Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.iz.Durant/Galena Building 1974 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Building Inspector FROM: . Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance 19 Review, Subject : Yit._,L,L., e4j, _ , cZ.z--,,,,,_J ide--e-e--e-/r- • On ,27-c2/- -/A7 the planning commission reviewed the above building permit and it was approved denied Conditions : fit- �',q X.i 11 A.) ,'n-c GC,C..ti s �E f:.i77 i.v CZ, fly '`l�``J //-J� ,..% -2. /e°ST.e IC-T GISES 70 7.-,00 F „o ES j,..c)/�-�Ic> . 1 o& Ge,‹. �,.r! A-- 22/S7w1c T. /� ©�.a r F �.e o v I o E m .a.cc y c E " 'u s' co of 12P E. "I 1 u Pk Ala-or) b p/e. ,J6Cr9-77, 0 aJ N , a Iv a e rz ‘ 40 .`tJ -1 Gt-7/ L I TIC S • (0Gr)-t---4—e--c_.) gc._...„__L........„ Planning Office Dated this //7,1/- day of • t---1- z__ , 197 ,.. 1 1 , , May 21, 1974 Spencer Schiffer, Esq. Chairman City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, Colorado Re : Durant-Galena Building Dear Mr. Schiffer: Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Commission's requirements made upon the grant of preliminary approval for the captioned project, I submit the following: 1. Attached is a copy of my Option for the balance of the half-block abutting Durant and Hunter Streets . 2. I agree to participate with the City of Apsen in the undergrounding of the electrical utility lines servicing my property. 3. I agree to restrict the building' s usage to tourist-related uses . 4 . I agree to conform to the City of Aspen' s parking, or non-off-street parking, requirements for this area as determined by the City to be appropriate for this project. 5. I agree to provide such employee housing units as are required for this project by the City of Aspen. I have made arrangements for the leasing of such units at this time in Studios West, but I hope to build in cooperation with the City of Aspen, permanent employee housing. This building project, as you know, is in the active planning stage. Very truly yours, Stephen J. Mar us Mr. Stephen J. Marcus Page -2- April 25, 1974 At the closing you shall make to me the payment and delivery of the promissory note referred to in paragraph 2 herein, and I shall deliver to you a general warranty deed conveying the land to you, or your designee, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except those generally applicable to lands in the City of Aspen. The usual real estate closing adjustments shall apply including proration of rentals to the closing date. 4 . Title: Within 30 days of notice of intent to exercise this option, I shall provide to you a commitment for title insurance covering the land which commitment shall demonstrate merchantable title. After closing I shall provide to you title insurance at my expense insuring title to the lands in the amount of the purchase price. Should merchantable title not be demonstrated, and upon written notice from you of the defects complained of, the closing may be delayed for a period of six months in order to cure such defects. Should such not be cured within that period, you may, ,at your option, either waive such defects or terminate this purchase and receive back all sums paid by you in connection with this option. 5. Binding Effect: This agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the hiers, executors, personal representatives and assigns of the parties hereto. If the foregoing if acceptable to you please so indicate below. Very truly yours , � 7 , `' Zi Art r- C. Hyde 11(( Agreement Confirmed and Accepted )11-14 Stephen J. Marcus RECORD OF PROCEEu(NGS 100 Leaves FOR.w C.r.h0CCNC!O.N.a i.Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 by Vagneur. Landry questioned what would happen if the project was reviewed under Ordinance #19 as far as insuring that this would never become a triplex. MAIN MOTION Members voting in favor: Johnson and Vagneur. Mem- bers voting against: Schiffer, Jenkins and Landry. Motion not carried. Ordinance #19 Attorney John Wendt was present representing the appli- Reviews cant, Steve Marcus. Durant-- Galena Building Ms. Baer stated that this was a preliminary review. Stated that the conditions of conceptual approval were shown on a memo submitted to the Commission .which in- cluded: (1) Later discussion of parking; and (2) Ap- plicant demonstrates an option on remaining 6 lots of '. block. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has sub- mitted an economic impact report and referral letters are noted and shown in the memorandum. Marcus stated that the reason they had not requested a referral letter from the gas company is that the pro- ject would be all electric. Vagneur stated that she had sat on the Commission when this project was first discussed and the original build- ing was disapproved. Stated that it was her understand- ing at that time that the Commission had asked Marcus to go back and do a Master Plan of the entire half block. Stated that she had not seen that Master Plan yet. Marcus stated that they did Master Plan the block and in the middle of the drawing of the plans, the City tried to pass a view plane Ordinance. Stated that he had been told he could go possibly 50 feet if he set back and was not boxy or massive. Stated that the view plane lowered the potential height of the buildings. Ms. Baer stated that the first time that Marcus came be- fore the Commission, would not say that the building was denied. Stated that the minutes indicate that the Com- mission requested that they see a plan for the half block and this would be an opportunity to master plan a half block in downtown Aspen. When he came back with a sketch plan and then requested a study session with the Commission, but due to a heavy schedule, this study session never took place. • Vagneur stated that her interpretation was that the build ing that Marcus brought in the first time the Commission considered too dense for two lots and thought it should be spread out over a half block since it was their last chance to really do something. Then Marcus came back with a new plan of 3 lots. Marcus stated that he was told to withdraw his plan or • the Commission would deny it. Pointed out that he did not own the whole block, but has an agreement with the owner to sell him the balance of the block and is will- ing to contract that he will architecturally match the rest of the block. Schiffer queslioned if Marcus had an option on the rest -13- • RECORD OF PROCEELAGS 100 Leaves FORM x C.F.ROECRCL F.S.a C.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 of the area. Marcus stated that he did. Schiffer stated that he did not see how the Commission could get the applicant to commit at this stage to do something on property that he does not own yet. Marcus submitted the site plan and schematic design. Vagneur stated that she felt it was unfortunate that a developer does not go to the Historic Preservation Com- mittee meeting before he conies before the Commission. Stated that Marcus had come in with a buildiing that was squarelike and the Commission decided that it was too dense. Marcus then came back with the present buil- • ding and the Commission gave him conceptual approval. The HPC said that they did not like it because it was all timber and glass and it does not fit with the rest of the tenure of the block, and Vagneur agreed. Wendt stated that the building that the Commission had earlier rejected, the HPC liked. Further stated that the concern should really be with Durant street, but the HPC was talking only about Galena Street. Jenkins stated that he felt Vagneur's point was valid. Marcus stated that he felt the Commission had made an architectural decision when they requested him to come back with a different design. Schiffer stated that the reason he had a problem accept- ing the recommendation is that the Commission approved the concept first. Stated that he did not feel quali- fied to pass on something aesthetically. Felt that if this were a single building located in the central core as opposed to being on the fringe, might be inclined to agree with the IIPC Resolution. But given that it is probably going to be an entire half block under consid- eration, does not feel that he could go along with that boxy type of structure. Wendt stated that they would covenant that if they buy the other half of the block the architectural design will be compatible. Marcus stated that even if he did not take up the option the owner would covenant that the rest of the block would be designed the same. Concensus of the Commission was that applicants should go first to IIPC before coming before the Commission. Schiffer stated that he felt the City should probably ammend Ordinance #19 requiring applicants to go to the HPC first, but do not have that now. Stated he did not feel the Commission was setting any precedent by a de- cision on this project. Stated he felt this was a good design for this particular location. ' Landry made a motion to accept the recommendation of the HPC on the grounds that would like to see the applicant work further with the IIPC. Motion died for lack of a second. -14- RECORD OF PROCEEL..4GS 100 Leaves FORM W C.F.MOCCKOL S.e.R 1.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Marcus stated that the HPC did not give them any real design considerations. Stated that he has discussed the design of the building with several architects in town and they feel that the massive, boxy type of build- ing is ridiculous. Stanford stated that the intent of the HPC is not to address themselves to individual buildings as to whether or not they like that particular building or not. It is to whether it promotes the character of old Aspen, which does not mean historic looking necessarily. Stanford further stated that Marcus had come to their_ first meeting and the HPC gave him their recommendations. Stated that they would like for Marcus to come in and they would give him some guidelines. Stated that they were ready to give Marcus guidelines that day. Marcus stated that he disagreed with the HPC analysis. Landry repeated her motion which was seconded by Vag- neur. Schiffer_ stated that if the Commission voted in favor of the motion, that would he the same as saying that the Commission is not approving this building and that the applicant will have to come back with something dif- ferent regardless. MAIN MOTION Members in favor: Landry and Vagnuer. Members op- posed: Schiffer, Johnson and Jenkins. Motion not car- ried. Bartel stated that it has not worked for the 'applicant to seek relief from the Board of Adjustment. Stated that it is a function that is initially is a Planning & Zoning Commission function and not a Board of Adjustment function, so the sequence of changes to the Code would be the next time that the off street parking requirements could be changed would be following the public hearing on May 2nd. Stated that he felt that in the downtown area there was a concensus that the offstreet parking requirements in the Code were not applicable. Stated that if the Commission then decides to change the Code that would have affect for a period of six months, dur- ing which time it could be taken to Council as a sepa- rate consideration or incorporated in the zoning code- _ rewrite and presented to Council as part of the revised Code. Further stated that the possibility is that the off street parking requirement change would only have affect for six months and then be reversed by the City Council. Wendt stated that after the public hearing on May 2nd the applicant would no what was appropriate in the way of parking and would incorporate that in the final plan. The same would apply to employee housing. • Marcus stated that they would like to do a hotel, if not a hotel a commercial building with more shop space and could put some condominiums in it. Marcus stated that in the basement there would be a res- taurant - theater group. The main floor would be all shops with the uses as called for in Ordinance 4119. -15- • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IORN N C.I.wnttYR B.O.a L.c RegularMeetini -` Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Further stated that the upper floor will be probably some shops and possibly an office or two. Stated that there would be 8 shops altogether, or 8 spaces. Ms. Baer stated that these were the recommended uses in that area. • Johnson made a motion to give preliminary approval un- der Ordinance #19 to this project conditioned on working out the parking and employee housing problem, that the applicant demonstrate his option on the remaining 6 lots of the block, that he agree to participate in the un- dergrounding of electric utilitites for the building, and that he agree to restrict the uses to tourist-related uses. Motion seconded by Landry. Yank Mojo stated that Marcus had submitted an economic impact statement. Stated that he was satisfied with both the parking and employee housing if Marcus will agree to the City's decision when it comes up for final approval. Stated that he has calculated the parking im- pact and the employee impact and it is up to the Commis- sion to decide what they would like to do with those numbers and then impose whatever decision they have on the developer. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. RBH Building Vagneur stated that she was abstaining in the discussion and vote on this project due to conflict of interest. Ms. Baer stated that this was preliminary review. Stated that the building was given conceptual approval at its last presentation conditioned upon a report from the HPC and a later discussion of housing is .part of the ap- proval. Applicant stated that they would have to get a new tap. , Submitted preliminary site plan. Architect Jack Walls explained site plan to the Commission. Also submitted schematic design drawings and building elevation. Stated that their lot area is 6750 and they are under the floor area ratio, have excess open space and are under the -al-- lowable height. Walls stated that the Commission had recommended that the applicant not provide on site parking, therefore, the basement would be used for storage. Stated that the large lawn area is being preserved and the trees that are there now are being preserved. Stated that the masonry would be tied in with the color of the Court House and the Church. Engineering Department comments were as follows: The proposed project should not create any access or cir- culation problems on Main Street. However, since the site design utilizes service access to the back through a contested alley, the owners should acquire a written agreement from Pitkin county stating that the County will provide alternate access if the alley is closed. The opinion of Pitkin Title Insurance Co. was that the alley did exist. Replacement of the existing sidewalk to current standards is provided for in existing ordi- nances. Drainage should be in compliance with the Ur- ban Runoff Managcmen t Plan; the roof and the sunken court should provide retnetion capacity for the site -1F- ) r _ ,Lkd ECONOMIC IMPACT SURVEY LOTS K,LiM, BLOCK 96 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO ---T - • Presently located on the above described property are four tourist • oriented shops containing approximately 4000 square feet. In the new building designed for the subject property there will be three floors of commercial s pace with two stories above grade and a garden level. The size of the garden level and main floor will be approximately 5800 square feet each plus a second floor con- taining approximately 3800 square feet. It is the intention of the owners to use the main and second floors for daytime touris t-oriented uses . Each of t:hes e two floors wi 11 have approximately four s hops , increasing the present number of shops by only four. The garden level will be us ed specifically for a night time res taurant. By calling for the uses in advance we. hops to avoid the full impact of people that would ordin__fily occur if all three floors were being used during the day, therefore, at any one time there will never be more than eight shops containing 9600 square feet doing business during the day, and a restaurant containing 5800 square feet operating at night. With reference to the impact of automobile traffic, it is felt that the number of cars in the area will not change substantially. Since the building is located in the central core , people would be in the area anyhow, whether going to the proposed building or not. It is further felt that due to the daytime touris t --oriented shops and the night time only res taurant, the traffic generated by the building would never be at a maximum n Two of the Tenants who presently rent s pace on the property are 'planning to move into the new structure. The rental of the balance of the six. shop spaces is currently being negotiated with all old time Aspen merchants who are cramped in their present quarters and need more space to operate efficiently. The developer feels that because of renting larger space to existing long time, established Aspen businesses there will be several more permanent jobs available to Aspen residents In discussing the construction of this building with the Police and Fire Departments it has been noted that there should be no additional strain on the services of either of these City Departments due to the central location and moderate size of the proposed structure. In talking to the Aspen Sanitation Department, they feel that the addition of six bathrooms and one kitchen will not put any sizeable • strain on the sewage plant facilities . The present Peal Estate taxes collected on the property amount to $1900 per year with gross sales in the present four shops amount- ing to approximately $200, 000. The two percent collected by the City based on the $200, 000 figure contributes $4000 in sales tax • revenue. The new structure should bring in approximately $7500 in Peal Estate taxes and do a gross sales volume in the area of $600, 000 which would increase the two percent tax collections by Jthe City from $4000 to $12 , 000, therefore, the gains realized by the City in Real Estate tax and Sales tax should increase by $13 , 600. It is felt that this increased revenue to the City of As pen should more than make up for any additional use of the City's utilities and s ei 'ices that may be required. Res p`ctfully sui�:nitted, S tephen j. Marcus Univers i'Ly of Penns ylvania 1-`)50 13.S . in Economics; TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Durant Galena Bldg. - Preliminary Review DATE: 4/16/74 Commercial building, including perhaps 1-2 offices Approximately 15,400 so . ft. , including lower level, on 3 lots (9000 sq. ft. ) . Conditions of conceptual approval: 1. Later discussion of parking 2. Applicant demonstrates an option on remaining 6 lots of z block. Referral letters: positive; no letter from gas co. , Engl Dept. requests applicant agree to participate in undergrounding of electric . Economist: According to submitted statistics , building will create 20 new jobs plus jobs created by vacation of old retail space. Economic impact study probably understates increased revenue (see last page of study) , and therefore understates new jobs that will be generated. Doesn' t appear to adequately account for revenue & jobs generated by cabaret. (Crystal Palace employees 35 people in a space of similar square footage. ) Historic Preservation Commee: see attached resolution. Considerations: A study session re. entire half block & its uses . Parking agreement. .00 C--16-"X_IZ6Z.,—e-sc.-e3 r r-e--4. , „7,14.._.e.„,-,,,t7„,_, t(-7"...„_„...c2pz1.......t-.• / ,,, , „..(2e... , ,,z/e2...„ , ..)---z_, „if:,2,491--gram:1-5 ' r I. 1* � e_.-e. ;:-... / ,„ --,:___--- _e___f/_- ...Z.,....) p--45V-6,--e—e- __. Iw/ �%a - g ,..-2,-2,c_j_64,,____„4 1 _ , 0, . -)-.....) mod- C-{. rz (--,--r ..,66.,XL.L.. ).)' / , li ...s-, 6-1....4...._1.._<_,___e_ _ez...z_e____c Cry-✓ t.t.,(___"__ ....„..?„. . )zce_...1- -A____.0._y_t „2 -..,..r_..ec___&) _....„,..te....c„____K --Z,c --6__ ___, 4-..e.....iL., 1“7:...c.,-Yl. Pt) L /Z--e � ,i/tL_- t--<%1— ‘ -JAL) ----Le,e-c4_ . 1 .......Letez----) ,,-),-.... co__-c..o--7-L__e./L_...z //aLz-77---.c..7x. 6,___c_.,v &ei-xl.....e.&, ..,,,,,,, 1 . 1(---7----3- r SPEED !MEP To aspen Y n lannirig and "Loning Aspen Sanitation District box V Box 528 Aspen, Colorado 61611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ate: na Baer - don F IBJErT_Durant-Galena Building No. 9 8, 10 FOLD April 5 74 MESSAGE DATE ---- 9_----- Ine Aspen Sanitation District has been under Orinance 19 to comment on the above building. The District has adequate line and Plant capacity to service the proposed building. -X: --Steve iVtareus i/ ,,Li,/ CICP?Fp - ----_ ..-. gam-n E S retard REPLY DATE - - —19 ---No. S FOLD -No. 10 FOLD SIGNED - Grcw inel -SNAF.A-WAY" FORM 44.902 PARTS WILSON JONES COEFANY •L%1 96 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY 973 CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,coo, ato, 81611 box v CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZOING COMMISSION: The City of Aspen hereby guarantees water service for the project under Ordinance 19 review listed below. Steve Marcus, Durant & Galena Street Project Block 96 , Lots K,L,M 91#(414"■ James Markalunas Water Department Director TCO/cmc cc: Steve Marcus PO Box 1709 Aspen, Colo. 81611 CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,colorado, awn box v April 3 , 1974. Mr. Steve Marcus P.O. Box 1709 Aspen , Colorado 81611 Re : Water Approval of Steve Marcus ' Project at Durant and Galena., Block 96, Lots KIM. Dear Steve : I don't see any problems in suppling this project . There is plenty of water at this location .d S '.ncerely, • 44/4014rw.ipm. m Ma.rkalunas Director - Water Department JM,/eg i,, • CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,col ora do, 81611 box v CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The City of Aspen hereby electric L...7114°11 1 service for the project under Ordinance 19 review listed below. Steve Marcus, Durant & Galena Street Project Block 96 , Lots K,L,M Thomas Maddalone Electric Department Director ) 2 ,--) pi / a.„.. ... ..,,, L ., i ....,_ t,/ TCO/cmc cc; Steve Marcus PO Box 1709 Aspen, Colo. 81611 CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,eor--ado, G:31 box v March 26th, 1974 Mr. Stephen J. Marcus PO Box 1709 Aspen, Colo. 81611 RE: 500 E. Durant Durant Galena Bldg. Dear Mr. Marcus : After reviewing the above mentioned project I feel that all the requirements have been met and no Engineering problems exist. Should electric service be available, the owner should agree to participate in the cost of undergrounding the utility. Very truly yours, Ed Del Duca Asst. City Engineer cc: P & Z Commission EDD/dc • )1,s Itry T SPFN aspen ,co box V DATE: March 26 , 1974 • Stephen J. Marcus • PO Box 1709 • Aspen, Colo. 81611 RE: 500 E. Durant Durant Galena Bldg. This is to say that in the context of the existing system this area has adequate access and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION. Yours truly, William F. Caille Fire Marshall cc: P & Z Commission RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves riM C.F.H,?FCKFL B.8..L. _ _ _.__.__ -.-.._- Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 addressing that matter the following Thursday. Ms. Baer questioned the Commission if the applicant could arrive at a solution, transmittting that to the Commission, could they start on the Board of Ad- justment process. Chairman Gillis stated that he wanted it understood that when the Commission deals with the parking pro- blem in general next Thursday, do not want to see anything on this project specifically. Main Motion All in favor, with the exception of Landry who ab- stained and Schiffer who abstained. Motion carried. Aspen Auto Supply - Ms. Baer stated that there were no plans or maps. Exemption Stated that the applicant would like to go underground to build a recreation room, laundry room and furnace room, which the Planning Office feels is suitable for an exemption. Extension of existing lodge, Buckhorn, which does not include additional units. Schiffer stated that he might have a conflict of in- terest and requested the Commission decide. Stated that he used to be partners with Steve Weir, and Sy Kelly is a client of Steve Weir, and Schiffer once worked on a case for Kelly. Commission decided there was no conflict of interest. Johnson stated that he had no problem with approving the exemption. Jenkins stated that he would like to go on record that he sold the Auto Supply to Kelly. Jenkins made a motion to approve this exemption under Ordinance #19, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. • lMarcus Building - Steve Marcus was present to make the presentation. �/ Conceptual Marcus reminded the Commission that he had come up with a building on two lots with a square, simple de- sign which the Commission had objected to. Further pointed out that the recommendation of the Commission was to Master Plan the block with something more ex- citing. Marcus stated that they started to Master Plan the block and were told that they would be allowed to go higher than 40 feet, but in the middle of that, a view plane ordinance was passed. Decided to come in with a building under the 30 foot view plane, and sub- mitted plans for the building. POinted out that they did not draw another building to match it, but stated that it is understood that when he buys the additional property the building that will go on the property will match the first building. Chairman Gillis questioned if Marcus had a site plan for the half block. Ms. Baer stated that the last site plan which had been RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves CC F.N.',ECREL R. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974 submitted to the Commission had been for 2 lots. Pointed out that this site plan was for three. Stated that this was not the entire half block, but that Mar- cus has an option for the rest of the site block and is willing to build anything the Commission would like to see. Chairman Gillis stated that the applicant was sent away and requested to come back with a site plan for the entire half block, which is not what he is pre- senting. Johnson stated that the Commission could only look at what the applicant is presenting. Chairman Gillis questioned the applicant as to what is different about this presentation other than an option to buy the rest of the half block. Marcus stated that no one would purchase the whole block if they know they cannot even possibly build the first building. Johnson stated that he felt the applicant had been sent away before because he had a block building which no one liked. Jenkins stated that he agreed with Marcus. Stated that as long as there would be continuity on the block, felt that would be sufficient. Marcus stated that he would contract for the continu- ity and the present owner would contract for the con- tinuity. Vagneur stated that she still had a problem with what the Commission had sent Marcus away to do. Stated that the Commission had told him to go out and leave open space and stack up some buildings because it was the last control the City had of a half a City block. Marcus stated that he was now coming in with a commer- cial building. Stated that there was a main floor, an upper level and a lower. level. Stated it was all com- mercial use and plan on doing shops which would be com- patible with Ordinance #19. Stated that they are ac- tually allowed 18,000 square feet usable on three lots and have cut down to approximately 8,000 usable and a basement of approximately 5,000 square feet usable. Felt the density was as low as it could possibly be. Stated that he would be willing to contract to the Ordinance #19 uses. Stated the building was all brick, beam, deck and glass, roofs are all pitched, is set- back and will be landscaped nicely. Marcus' architect stated that they have designed the building to be as multi-directional as possible. Stated that there was also a setback on the east side of the property. Marcus stated they would like to do the project in two phases. Stated that he felt they would be prepared to come back next year with a plan for the other 6 lots. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ."" C.E.HDE:N EL B.:•.1 L Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7 , 1974 Marcus stated that they were told they were not re- quired to have parking, so it is not included, but would be willing to buy it out if the law changes. Ms. Baer reminded the Commission that the applicant would still have to go to City Council about their plans on that site. Johnson questioned what type of uses would be in the other part of the block. Marcus stated that the Commission had originally told him they would like a hotel, and stated that would be willing to do that and have people interested in doing that with them. Schiffer questioned if there would be any professional office space in the building. Marcus stated that there was a possibility that there would be one or two offices. Ms. Baer explained to the applicant that his project would have to be reviewed by the Historic Preserva- tion Committee. Schiffer request the applicant to describe how it com- lies with the review criteria and the use recommen- dations of the Land Use Plan. Marcus stated that he had written a letter to that effect, which Ms. Baer had sent to the Commission members. Schiffer stated that he would like to see the appli- cant's committment which he offered that the rest of • the block be developed in a nature which preserves the continuity. i Ms. Baer stated that she felt a project of this size would be suitable for a study session. Schiffer stated that he felt this project complied almost exactly to the use recommendations and the re- view criteria. Commission agreed that this project would be suitable for a study session. Jenkins made a motion to approve the conceptual pre- sentation of the Marcus Building under Ordinance #19 with the conditions that parking be discussed later, that Marcus does have an option on the remaining 6 lots of that half block. Motion seconded by Schif- fer. Landry questioned if there was an alternative to mak- ing a decision at this meeting. Ms. Baer stated that they had thirty days to make a decision. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. -18- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED DURANT-GALENA B"UILDING DUE TO ITS LACK OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPOSED HISTORIC DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the proposed Durant-Galena Building with respect to its compatibility with nearby historic structures, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has determined that the proposed structure is inconsistent with the desired character of the proposed Historic District, based on the following factors: 1. The massing of the proposed building is inconsistent with the adjacent historic structure, the Independence Building; and 2. The proposed structure ' s design has exterior and exposed structural elements which result in a building form and facade which is inconsistent with the historic character of the proposed Historic District and the nearby historic structures; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has agreed to work to present an analysis and guidelines to the developer of the proposed building for use in determining a building design which is compatible with the historic character; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESER- VATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE DURANT-GALENA BUILDING AS PROPOSED. Date ' !!i C ' ' .' A ; '' Chairm.n 4 6,,-c-,e a,„ )1‘-'"-1' z�r 915--?v ? - 3 btet ., , i7,_cr_.„), 97zi_4..4_,. ../: (-Key_it} . Y. (la° 1 1 6-22-4--e..- z2.j.„,_...62..ex.e Le ./ . '•-ti-7 .-i-- _-e6. .e..) _a_<_. 1 11 1-0-?-1-x-e—et 6x ...1,9&ce_k 1 ' //24--"vi-A° 4fAv-v-i-e--4 -ery?-- ,41-4-&-e4/ 1,02,., i 0 2 i •is (7_,A.. ._w f �f ' 07-----' ..A...A--p,---06-t__571,,,,,_,___. 4_4,7 , c;2) i .e ' Y:- A---- ' • , ,„, ., i i' �, l fr!". t ;t . 411eA--"" ,./C''-7' . d .1 ,/, , / /,' i 1,1), .,,(521 ) °'424 , (3 —5--7 / f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'J C.F.H,]ECKEL B.B.8 L.CJ. 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. urant-Galena Ms. BAer explained that the proposed building was on the VVVVVV 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 2 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 othei lots on that z block. Perhaps could come to some agreement for development of the entire 2 block. Applicant withdrew his request. Sherman Larry Windes and Randy Wedum 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. pc eSze bm, TTE,p tc.uc_./4 /U ,t: . October 5, 1973 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: I hereby enclose a sketch and floor plans for a building that I would like to build on the northeast corner of Durant and Galena Streets known as Block 96, Lots K and L. The building will consist of three stories; the first level mostly below grade, with two levels above grade. The height of this building will be approximately 28 feet which I consider very reasonable being that we are in a 40 foot height limit area. The square footage of the live area in the building is approximately 9500 square feet. This I also consider reasonable since under the present zoning I am allowed to have up to 12,000 square feet of live floor area. The building will consist of approxi- mately 12 shops and although I do not have any space rented to anyone yet I can only say that the Tenants that I select will strictly adhere to the uses called for in Ordinance 19. Presently at this location there is an old swimming pool that hasn't been used in many years which I feel is a terrible eyesore on such a main corner. It is my feeling that a new building in the design which I have submitted will only help to improve the looks of such an important corner in the commercial core of Aspen. Respectfully submitted, Stephen J. Marcus agoo GIB' F A SPEN aspen ,co,;,. 6',611 box v MEMORANDUM TO: Arthur Hyde FROM: Donna Baer • DATE : January 14, 1974 In answer to your request for a clarification of the recommen- ded use under Ordinance 19 for your property at the Southeast corner of Galena and Durant Streets : offices on the second floor of a commercial building could be a recommended use; although professional offices are suggested for the "fringe of the central area" , they are not necessarily excluded from the site in question. A specific recommendation would, of course, depend upon the nature of the complete presentation of a project at this site.