the extreme need in • Aspen for low-cost housing Trueman Commission agreed to take a field trip to the Norway Property Shadows site on Tuesday at 4 : 40. Bartel recommended that the Commission give the uses for the 1st phase of the project, and then the square footage for the 1st phase. Then recommended that the Commission set up some procedures for the project. Questioned the Commission' s position on starting point for the project. Bartel stated that the second task would be the Agreement of Understanding that would set up procedures for the remaining steps. Schottland gave financial details for the cost of the units . Stated that businessman could put either 10 , 20 , or 30% down. POinted out that it is less expensive to buy the units than to rent and they would then have a saleable commodity and a return on their investment. LD 0.r ri:',X..:;,',E1-Z'S?L.:03 lou !...c:,.;...,,,..., ,. ,-.„, .:,., ,,,..,. R,..-.,.H.(0. ,,.-J... mc,etipp: Aspen ,.--inning & ZonincT Aunust 9 i()73 CarI Nutzborn, aLto.f..ney representing Mx s . Bibbig, sub-imitted. a map and uyplain.ed that since the houSe in which Mrs . Bibbig plans to live for the rest of hor -.life is on her children ' s land , they planned to exchange ownership. Nutzhorn submitted the map from the Planning Office showing the lot line change and the resulting parcels . Nutzhorn pointed out; that the land was located in the resi- dential, multi-family zone . Mrs . Bibbig ' s daughter and son- in-1Lw plan to retire there and not build more than a duplex, May a some future time exchange land with Banker, but would still not build more than a duplex. Barbara Lewis made a motion to approve the lot line change on Sec. 20-3b of the Subdivision Regulations on the condition th• it would be recorded at the Courthouse. Seconded by Jenkin . All in favor, motion. carried. Building Larry Windes and Randy Wedum were present representing the Permit developer Sherman and Company. Review - Apex Building would be located on lots G, II, and I , Block 94, on Building the corner of Hunter add Hopkins . Windes stated that the .c, bulk of the working drawings were done before Ordinance ://-19 . Stated it was a comercial building on commercial core lots with C-C zoning, Gave a brief explanation of building and relationship to commercial core and mall, Submitted plans of building and explained that the building does not interupt the proposed view plane for the park. Explained that the uses tie closely to the objectives of Ordinance l.9 and complies with the zoning requirements prior to Ordin-anee V19 , Stated there was a large open. interior are: which is not counted in the open. space . Further eplaired. that this was the first phase and that ther was OA ad.Wiiior.!...J. att;:ge in. *i-.1),.?. Pr act. Due to problems witn a land sale coAtACI.--, that was being held. up . Fell: ti.)ft.i.-. the Lv-..',. Jdi.,..ig was (-1,:.. 7:1f.:necl no that it is compc---.11-,To CL.Cri ,7,4.-,(1 viill (2..::lum.ce tTh.-.-.'. IRL,J.J. aAd tih.e historic ovorly 6.:;..s.-• tIcj.ct in C..°01L, a -.:1..-........-:- :1 1 ,- \:....,fl.',.(.1 *i:ki..:.. ri.-In op.*; .j.cm of t.' o C.It-v- P -■...i .-.. y. uri I T-H'.:J :'. (...-..--:H.o,:-.,...-i- , (..;,,.-mLjo:.-:,J L1, .: ii.,:--,-1:-H., ) ;.:.,:.,.-:-.',.-I of -i.i -. cr.m-;- .-.1. ., L,-,H -',. 'L:t: (.-,-:-,,.. ! ',,I.c.,--!.(,' , (J '..1.JL; c.,:*,,-(.-: :1 •L' 1 ,! •.-'.' 1. . ,-, _ . ...', ..•. .,..• .-: . . . • .. . . . •, ,. .. ',. .-, ..,, ,.J.J,J (......!),,-. ! , ,: : , ,-.• ! ,.... -. ,,,, . ,..,,,.., 1.- .—_,., •,,„.. 1 i.• ..-,. _., . 4. .-! : 1 ...s. —..,.. ....-. _ . . : .. _ t• •• , : . „ ... -, . 1 . . .. . „ _. , :.•:,.:,...,H•.. .. i ,, ,.„ -,..! ! H...,, t : ,..: .,.. , . •,-1., , ... ,J.,. !. • . ',, ! . i .1 .! !. (: : (,. . :. ),!..H,y . ''H!. , ,-, : .•, ' , , • —•• H • : . ''! ,,., ,.: : : .• . , • •,! . ; E. -, ,,, ..! ! , : •-,-, . ,• ., i- !'• : (! - H.• • , . H •s -,- : s, :.• '''. ,.•• :. : •!.'.:. --' H::, ..!. :., H. , : • : ,.• , ' . . . . . . . . . . . , ... . . , I:, ., • „., , • , , s ! ,. . • . i • ' (•,: . .. , :.; !:-, :I.:• . ; . L (•,• H• , •i_ •• • , . . • : • 111 :0- 1 c t I , ; At'cIV-A-- 9 1(.)% '-.) ICIC Be e2TJr'i1! ih:A thc niSi-C.Y:ie Preservation. Co ,i( litt-ee has asked to lo,7)k the plan for. the project in vicy: of their consideration [or th, core . Chaii-man Ad am trial eci that tffie purpose of Ord.'-1 tTacc, --1/19 to get a handle on grov:Lh nd felt that this was contrary to it . Barbara Lewis left tide meeting. Gillis questioned their ability to obtain a liquor license because of their proximity to a school , Chairman Adams stated that; the Commission would get together to discuss the presentation and get back to them. Christiania Ms . Baer stated that this was a proposal to expand the Chr:i ; - Lodge tiania Lodge on Main Street. Cantzel submitted site plans and stated that he would like to bring out in the conceptual presentation several of the problems that he was facing. Ms . Baer pointed out that Cantzel proposes to add 13 addliiem- units . Gantzel currently has twelve limited units and 13 unlimited units in the lodge . Proposal is =t;o= remove 2 of the unlimited units and add 13 units , Gantzel discussed the proLlens of densiiv requirements and definitiors of limited and unlimited units . Stattd 1w cou16 be flexible in the amount of units he would add . ChaLcman Adams gave a brier hlstely of the area and EltaLekli that litile lodge gio-,-/tb was wanted in the Wes (7 end . Want; to keep tourisi zoned areas toward the Core for Lrcilf:TD1 '( ;_j ;0) systew, Cantzel questionad the Cmm; S sion about exactly vh.-!:t he bulid end what den' ily 11 , y would allow in that a3er. , that; all the 1,;tvc‘ cy , under stud ; (.. p, : 6 in a ceute he 1,„,n1. tcim rental , , , dcaJ ] ;.id id 0 filsi the 11 ' 1 il ;W, 011 :1cc Lad , LI mid \., r : ( 1 ; ; ( • , - ,, •r • .; • ; 1 , • , ;, . . . • • 1 ( .; ' , ; ; ; • , , CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,colorado, awn box v August 21, 1973 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: James Adams , Chairman Dear Jim: The Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed those documents submitted for concept presentation under Ordinance 19 by the developers of the Apex Building proposed for the Southwest corner of Hunter and Hopkins Streets. As a result of a recent Historic Preservation Committee resolution recommending a thirteen and one half (132) block section of the central area of Aspen for possible designation as an H-Historic Overlay District we intend to offer our comments on building permit applications for said area. Please understand that the Committee' s comments are confined to those aspects of the develop- ment that have bearing on the preservation of the historic significance of the central area. The Committee feels the Apex Building is overwhelming in terms of size, bulk and scale. It would dwarf the private homes on the north and west of the property, all of which have potential historic importance and be- cause of this size, bulk and scale would not be in keep- ing with character and image of the central area. In addition, the Committee is of the opinion that the exterior design of the building will not complement Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 21, 1973 Page Two that of potentially historic buildings elsewhere in the central area. Sincerely, t 16444.7.L, David Finholm Chairman Historic Preservation Committee DF/bk II1 t} j ,i /4---r- e--' 4-11 ),---teit-e---4--) 9l- tk" ri.....t_tie_Az........„ r 4 �,�' � ‘e--1 7 * 1--'-/-/6 f--1 "T - e.■ • ,-cam / y 5 hZ.--7-1.1.6e---I. ..„-6--; .- , , , '--'''Z.!--6 I-c--te—c.....,e.e, , /4 4 e-56 7-<-c., e-d-y v -t t A-C-r s ,/ -T--- , "C t o-- • -- A. LCD -I-- 4(...,-c.-/--< ,...4.-3.) I' , / / , 0 / ' . I 1 /61)1'4? ;, ii ;; 1, 11 August 7 , 1973 �` f._ 7 APEX BUILDING A. Central Area 1. Retail stores and restaurants are recommended uses. Cold—s-t= ' - '' - ■ - - - - . . ces are not - - - CONSIDERATIONS : 2. No view corridor is involved. te rx-! 1.c- -44i-era-LC-et ‘""e94.-12— -2 • \� tee° j ( .14 Lot coverage is extensive and no plazas are provided. 3. Parking places required by current zoning - approximately, 29. Recommended parking - 4 arking places should be purchased. 4. a. Historic buildings and sites are notA0.ffe6ted. J b. It is difficult to determine exact proportion of directly related tourist uses , perhaps 50% +. c. P .fessional e fices are recommended in the fringe • the Central area (beginning across Hunte - Street •m the proposed building) . ,\\ d. Land uses are mixed with the exception that no dwelling units are included. However, if the proposed restaurants are open in the evening, and perhaps the retail stores, night time activity will be generated. e. Views - see 2. above. f. Proposal is in the Core and within easy walking distance of all parts of the Core. Regular Meetin Aspen P1_annin ; & Coning Auzust 21 1973 A G E N D A Minutes OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - Oklahoma Flats Rezoning ORDINANCE #19 REVIEW 1. Apex Building 2. Christiania Lodge 3. Arcade Building 4. McEntyre Apartments TRUEMAN PROPERTY PROPOSAL ALL MEMBERS PLEASE CALL AS RELATES TO YOUR ATTENDANCE! LARRY WINDES^+&'ASSOCIATES architects and planners August 7, 1973 Today we are scheduled to present preliminary plans for the Apex Building on Lots G, H, & I of Block 94, City of Aspen. Due to the fact that we had completed the bulk of working drawings before the enactment of Ordinance 19, the plans we are presenting are in more extensive detail than requested. This project is a commercial building conceived earlier this year on commercial core lots. It was designed within Aspen Zoning and building code requirements for C-C land prior to the passage of Ordinance 19. Since the passage of Ordinance 19, the area is still in the heart of the commercial core zoned area. Our original ideas for uses of the building have been tied in closely with the objectives of the new Ordinance and we have tried to interpret and accomodate the Ordinance since it was passed. The following presentation gives information which will explain the building and how it relates to the interim Master Plan and the future of the commercial core in general. 1. The majority of space in the building complies with uses exempt from review according to the section on central area (Article 1) of the ordinance. 2. Concerning Article 2, dealing with view preservation, we discussed this with Fred Wooden several weeks ago and learned that the building does not interfere with the view plane in existence from the park next to City Hall toward Aspen Mountain. Granted that any building will block someone's view, this building is not inter- fereing with the view planes set up by the City. It is these planes which, we feel, are the objectives of the Ordinance. 3. All set back and open space requirements were complied with in accordance with past C-C zoning. Additional open areas exist in the interior of the building, creating more arcade space than required; in effect, a miniature mall on the inside of the building. 4. This building is the first phase of a staged project incorporating an addi- tional five lots across the alley on Hunter Street. Due to the land sale contract (which releases the above three lot parcel first) the first phase is on the presently proposed site. The second phase will tie into this building from the alley with open space, entrances, a sub-mall, and parlour 13'.the brand building•p.o.box 3900•aspen,colorado 81611.303-925-3390 -2- possibly structural attachments. This second phase will orient to the proposed mall and comply with the desire for tourist related uses which is set forth in Ordinance 19, Article 4, Part b, "that tourist related uses be located in the existent pedestrian mall or extensions thereof;". Since the second phase will tie the entire complex into the mall plan, we have requested the purchase of all parking from the City as requested by the Planning Department. This ties into Section F on objectives of Article 4, "the develop- ment of the central area as a pedestrian dominant rather than auto oriented area". 5. Offices in this first phase building are generally geared to accomodate the commercial business of the same building. Because our structure is not on the proposed mall or in the fringe area we chose to encompass both commercial and office uses in a "transitional" building in accordance with the new Ordinance; "the mixing resulting in the integration of compatible uses that result in constant activity in the central area;" (Article 4, Part d.) 6. We are completely sympathetic to the desires of the City to preserve and maintain the historical feeling of Aspen. To that end, though it is new con- struction, we have designed a building which we feel is not only compatible with, but will enhance the "old" historical presence of the town. Following is a page of uses and parking as related to uses for the building. Also provided are letters relating to electrical, water, storm sewer, sewer system, gas, each provided from the departments concerned. LARRY WINDLS & ASSOCIATES architects and planners 2 August 1973 PROPOSED USES FOR SHERMAN BUILDING BY FLOOR Third Lower Level Health Club or Night Club Second Lower Level Storage for shops First Lower Level Shops First Upper Level Shops Mezzanine Shop or Restaurant Second Upper Level Offices for stores and restaurants and transit executives Third Level Restaurant and Lounge PARKING AS RELATED TO USE BY FLOOR Third Lower Level 9 One per thousand sq. ft . Second Lower Level 4.5 One-half per thousand sq. ft . First Lower Level 6 Average one per thousand sq. ft . (one-half less intensive and one- and one halfmore intensive ) First Upper Level 6 Average one per thousand sq. ft. (one-half less intensive and one and one half more intensive) Mezzanine 2 Average one per thousand sq. ft . (one-half less intensive and one and one half more intensive) Second Upper Level One per thousand sq. ft. (less intensive ) Third Upper Level 6- One per thousand sq.ft. 38.5 Total space required parlour'13'.the brand building-p.o.box 3900•aspen,colorado 81611.303-925-3390 • CITY ASPEN aspen ,co .°�: �� .�, �w i box v 7-10-73 Sherman E Company Inc. 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, George 30337 Dear Gentleman: Reference -is-made-to the property designated as land lots G,H, & I, block 94, City and Township of Aspen, Colorado, and to the planned construction of commercial space thereon by Sherman $ Company, Inc. This is to certify that the City Elect system service that location from the alley between and parellel to Hyman and Hunter streets, and that the facilities are adequate for the servicing of the planned building. Very truly yours 1/1/ /- • CITY CI ASPEN aspen ,�a''_ ° ' box v 7-10-73 Sherman & Company Inc. 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, George 30337 Gentlemen: Reference is made to the property designated as land lots G,H, & I, block 94, City and Township of Aspen, Colorado, and to the planned construction of commercial space thereon by Sherman & Company, Inc. This is to certify that the City Water system service e that location tion from the alley between and parellel to Hyman and Hunter streets, and that the facilities are adequate for the servicing of the planned building. Very truly yours CITY CF . A aspen ,c: : :.-a L , a an box v July 10th, 1973 Sherman & Company Inc. 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30337 Gentlemen: Concerning the property designated as land lots G, H, & I , Block 94, City and Township of Aspen, Colorado. This is to certify that the above property does not have storm sewers at this time. Your company should provide preliminary plat for on site storm drainage retention. Yours truly, Dave Ellis City Engineer. _ 3 4 , / `.' ASIJtol SANITATION DIS11 = T P. O. Box 528 Tele. 925-3601 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • July 10, 1973 • Sherman & Company, Inc. 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30337 ■ Gentlemen: Reference is made to the property designated as land lots G, H and I, Block 94, City and Township of Aspen, Colorado, and to the planned construction of commercial space thereon by Sherman & Company, Inc. This is to certify that the Aspen Sanitation District sewer system services that location from the alley between and parallel to Hyman and Hunter Streets, and that the facilities are adequate for the servicing of the planned building. Yours very trul , Oy-,e--17j nt Sampson Executive Secretary ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC. P.O.BOX 2059 • ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-2323 July 7, 1973 Sherman & Company, Inc. 1568 Willingham Drive Atlanta, Ga. 30301 Gentlemen: Reference is made to the property designated as land lots G, H, & I, in Block 94, city and township of Aspen, Colorado and to the plan construction of commercial space hereupon by Sherman & Company, Inc. This is to certify that Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company lines which go along your corresponding property are located on the northern side of the alley directly behind lots G, H, & I of Block 94. There are no gas lines available from the east on Hunter or from the south on Hyman Street. The facilities are adequate for the servicing of your planned building. Very truly yours, • Willard C. Clapper District Manager WCC/ec