The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.300 E Hyman Ave.007-73 APpeAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Da te .-.Mire.. 2.8) ~" Case No. 73-? Appellant Crystal Palace Rest. Address 300 E. Hyman Ave. Crystal Palace Corporation Address Box 32 Aspen, Colo. Owner Location of Property Lot K & L, Block 81, Aspen townsite. (Street & Number of Subdivision Block & Lot No.) Building Permit application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of Case No. 73-/ The Board will return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Description of proposed exception showing justification: See Exhibit A r lJL ~(.6'. j. -~r Appe ant Crystal Palace Corporation Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting permit. See Attached . Chief Building Inspector Status ~e-j\~ Permit rejected date Decision Date Application filed Date of Hearing Hailed Secretary ,......., r--. ...., NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 73-7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENI TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Offi~ial Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amend- ed, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Resolution, Title XI, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious con- sideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: Time: April 5, 1973 3:00 p.m., City Council Chambers Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Crystal Palace Corporation Address: P. O. Box 32, Aspen, Colorado Location or description of property: Location: Description: 300 E. Hyman, Aspen Lots K & L, Block 81, Aspen Townsite Variance requested: See attached request Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) ~A Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENI BY by Leg , , Case No. 73- 7 Cryst~l Pal~ce Corp. 300 E. Hyman Lots K & L, BlK. 81 Aspen Townsite Application is made for a building permit to remodel and build ~ second story addition to an existing building. 1. The proposed 2nd. story addition would be 27'_2" high. " No building or structure shall be constructed higher than 25 feet above grade within 10 feet of the front or rear lot line." Sec. 24-7 : Maximum Height of Building. 2. The existing building is non_conforming since the site does not provide the required 25% open space. " A non_conforming use of land or of a building or any portion thereof shall not be ex_ tended." Sec. 24-10 (e) : Extensions 3. The proposed addition would require three or four additional off-street parking spaces and it is requested that these spaces be purchased from the City of Aspen as is permitted in the C-C Zoning District. Sec. 24-9: Location of required off-street parking. 1 """ - '0.-' ~~ V'Valls & sterling architects aspen, colorado members a.1a. / p. o. bOx as / zip oode B1611 / phone 303-sa o-aa18 March 28, 1973 City Clerk City of Aspen P.O. Box I Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Lorraine, The following list of names and addresses, as obtained from the Pitkin County Assessor, constitute the adjacent property owners to the Crystal Palace Property located on Block 81, Lots K & L. JMW/lak encl. ~~ ~ I....,.; :) V'Valls & sterling architects aspen, colorado membsros aia./p. 0, box as/zip code BleIl/phone aos-ssc-aaIS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE CRYSTAL PALACE 1. Prospector Lodge Inc. Box 3296, Aspen, 2. Modern Method Corporation Box A, Aspen 3. Berko, Franz & Mirte, Box 360, Aspen 4. Shaw, William R. Box 510, Aspen 5. Snow Flake Lodge, Inc. Box 689, Aspen 6. Bass, Harry W. Jr. & Mary A. 1150 Merchanti1e Building Dallas, Texas 75201 7. Gaevernitz, Geno V.S. Moorweg 3A, 8184 Gmund, Am Tegirnsel, Germany (Dave Slemon, Box 3219, Aspen attorney representing the estate of the above named man.) , THl: pro s ~ e c tor LODGE BOX 3296 - (303) 925-3634 _ ASPEN. COLORADO - 81611 lrmd\ ~1. 1 '17~, i1G{)Jl{! G{ G;d t'U-Dtment c-Lt ~ G{ G-Dj1.,en Ci-oj1-€n. CGtG'ln.cJ G 81011 .!,I.en'1 S1./1-D, Il-€ : 0L~-Dt D{ (Fn{ac-€ lJU'l-tnnc-€ GjvvLt 5, 1 '17~ uJt.En0€ {)UQ.<J) Ul-t-D tett-€'l dnt-€ CYWl WU\ 'l.e<!D'l{!-tn{j t~l-€ Dfwu-€ 'U,U'l-tD,nc-e. W-e {e-et t ~nt Hl-€ -D-€CiYn..cJ -DtCYlIJ nDD-thGn -D~w'U{.cJ O-€ nUoo-€.cJ nn.cJ Ul-€ DG nGt wt-€d tG tf't-e {cd Hwt -tt Ul-tU &-€ ttile> {-€-€t n-t{j~,H tnnn j11l-€0emt 'ZiYn.-tn<f fW'llflllt-D, Ct-€{l'lt~ tvw'U-t.cJ-tn<i' the '1-€(]'U-Vt..e.cJ <yir€-€n -Dfu;.c.e at tfJA-D 0tD<f€ -to 'U-l'1t'UDUV -tmhGM-to{.e. G-D n-€-t{jMCYl-D o{ t~-€ 0L~dn{ 6)a{.(]c-€ Ul-€ IIw'\J-€ G00€'l'U-€.cJ Hwt th-€~ ?1{l'\J-€ a.wnlJ-D 0h-L'U-€n to ft'l-€0€'l'\J-€ tt'l-€-Vt ~-Dt CYl-Lcn~ M9n-L{-Lcnnt O'Wlt.cJ-tn<i' Dn.cJ ill-€ U'l-€ C-e'lta-Ln that tfJ..e-i.!l !MGhG0€.cJ a.cJ.cJ-Lt-LGn u.\-tU -at -DG o-€ dGn-€ UJH~" <;)GO<1 ta-Dt-€. --1 g.1j~-€'1-€~ . '1!Z~ 1'< /1 ;/ / .. , ,/' / r..-<h 'L, ~';'''<~ i 6)-€tt'1~0'l1: """"" -, .....,- "' CIT PEN box v April 12, 1973 Board of Adjustment City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colo. 81611 Gentlemen: The Historic Preservation Committee met Wedsenday evening, April 11th, 1973 with Jack Walls, Architect, for the proposed Crystal Palace alteration. The committee agreed that the plans meet the intent and purpose of the Historic Zoning Ordinances, and therefore have no objection to the issuance of a Building Permit based on plans presented and the variances requested. The committee would however request that Mr. Metcalf submit a letter requesting that our committee investigate the historic significance of the Crystal Palace with the possibility of future designation as an H, Historic Overlay District. Because the committee feels that the intent and purpose of our regulation is being met, we have no objection to the immediate issuance of the requested Building Permit. The committee appreciates this opportunity to comment on this pro- ject. Sincerely, ~~l--. David Finholm Chairman FW/dc EXHIBIT A TO APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF CRYSTAL PALACE CORPORATION Case No. 73- The matter presented before the Board of Adjustment of the City of Aspen is a request upon the part of the Applicant, Crystal Palace Corporation, by and through their architects, Walls & Sterling of Aspen, Colorado, for a waiver for variance from the strict application of the provisions of ~ 24-7 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDING, Page 1494, Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, 1971 Ed.; OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, Page 1495 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, 1971 Ed.; and ~ 24-9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, 1971 Ed., commencing on Page 1512, relating to parking. By way of background with respect to this Application for a Variance, it is submitted that the Crystal Palace Corporation is the fee simple owner of Lots K and L, in Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, and operates thereon its principal business, that being the Crystal Palace Restaurant, with attendant lounge. The business has been conducted contin- uously in that location from and since the year 1960. In 1967, the Applicant, by and through its chief executive officer, Mead Metcalf, contacted the architects who are presenting this Application for Variance and requested that they design for him an addition to the original Crystal Palace Building, circa 1889 , which would accommodate a lounge area and a second story to accommodate office space for rental purposes and space to be utilized incident to the operation of the Crystal Palace Restaurant. At that time plans were prepared, resulting in construction in 1968 of the lounge area on the first floor situate easterly of the original restaurant building. At the time of that construction, the entire structure was engineered to carry the second floor which was proposed and designed but was deferred at that particular point in time. Beams were incorporated into the structure . throughout in order to accommodate the proposed second floor. The reason for not proceeding with construction of the second floor at that point in time was the financial cost thereof. However, the project was, from its outset, planned to be phased in three phases which would accommodate a major remodeling of the original restaurant portion of the building, the addition of the lounge and the addition of the second floor which is proposed at this particular point in time. At the time that Walls & Sterling prepared the original proposal incorporating the remodeling, first floor addition and second floor addition, the building, as then designed and proposed now, would have been permitted by virtue of zoning regulations then in effect. The Applicant at this point in time wishes to proceed under his original plans, on which substantial amounts of money have been outlayed, not only for architectural fees but also for the incorporation of carefully engineered structural components to carry the structural requirements of the proposed second story addition. These were incorporated in the remodel- ing which occurred in 1968, adding the lounge area to the original restaurant building. However, at this point in time, the Applicant is faced with the dilemma of several zoning changes promulgated between the time the entire project was proposed, designed and partially constructed (in 1968) and this date. These basic changes and their effect upon the Applicant in proceeding with his project are as follows: (a) Under existing zoning, the Applicant would be permitted to build to a maximum height in the C-l Building District of the City of Aspen a structure 37 1/2 feet in height. However, because of change in zoning, any structure built in said C-l District higher than 25 feet above grade must have a 10 foot setback on the front or rear lot line. To reiterate, with emphasis, this was not the requirement when the original proposal was presented to the Applicant by the architects in 1968 but has been promulgated subsequently. With the overall - 2 - proposal in mind, in 1968 the architects prepared plans for the overall remodeling and first and second story additions without provision for a 10 foot front or rear lot line set- back, which plans followed the position and location of the original building and was expanded or extended by virtue of the first floor addition constructed in 1968. In order to carry out the proposal at this point in time for a strict application of the Zoning Code, it would be necessary for the Applicant to remove 10 feet of the structure (incorporating the structural improvements of 1968) from the building. Efforts by the architects, assuming re-engineering would even be possible, have been made to depict or redesign the building in this state and results have been unsatisfactory in every sense. (b) In addition to the SETBACK REQUIREMENT zoning change, and since the time the original proposal by the architects for the remodeling, first floor addition and second floor addition, by ordinance there is now a require- ment that not less than twenty-five percent of the building space in the C-l zoning district be committed as open space. Again, to reiterate, this was not the case in 1968 and in reliance thereon, incorporating the structural materials necessary for the second floor addition, the first floor addi- tion was erected, using the entire lot area, except a small space provided in the rear of the building for off-street parking for three vehicles. By strict application at this time, in order for the Applicant to go forward with his proposed second story addition and remodeling of the building, it would be necessary to raze or demolish a portion of the structure to accommodate the requisite open space. This is further complicated by the requirement that the minimum dimen- sion of the side of the open space which is open to a street shall be one-half of the dimension of that side of the building site, or 100 feet, whichever is less. In this particular - 3 - instance, any modification of the building whatsoever would simply destroy the efficient use thereof for a functional restaurant-lounge operation of the type operated by the Crystal Palace Restaurant, and further destroy the historical significance of the building. While not earlier mentioned, it is pointed out with heavy emphasis that the building is of significant historical value and has been designated as a historic building (and a proper placque placed thereon) by the Aspen Historical Society. Regardless of whether or not the Applicant is permitted to go forward with the project as at all times proposed, large scale remodeling will be necessary inasmuch as the original building is in need of substantial repair which, without ability on the part of the Applicant to proceed with the proposed second story addition, would be financially infeasible. It should be carefully noted that by virtue of the proposal of the Applicant, as incorporated into the earlier plans and specifications, it is the intention to carry through the architectural harmony of the old building. In order to create the effect of the historic theme throughout, both on the interior and exterior, it is felt that any cutting and piecing, even if technically and structurally possible at this point in time, would seriously depreciate from the historic value and aesthetics of the building and site and, at best, would give a blocked-off unnatural effect. The Applicant points to the fact that the second story addition, as proposed, will be constructed, if approval of the variance application is granted, only to a height of 27' 2" and the density utilization will be the creation of 3,250 square feet of office space, 980 square feet of which is to be used by the Applicant for administration and storage and the remainder for low traffic type of business or pro- fessional offices. With this square footage utilization related to the entire lot size, that being 60 x 100 or 6,000 square feet, the ultimate effect of the entire proposal, as - 4 - built, would be utilization of only 86% of the total density permitted to a height 10.3 feet less than permitted by the Zoning Code. The Applicant would point out that while it feels the open space requirement, as contained in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, is certainly valid and worthwhile, the strict application thereof to existing structures, especially those with historic significance, which have been kept and improved in an attractive state throughout the years, is an imposition of a grave hardship when any effort is made to upgrade the property and to realize greater use from the building. We believe that it is clear, in light of the alternative proposals which would be difficult at best from an engineering standpoint, that a strict application of the Zoning Code respecting older buildings does not, in fact, create pleasing structures which lend charm and dignity to the City of Aspen, but rather result in a less desirable effect in the substitution of modern design for the existing traditional Aspen buildings, most of which seem to be slowly disappearing from the community. An example in this area can be pointed out by the strict application of the 25% open space requirement to the Roaring Fork Building. It is the Applicant's understanding that the builder thereof inserted certain beam spans for beams or spanners for aesthetics to break up what to it is an obvious misapplication or misuse of the open space requirement. While the new addition to the Roaring Fork Building, or perhaps it is a separate building, would not be of historical significance, it is designed in the tradition of the older Aspen buildings pre- dating the 20th Century and certainly could be a valuable addition to the City of Aspen. However, merely by visually inspecting this project, it is clear that the open space, while in full compliance with the Code, simply creates an alley between buildings to collect snow and ice and the residue left by stray dogs. - 5 - "._.'_.'..__k~_ (c) The third facet of the application for a variance is the request on the part of the Applicant that it be per- mitted to negotiate with the City Manager of the City of Aspen in order to make provision for three or four parking spaces off the site for the use of the occupants of the proposed second floor addition. It is pointed out that the Applicant is presently providing three off-street parking places which are adequate for its restaurant-lounge operation and which would remain even with the construction of a second floor addition. Any such leased parking negotiated by it would be for its relatively low density office spaces as are proposed for construction. As earlier pointed out, the original building dates far back into history and the addition has been in place since 1968. It would require extensive razing and demolition to accommodate the requisite off-street parking on, in this instance, two lots which are on the first level presently fully improved. The question of the possibility and the question for negotiation for off-street parking in the C-l District was the recent subject of a variance hearing before this Board, that being the application of Kenneth N.C.B. Moore and the Town Place property. It is pointed out that this property in the C-l District is very close to the boundary line of the commer- cial core district, and it is urged that the concept presented here is very much similar to that presented by Mr. Moore. The instant case is strengthened by the fact that there is no anticipated razing or demolition as in the Moore case. While it is acknowledged that the Applicant in this case has more property by approximately 3,000 square feet, the logistics which are obvious as a factor in that case are as significant here with the added aspect that here we are talking about a structure with historical significance in this matter. With all of these factors in mind, it is requested by the Applicant that this Board grant a variance from the strict - 6 - application of the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen with respect to (a) setback for buildings above , ! 25 feet in the C-l District, and (b) the 25% open space requirement and position thereof, and the strict application of the off-street parking ordinance. - 7 -