HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.303 E Main St.A76-94
"\.( - -
r'\
r
~/
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 09/13~94
DATE COMPLETE: q {"J.,. _
PROJECT NAME: 303 E. Main GM SEx.
Project Address: 3D3 East Main
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Niklaus Kuhn
Applicant Address: Box 8016. Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Jake Vickerv
Representative Address/Phone: 100 S.
Aspen.
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-073-29-001 A76-94
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
S . Rev. View Plane
-z::' ~dz...
925-3660
Sprinq. #3
CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 2119
$ 96
~ 6~
$ 2275
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
1
1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:--K-
P..Z Meeting Date 'fIA lil'J,'V PUBLIC HEARING: YES
~Q' Ii I; . . I ., VESTED RIGHTS: YES
CC Meeting Date --I;It~ PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
~Q;~C Meeting Date Oil' /3
~ ===============================================================
REFERRALS:
City Attorney x: Parks Dept. School District
~ CitY,Engi~eer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
~ x= Hous~ng D~r. >( Fire Marshal CDOT
~ Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
7----X.... city Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
~ ' Envir . HI th. >( ACSD >< Other 13 f':r:
11 \ >< Zoning Energy Center Other
~- 0 DATE REFERRED: q /'?.--A INITIALS: ~ DUE: 10 lIt:;;
-----------------d----------------------------------------~-----
;~~i~-~~UT~~G~-h1Ct~1~~~-~iT;-~~UT;~~----------~~~T~i~~----
___ City Atty ~ City Engineer ~zoning ~~v. ~ea~th
~ Housing ___ Open Space ~ Other: ~~ ftRY-
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
NO
NO
NO
NO
L
/'
1----
r-.
.
-~- !
~/o
MEMeJtAN.UM
Te:
May.r ana City C.uncil
TH1l.U:
Jill Eftin~, Actin~ City Mana~er
stan Clause~ Cemmunity .evele~ment Director
Kim Johnson, Planner
THlm:
F:/teM:
.ATE:
February 27, 1995
:/tE:
303 E. Main street Affordable Housing Mitigation Program
for a GMQS Exemption Development - Second Reading of
Ordinance 1, Series of 1995
---------~------~------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
/
/
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval
of this project I s housing proposal for the purchase and deed
restriction of an existing 2 bedroom unit to mitigate for 2.11
employees. The restriction will be category 1. The commission
also recommends that if such a unit cannot be located and secured
before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, cash mitigation
shall be accepted.
~
First reading of this ordinance was held on January 9, 1995. At
that time, staff indicated that the applicants were negotiating to
buy a 2 bedroom unit at the Airport Business Center. This proposal
is acceptable to the Housing Office. According to the most recent
message from the applicants, they have a contract and are awaiting
closing on the unit. Please refer to the January 25, 1995 letter
from the Housing Office, Exhibit "0".
BACKGROUND: The development proposal has been approved by the P&Z
for growth management exemption to add a free market dwelling unit
and approximately 2,999 square feet of net leasable area.
Included in the P&Z approval was special review for trash area
reduction and intrusion into the Main street viewplane. These
approvals hinge on the proj ect' s ability to have an affordable
housing mitigation plan ap. prqved by the city Council. Please refer
to Exhibit "A" regarding ,;the most recent housing mitigation
proposal, Exhibit "B" for the Housing Office's referral comments,
and Exhibit "c" for application information.
The HPC has been deeply involved in the design review of this
project and has granted Conceptual Approval. Because this site is
on the National Register of Historic Places, the HPC has attached
substantial design limitations on the project. These constraints
have led to the specific site layout, tower design and limited
light wells to the basement level which impacts the ability for on-
site housing. .
PROPOSAL AND KEY ISSUES: The. land use code exempts from mitigation
<~ ~ wJ\ 'Ii) ~ ~ ~ ~\O, I ~ ~ I
~ J\Q~~ \:t~. QS.. + ~~. f~{P~.~~
v I' t ~-~- ~_ ~.~ ~ (,te:.v>(W
,-,
.-,
lib- r
any net leasable area in the basement of the building.
only the new 2 bedroom freemarket unit and 640 s.f. of
net leasable area are subject to employee mitigation
section 24-8-104 (B) (1) (c).
Therefore,
above-grade
pursuant to
Housing and Planning staff agree with the following calculation
for employee generation:
commercial area -
640 s.f. net leasable at 3.5 empl./ thousand s.f. = 2.24 gross
employee generation
2.24 employee X 60% (minimum GMQS mitigation) = 1.34 employee
1.34 employee X .64 (reduced FAR below max. allowed) = .86 empl.
New 2 bedroom free market residence -
A 2 bedroom unit houses 2.25 persons. In order to meet the minimum
scoring threshold for housing, the project would have to mitigate
by providing a studio apartment (on-site, off-site, or cash
equivalent) for 1.25 low income employees. Please refer to page 7
of the application information.
Total project - the total commercial and residential mitigation
requirement is 2.11 persons at category 1.
The applicants originally proposed an employee dwel.ling unit in the
basement for the project's required mitigation. However, both the
Housing Office and the P&Z would not support this unit because it
had severe access problems and lacked adequate natural light and
ventilation.
Due to the historical constraints mentioned above, the P&Z wanted
to make it clear that any redesign of the site to try to squeeze
housing on-site would not be appropriate. Therefore, they stressed
the ability to accept other housing options set forth in the land
use regulation. They unanimously passed the following motion:
"I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposal
to buy-down an existing two bedroom or larger housing unit,
to be deed restricted and sold as a category 1 unit, finding
that the site size and its historic constraints do not allow
for the development of an acceptable on-site housing unit.
Provided, however, that if the applicant is not able to do a
buy-down prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the applicant shall have the option of cash-in-lieu payment."
2
./
i"""'-.
~,
~.. r
By timing the housing requirement to the certificate of Occupancy
rather than the building permit, the applicant has several
additional months to search out a buy-down unit. The current cash
figure for 2.11 Category 1 employees is $145,590.00. If the cash-
in-lieu amount changes during the construction period, the project
is responsible for the amount in effect at the time of payment.
Typically the Housing Board promotes a standard hierarchy for
affordable housing options. All of the them are allowed by the
land use code, but each scenario must be approved by Council. The
first preference is for on-site housing, followed by off-site
housing and then cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
However, section 24-8-109 J. lists five factors by which Council
shall consider a housing proposal, upon recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning commission:
1) Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop
housing with monies received from payment of
housing dedication fees.
affordable.
affordable
2) Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
3) Whether the applicant's site is well sui ted for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints or historic preservation concerns.
4) Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
5) Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
Staff believes that the P&Z motion stated earlier considers the
above standards, especially standards 3 and 4.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission recommends
approval of housing mitigation for the 303 E. Main street project
as follows:
1) The applicant shall provide mitigation for 2.11 Category 1
employees by the purchase and deed restriction of a two bedroom or
larger unit (to be acceptable by the Housing Office, including any
necessary repairs) prior to the issuance of any certificates of
Occupancy at 303 E. Main Street.
2) If a unit cannot. be located for purchase and accepted by the
Housing Office upon best ef.forts and due diligence by the developer
3
/
~
~\
, .
prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the
developer shall return to City Council for approval of cash-in-
lieu in the amount in effect at the time.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council may opt to not accept the unit being
purchased or the cash-in-lieu as a housing alternative for this
project.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of
Ordinance 1, Series 1995 for an affordable housing mitigation plan
for the 303 E. Main street Growth Management .Exemption project."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 1, Series of 1995
EXHIBITS:
"A" Housing Proposal Amendment
"B" Revised Housing Office Comments
"C" Application Information
"0" Housing Office Letter dated 1/25/95
4
FEB 21
0B:52AM A5~,HOU5ING OFC
1"'*""""., ,I
'95
..
January 25, 1995
Mr. Roget Kuhn
303 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 8~61~
(i "\
P,l
1j:yhihit P
, 19
~........,
City council
Approved
'lv Ordinance
Housing Office
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
530 East Main Street, Lower level
Asp~n, Colorado 816 t 1
(30;1) 920-5050
Fax: (303) 920-558:0
RE: 3Q3 East Main Street Affordable Housing Mitigation
.Dear Rog-et:
The Housing Office has inspected the two-bedroom unit located at
415D Aspen Airport Business Center and has found this to be an
acceptable unit for mitigation purposes.
This unit will have to be deed restricted to Category 1, and sold
through the Housing Office.
Should'you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me or Dave Tolen.
., ,
s:Ln:,:,re_y, a/I....
/i d' d
..t~ . ''1.L<,;,~
ctndy L. ristensan
Office Magar
Post-It" brand 1al1't,,,"smillal memo 76T1
"'...
Co.
tlOI"lS
...
<<
,-.,
....,
~
'"
MEMORANDUM
~~o
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Amy Marger.u..m7~~~ Manage~
stan ClaUSO~y Commun~ty
Kim Johnson, Planner
Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
January 9, 1995
RE:
303 E. Main street Affordable Housing Mitigation Program
for a GMQS Exemption Development - First Reading of
Ordinance ~, series of 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pl~ing and Zonin.g Commission recommends approval
of this project' housing proposal for the purchase and deed
restriction of a xi sting 2 bedroom unit to mitigate for 2.11
employees. The re~ction will be Category 1. The Commission
also recommends tha~f such a unit cannot be located and secured
before the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, cash mitigation
shall be accepted.
BACKGROUND: The development proposal has been approved by the P&Z
for growth management exemption to add a free market dwelling unit
and approximately 2,999 square feet of net leasable area.
Included in the P&Z approval was special review for trash area
reduction and intrusion into the Main street viewplane. These
approvals hinge on the project's ability to have an affordable
housing mitigation plan approved by the city Council. Please refer
to Exhibit "A" regarding the most recent housing mitigation
proposal, Exhibit "B" for the Housing Office's referral comments,
and Exhibit "C" for application information.
The HPC has been deeply involved in the design review of this
project and has granted Conceptual approval. Because this site is
on the National Register of Historic Places, the HPC has attached
substantial design limitations on the project. These constraints
have led to the specific site layout, tower design and limited
light wells to the basement level which impacts the ability for on-
site housing.
PROPOSAL AND KEY ISSUES: The land use code exempts from mitigation
any net leasable area in the basement of the building. Therefore,
only the new 2 bedroom freemarket unit and 640 s.f. of above-grade
net leasable area are subject to employee mitigation pursuant to
Section 24-8-104 (E) (1) (c) .
Housing and Planning staff agrees with the following calculation
for employee generation:
r--
r-'\
commercial area -
640 s.f. net leasable at 3.5 empl./ thousand s.f. = 2.24 gross
employee generation
2.24 employee X 60% (minimum GMQS mitigation) = 1.34 employee
1.34 employee X .64 (reduced FAR below max. allowed) = .86 empl.
new 2 bedroom free market residence -
A 2 bedroom unit houses 2.25 persons. In order to meet the minimum
scoring threshold for housing, the project would have to mitigate
by providing a studio apartment (on-site, off-site, or cash
equivalent) for 1.25 low income employees. Please refer to page 7
of the application information.
Total project - the total commercial and residential mitigation
requirement is 2.11 persons at category 1.
The applicants originally proposed an employee dwelling unit in the
basement for the project's required mitigation. However, both the
Housing Office and the P&Z would not support this unit because it
had severe access problems and lacked adequate natural light and
ventilation.
Due to the historical constraints mentioned above, the P&Z wanted
to make it clear that any redesign of the site to try and squeeze
housing on-site would not be sensible. Therefore, they stressed
the ability to accept other housing options set forth in the land
use regulation. They unanimously passed the following motion:
"I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposal
to buy-down an existing two bedroom or larger housing unit,
to be deed restricted and sold as a Category 1 unit, finding
that the site size and its historic constraints do not allow
for the development of an acceptable on-site housing unit.
Provided, however, that if the applicant is not able to do a
buy-down prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the applicant shall have the option of cash-in-lieu payment."
By timing the housing requirement to the certificate of Occupancy
rather than the building permit, the applicant has several
additional months to search out a buy-down unit. The current cash
figure for 2.11 Category 1 employees is $145,590.00. If the cash-
in-lieu amount changes during the construction period, the project
is responsible for the amount in effect at. the time of payment.
Typically the Housing Board promotes a standard hierarchy for
2
I""-
r-.,
<
affordable housing options. All of the them are allowed by the
land use code, but each scenario must be approved by Council. The
first preference is for on-site housing, followed by off-site
housing and then cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
However, Section 24-8-109 J. lists five factors by which Council
shall consider a housing proposal, upon recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning commission:
1) Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop
housing with monies received from payment of
housing dedication fees.
affordable
affordable
2) Whether the city has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing.
3) Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints or historic preservation concerns.
4) Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing
being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the community.
5) Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
Staff believes that the P&Z motion stated earlier considers the
above standards, especially standards 3 and 4.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of housing mitigation for the 303 E. Main street project
as follows:
1) 2.11 Category 1 employees shall be mitigated by the purchase and
deed restriction of a two bedroom or larger unit (to be acceptable
by the Housing Office, including any necessary repairs) prior to
the issuance of any certificates of Occupancy at 303 E. Main
street.
2) If a unit cannot be located for purchase and accepted by the
Housing Office upon best efforts and due diligence by the developer
prior to the issuance of any certificates of Occupancy, the
developer shall return to City Council for approval of cash-in-
lieu in the amount in effect at the time.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council may opt to not accept cash as a housing
alternative for this project.
PROPOSED MOTION:
"I move to approve first reading of Ordinance
3
~.
,-,..
.
, series 1995 for an affordable housing mitigation plan for the
303 E. Main street Growth Management Exemption project."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance
series of 1995
EXHIBITS:
"A" Housing proposal Amendment
"B" Revised Housing Office Comments
"C" Application Information
4
/'
r-.
\ ,-,
"
';.\
MEMORANDUK
TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE:
303 East Main street: GMQS Exemptions for Enlargement
of an Historic Landmark and a New Affordable Housing
Unit, Special Review for Trash/Utility Reduction, and
Development within the Main Street Mountain View Plane
(continued from November 22, 1994)
DATE:
December 20, 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
applicant
revisions
Since the November 22 introduction of this
has responded to staff and P&Z concerns
to the project. The changes are:
item, the
with some
1) The deletion of the affordable housing unit from the basement.
The applicant offers to "buy down" an existing housing unit. If
one cannot be found, a cash payment is offered.
2) The basement area formerly dedicated to the housing unit will
become net leasable area. The northern basement wall will be moved
approximately 4 feet further from the Main street property line.
This is an effort to provide more protection for the root zone of
the mature street trees in the public right-of-way. The maximum
net leasable area of the basement will be approximately 2,999
square feet. Final tenant design and circulation may reduce this
figure.
3) The enlargement of the trash area from 10' by 14' to 10' by
20'. The height of the ceiling of the enclosed trash area remains
at 8' rather tan the 10' required by the code. Afire sprinkler
is proposed for the trash area. Also proposed is framing for
future access into the basement.
Please refer to Exhibit A, application amendments, and Exhibit B,
updated referral comments. The original staff packet from November
22 is also attached as Exhibit C.
Staff Discussion: The applicant sought further input from the HPC
regarding the tower roof design on December 14. The HPC maintained
strong support for the tower design including its intrusion into
the Main Street viewplane. The HPC approved the following motion:
The HPC makes the finding that the minimal violation of
the view plane corridor is more in keeping with the
historic character of the existing buildings than would
be the other solution of keeping within the viewplane and
1
I"'"
\ .1"'"
.
eliminating the shed or making the roof flat.
This sort of intrusion is not interpreted as being the kind
of intrusion that the viewplane regulations were created for.
This is not a solid wall of intrusion. Rather, the positive
and negative areas are balanced.
If the P&Z does not accept the HPC's recommendation on the
viewplane issue, the HPC wants to hold a worksession with P&Z
to discuss the issues of each board.
staff is more comfortable with the project with the changes on the
table. We also believe that HPC's current recommendation on the
tower element, made with the knowledge of the viewplane issue, has
been well thought out and helps establish a basis for P&Z to
approve the 5.3 foot intrusion into theviewplane.
Based on discussions between the applicant and Housing Office
staff, the Planning Office supports the removal of the substandard
affordable housing unit from the basement of the project. The
Housing Office will accept a. two bedroom "buy-down" unit, to be
deed restricted to Category 1, in place of on-site housing.
However, since Dave Tolen submi tted his December 7 memo, he
elaborated to staff that the Housing Office will not support a
fall-back cash solution referred to in Jake vickery's December 8
letter.
Updated staff Recommendation: Based on the proposed changes and
the responses from referral departments, the Planning staff now
recommends approval of the 303 E. Main project as amended with the
following conditions:
1) The 10' by 20' by 8' trash area'must meet the Uniform Fire
Code and shall be sprinklered per the Fire Marshal's approval.
2) The applicant must purchase an off-site two-bedroom or larger
dwelling unit and deed restrict the unit prior to Category 1
prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site.
It shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Housing
Office. The unit will be a sale unit.
3) Any increase in storm run-off must be contained on the
property.
4) The new building on the alley shall not shed snow on the
alley. Any snow which sheds from the relocated commercial
outbuilding onto the Monarch Street sidewalk must be removed
by the property owner.
5) A handicap ramp shall be constructed at the Main Street
crosswalk prior to the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy.
2
.... ,-.,
\ .~.
\
6) An easement for the Monarch street sidewalk shall be signed
by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
7) The mountain view plane will not be violated more than 5.3
feet. The tower is represented at 23 feet in width. A
surveyor I s certification of the tower's height shall be
provided to Planning staff upon completion of the roof deck.
8) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for construction of right-of-
way improvements.
9) The applicant shall consult city Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way,
Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain
permi ts. for any work or development, including landscaping,
within pUblic rights-of-way from City streets Department.
10) No digging shall occur within the driplines of the existing
right-of-way trees along Monarch street. Barricades must be
erected prior to any construction activity on the site. The
applicant must work closely with Parks staff during
construction to implement tree protection measures.
11) If a new electric transformer is required, the applicant must
pay for the improvements and provide a site on the premises
for the transformer.
12) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Historic
Preservation Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the city Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions
of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the 303 E.
Main GMQS Exemption for the expansion of the historic landmark,
special review for the trash/utility service area, and intrusion
into the Main street Mountain Viewplane with the conditions listed
in the Planning Office memo dated 12/20/94."
"I move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposal to
buy-down an existing two bedroom or larger housing unit, to be deed
restricted and sold as a Category 1 unit, finding that the site
size and its historic constraints do not allow for the development
of an acceptable on-site affordable housing unit."
Exhibits:
A Application amendments
B Updated referral comments
C 11/22/94 Planning Office memo
3
,,-.,
~.
PLANNING ~ ~ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT (/ , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
,
TO:
Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE:
303 East Main street: GMQS Exemptions for Enlargement
of an Historic Landmark and a New Affordable Housing
unit, Special Review for Trash/Utility Reduction, and
Development within the Main street Mountain View Plane
DATE:
November 22, 1994
----------------------------------~---------------------~------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
for the
employee
Mountain
The Planning Of.fice recommends denial of GMQS Exemptions
proposed expansion of the Historic Landmark and the
housing unit, denial of the proposed intrusion into the
View Plane, and denial of the trash area reduction.
APPLICANT:
Vickery.
LOCATION: 303 E. Main Street (Lot A and 1/2 of Lot B, Block 80,
City and Townsite of Aspen)
Niklaus Kuhn, represented by Roget Kuhn and Jake
ZONING: CC Commercial Core
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project consists of a 2,680 s.f. FAR
expansion of an Historic Landmark. The total expansion includes
a 1,315 s.f. two-bedroom free market residence, 2,857 s.f. of net
leasable commercial space, a 874 s.f. two-bedroom Category 1 deed
restricted unit in the basement, and a storage/trash area of
approximately 400 s.f. One on-site parking space is proposed. The
HPC granted a waiver of any additional parking (.3 space) during
conceptual review. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the application
drawings and text.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"B". Summaries are as follows:
Fire Marshal: The trash area must meet the Uniform Fire Code which
prohibits dumpsters of 1.5 yards or larger from being stored in a
building or within 5 feet of combustible walls, openings or eaves.
Aspen Consolidated sanitation District: Connection charges will be
assessed for the two new dwellings. A new service line will likely
be needed.
Housinq Office: The Housing Board prefers on-site housing for
mitigation of new commercial or residential growth. However, the
Board recommends denial of this proposed two bedroom unit because
1
r".
.,-"
"-"-~"---"--
of its lack of reasonable outside entry (the occupants have to walk
down the stairs, through a long corridor past the commercial
bathrooms and mechanical area). Also there is a lack of adequate
natural light or air to this unit.
Enqineerinq: 1) Any increase in storm run-off must be contained
on the property.
2) The new development on the alley creates a snow shed impact on
the alley and the relocated commercial outbuilding will shed snow
onto the Monarch street sidewalk.
3) A handicap ramp shall be constructed at the Main street
crosswalk prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4) An easement for the Monarch Street sidewalk shall be signed by
the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5) The interior .of the proposed alley building should be revised
so that the mountain view plane will not be violated.
6) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for construction of right-of-way
improvements.
7) The applicant shall consult city Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, Parks
Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any
work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-
Of-way from city streets Department.
Parks: No digging shall occur within the driplines of the existing
right-of-way trees.
Water: No concerns.
Electric: If a new transformer is required, the. applicant must pay
for the improvements and provide a site on the premises for the
transformer.
Historic Preservation: This property is a local historic landmark
and is on the National Register of Historic Places. HPC reviewed
the redevelopment at the conceptual level during four meetings,
eventually granting conceptual approval in July of 1994. Concerns
of HPC were the light wells, attachm.ent of the addition to the
victorian building, open space on site, the outbuilding and tower
elements, and objection to any relocation of the victorian
building. HPC believed that concentrating square footage into the
tower would have the least impact to the street frontage. Since
conceptual approval, the plan indicates that the basement will be
expanded to encompass nearly the entire lot. The HPC will not
likely approve more lightwells to the basement area. The expanded
basement will also clash with HPC's mandate that the building not
be relocated (moved) to protect the pristine sandstone foundation
on which the building sits.
:2
/",",-,
~.
PROPOSAL: The property is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and is designated as a local Historic Landmark.
It is within the Commercial Core Historic District. The existing
victorian building's floor area is 1,611 s.f. The proposed FAR
will be 4,291 s.f. The application also calls for excavation of
the property to create a basement which encompasses nearly the
entire 4,500 s.f parcel. Above grade and below grade space will
total 6,508 s. f. The new basement will create 2,217 s. f. of
commercial space which is exempt from mitigation for parking or
affordable housing because of the parcel's historic landmark
status. The basement will also contain the 874 s.f. two bedroom
affordable housing unit which is provided as mitigation for the new
above grade commercial and free market housing.
At the ground floor level, 640 s.f. of new commercial space will
be added to the existing victorian building. The small outbuilding
which currently houses an architecture studio will be relocated to
the western edge of the parcel. A new "tower" will be added along
the alley and connected to the main building. The tower will
contain trash area and storage at the ground level and a two
bedroom free market unit on the second and third floors. The trash
area does not meet the size requirements in the code so it needs
Special Review approval. The tower projects 5.31' into the view
plane and must also be approved by the commission.
One parking space is proposed along the west side of the tower,
under a cantilevered cover. As mentioned above, the basement
commercial space is exempt from parking and affordable housing
mitigation.
STAFF COMMENTS: The project must complete the following processes:
Planninq and Zoninq Commission:
recommendation to City Council for the Growth Management
Exemption for the affordable housing unit
approval/denial of Growth Management Exemption for the
enlargement of an Historic Landmark for more than one
residential unit, and for mixed-use commercial, office or
lodge development which increases the building's or parcel's
existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage.
approval/denial of Special Review for the reduction of
trash/utility service area
approval/denial of the tower's intrusion into the mountain
view plane
City Council:
approval/denial of Growth Management Exemption for the
3
......,... . "', "'~'V',.,.,":' .._~..v..,. 'C ....." .
.r,
,,-,
affordable housing unit
Concerns already voiced in referral comments include the tower's
projection into the mountain view plane, the inadequacies of the
affordable housing unit, the snow shedding potential created in the
alley and on the Monarch street sidewalk, and the potential impact
of the excavation to the mature cottonwoods within the Monarch
street right-of-way.
Historic Landmarks are allowed many incentives within the code in
order to offset the high costs of upkeep and improvements. The
most significant incentive is that below-grade net leasable area
is exempt from housing and parking mitigation. After learning of
this allowance, the applicants substantially changed the project
between HPC review and application to P&Z in that the entire parcel
is now slated to be excavated for a full basement which includes
2,217 s. f. of net leasable area. This extensive excavation is
contrary to HPC's earlier discussion that the structure cannot be
moved from its current location to protect the unique sandstone
foundation. If the applicant still intends to excavate to the
extent shown, the HPC must approve any relocation or foundation
underpinning work. To this date, the applicant has not indicated
how they intend to accomplish this aspect of the construction.
The overriding concern of staff is that there is too much
development being proposed for this 4,500 s. f. property. There are
severe deficiencies in the affordable housing unit, the historic
viewplane is being violated, the service delivery is split between
three entryways, valuable at-grade space within the tower building
is devoted to storage and trash area, and only one parking space
is being provided for the entire development. Staff believes that
with two dwelling units, 640 s.f. of above grade commercial space
and 2,217 s.f. of below grade commercial space, the site exceeds
its capacity even though it is well under its maximum FAR.
------------------------------
Review criteria:
I. Section 24-8-104 B.1.c.1-4: Growth Management Exemption for
the enlargement of an Historic Landmark for more than one
residential unit, and for mixed-use commercial, office or
lodge development which increases the building's or parcel's
existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage.
The review criteria reads:
1) For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted
under the external floor are ratio for the applicable zone
district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special
review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at
100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in
Section 8-106 for the applicable use. For each 1% reduction
4
,;.,
"
,-."
in floor area below the maximum permitted, the affordable
housing requirement shall be reduced by 1%.
Any affordable housing provided shall be restricted to
Category 3 price and income limits.
response: The applicant has designed the project at 64% of the
allowable 1.5:1 FAR, and the calculation for affordable housing has
taken this into account.. The commercial space generated employees
as well as the free market residential unit.' A total of 2.11
persons must be housing for the new development. Please refer to
page 7 of the application text for the housing calculations. In
order to get the most mitigation credit for a two bedroom unit, the
applicant has chosen to deed restrict the unit to Category 1 rather
than Category 3 as permitted by code. Also refer to the staff
comments further in this memo regarding the GMQS Exemption for the
housing unit.
2) Parking shall be provided according to the parking criteria
if HPC determines that it can be provided and be consistent
with the historic compatibility standards. Any parking which
cannot be located on site which would normally be mitigated
via cash-in-lieu shall be waived.
response: The HPC has waived the .3 space which is not being
provided by the project. As earlier mentioned, all of the basement
commercial space does not have to provide parking, and there is no
residential parking requirement. As a practical matter, a project
of this impact should provide as much parking as possible.
3) Impacts of the development to the water supply, sewage and
solid waste disposal, drainage, transportation and fire
control shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the
Commission.
response: The Engineering Department has indicated that the tower
roof will shed snow into the alley and the relocated shed will shed
snow onto the Monarch street sidewalk. These problems must be
addressed to Engineering's satisfaction before any approvals can
be granted. Also, the Fire Marshal has indicated that there may
be problems with the proposed trash storage inside the building.
Certain fireproofing measures must be taken before Fire will
approve any plans. There are no other apparent issues with the
other utilities.
4) The project shall demonstrate its compatibility with
surrounding properties and its appropriateness to the site,
including but not limited to consideration of the quality and
character of proposed landscaping and open space, site
coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and
residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness
of the service delivery area.
5
~.
.~.
response: The HPC reviewed and directed the applicant to preserve
the setbacks and yard areas on the Main street and Monarch Street
frontages. They also worked to establish what they consider
compatible massing and site coverage in respect to the existing
historic resource. Planning has no issues with the HPC I s direction
on these items. However, staff believes that the project does not
meet the criteria regarding the amenities for users and residents
of the site. There are two residential units proposed along with
the 4,366 s.f. of commercial space. . Even though the HPCwaived .3
space as calculated required by code (residential uses are not
required to provide parking and the below grade commercial area has
parking waived), staff believes that there should be more parking
provided based on the simple fact that the site will be much more
intensively used. Logic would indicate that above and beyond the
code requirements, parking is essential to residences as much or
more than commercial uses.
other amenities for users have not been addressed such as bike
racks (since parking is not available), transportation alternatives
for the commercial tenants, and outdoor space established for the
residents of the basement apartment.
The service delivery for the site is split between three entries,
one on Monarch Street, one through the tower storage room, and one
via the basement entry which is shared by the affordable housing
unit. Staff finds this to be confusing and inefficient and desires
that any redesign of the project take a serious look at
consolidation of service access. ' This includes consideration of
how trash gets back out of the building to the trash area.
Based on the amenities and service issues, staff believes that
criteria (4) has not been satisfied.
II. section 24-7-505 A.6. establishes the dimensions of the Main
street Mountain viewplane. Insubstantial mechanical equipment
is exempted. Subsection C. allows exemption from the height
limit if another development infringes into the viewplane
behind the sUbject property. This section also give the P&Z
the ability to review viewplane infringements:
"When any mountain viewplane projects at such an angle so as
to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise
provided for in this chapter, development shall proceed
according to the provisions of Article 7, Pi vision 9 as a
planned unit development, so as to provide maximum flexibility
in. building design with special consideration to bulk and
height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to
permit variations in lot are, lot width, yard and building
height requirements, viewplane limitations.
The commission may exempt any developer from the above
6
~
.,-.",
A
enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the
viewplane does not so effect the parcel as to require
application of PUD or that the effects of the viewplane may
be otherwise accommodated."
response: The above cited code section allows a project to proceed
as a PUD for site design flexibility. However, because of HPC's
direct involvement in site design (setback's, open space, bulk and
massing) for the landmark, and the lack of required setbacks in the
CC zone, staff finds no benefit in followi~g the lengthy PUD
. process to provide "flexibility" for site desi~ning.
The applicant has designed the 34' ridge height of the tower
element in consideration. of discussions with HPC. The HPC wishes
have the tower's roof pitch be compatible with the National
Register structure and to protect its visual prominence on the
corner. It was HPC's concern over retaining the existing front and
side street yards and setbacks that has caused the applicant to
place floor area upward rather than outward on the groundplane.
Therefore they approved at conceptual review the height and bulk
of the tower.
However, in subsequent discussions with the applicant's architect
it was learned that the HPC was not made aware of the Main Street
Mountain Viewplane when they were considering the tower element.
Staff finds this to be a critical omission because the Main street
viewplane was established to protect the views of Ajax and Shadow
Mountain from the block of Main street fronting the historic Hotel
Jerome. The principal concern of theHPC and P&Z reviews should
be to protect the community's cherished historic visual resources
first, then work on a site by site basis to protect individual
historic resources.
There are only six viewplanes in Aspen. Because of the limited
numbers of viewplanes, any intrusions should be studied carefully.
Alternatives should be virtually eliminated before the P&Z should
find that the parcel and specific viewplane are not adversely
effected. In the case of this project, staff has a difficult time
rationalizing a trade-off to the 5.31 foot projection into this
viewplane so the applicant can place one level of storage and trash
area at grade within the tower. If parking were proposed in the
building, it would pose obvious difficulties to lowering the
finished grade of the first level. However, HPC has reduced the
parking to one space, so parking in the building is not an issue.
Even if living space were in the first level, it could be designed
as a garden-level apartment for an overall. reduction in height of
the building. Staff wants the applicant to review the range of
options available and return with an alternative which respects the
viewplane limitation on the property. Another consideration of
staff is that the adjacent property also contains a victorian
building which has expansion potential. Allowance of a waiver of
the viewplane on the 303 Main property would open the door for a
7
~
~.
similar request from this neighbor as well as a potential
degradation of the other viewplanes in town.
GMOS Exemotion for Affordable Housina units: Pursuant to Section
8-104 C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that
is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The
commission shall review and make a recommendation to council
regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review
of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section
shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing,
considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted
housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their
location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically
regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the
dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of.the proposed development, and
the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to
be deed restricted.
Response: The Housing Office and Planning staff are forwarding an
unfavorable recommendation on the proposed two bedroom unit because
we believe the unit has serious deficiencies regarding access and
natural light and air. The entry to the apartment is through a
commercial corridor past restrooms and the mechanical room for the
commercial space. The only natural light and air is received from
the emergency egress "pit". Given the large amount of
redevelopment on the property, staff is distressed that the
required housing was placed in such a marginal situation. The
applicant is proposing a deed restriction of Category 1, which is
. necessitated by the desire to only provide housing via a small two
bedroom unit. If a higher category was chosen, larger unites)
would have to be provided.
Staff wants the applicant to redesign the unit elsewhere within the
development.
Soecial Review for Reduction of trash and utilitv area: For a
building of this size, the CC zone requires atrashjutility area
of 20' long by 10' deep, with 10' of vertical clearance. The
proposal calls for a space within the ground level of the tower
which is 10' long by 14' deep with a vertical clearance of S'.
The applicant stated that they would agree to limit the building's
uses to prohibit a restaurant to lessen trash generation. As
mentioned above, the Fire Marshal has concerns about the trash area
being within a building. certain measures required by the Fire
Code must be accommodated by the development.
Although not directly related to the size of the trash area, staff
is concerned that valuable .interior space is being dedicated to
trash and storage area. Also, the access to the trash area is
convoluted because of the three different service entries to the
building. Before a special review for trash is approved by the
P&Z, staff believes these issues should be restudied by the
8
r""'.
.,-"
"
applicant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends:
1) denial of the 303 E. Main GMQS Exemption for. the expansion of
an historic landmark for lack of compatibility with
surrounding pro4>erties, failure to provide amenities for users
and residents, and failure to provide an efficient, effective
service delivery area; and
2) recommendation for denial of the proposed afforda~le housing
unit because of inadequate access, light and air; and
3)
denial of the intrusion
viewplane. The applicant
elsewhere on the property;
into
should
and
the Main street mountain
accommodate the floor area
4) denial of the special review for reduction of trash/utility
area.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) The Commission can table the item to December 20, 1994 to allow
the applicant to restudy the concerns of the P&Z and staff. A new
information packet would have to be presented to staff no later
than December 7 in order for staff to review any changes and
prepare comments for the Commission. If the project successfully
addresses staff and P&Z concerns, staff will be able to prepare a
list of approval conditions warranted for the project.
2) The Commission could deny the aspects of the project under its
purview (GMQS Exemption for expansion, special review of
trash/utility area, and viewplane intrusion) and forward a
recommendation on the affordable housing unit to Council. If
Council approves the unit, the applicant would have to resubmit to
the Commission a new application for the reviews previously denied.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend denial of the 303 E. Main
GMQS Exemption for the expansion of the historic landmark, special
review for the trash/utility service area, and intrusion into the
Main street Mountain Viewplane."
"I move to recommend to city Council denial of the proposed
affordable housing unit finding that is does not provide adequate
access and natural light and air for the future occupants."
Exhibits:
"A" ApPlication information
"B" Referral memos
9
r-,
r~.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 20, 1994
MOTION
Bob: I move to recommend approval of the 303 East Main GMQS
exemption for the expansion of the historic landmark, special
review for the trash/utility service area, and intrusion into the
Main Street Mountain Viewplane with the conditions listed in the
Planning Office memo dated 12/20/94 exempted item #2 and amended
item #6--An easement would be responsible for reconstruction of a
sidewalk in the ROW,
Marta seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION
Marta: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the
proposal to buy-down an existing two bedroom or larger housing
unit, to be deed restricted and sold as a Category 1 unit, finding
that the site size and its historic constraints do not allow for
the development of an acceptable on-site housing unit provided,
however, that if the applicant is not able to do a buy-down prior
to issuance of certificate of occupancy the applicant shall have
the option of cash-in-lieu.payment.
Bob seconded the motion with all in favor.
,
t
....'..,...".___'-'.....0.;,;..
..:... ,"h_._.'. ..'.:"~:....:__' .:"''''.
r--
,--,
.
.",.'- ..-'
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
December 20, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
--------------------
-------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. 303 E. Main st. GMQS Exemption, Special Review &
Viewplane Review, Kim Johnson
IV. ADJOURN
~..
^
,
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department e'f!:-
Date: December 12, 1994
Re: 303 East Main Review - Addendum of December 8, 1994
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
1. Trash Area Height Reduction - The proposed height reduction from 10' to 8' is
acceptable.
2. Snow Shedding - It may be questionable. whether or not the "snow shedding off the
little outbuilding does not propose a danger to people walking on the sidewalk." The
question should be avoided by requiring protection for pedestrians. The techniques for
preventing snow slide must be designed for the project and may include but need not be
limited to snow clips, eave gutters, and snow melt wiring for the roof and the gutters.
Snow shedding off the proposed tower should also be designed for the project. This might
be able to be accomplished as suggested in the application addendum, "with a positive
system of roof material, snow stops, heated surfaces, and interior drains." The meaning
of "interior drains" is not clear, however eave drains might be necessary.
It is recommended that a condition of approval be that design and construction techniques
shall prevent show shed onto public rights-of-way. If approved plans and drawings do not
function as intended, the applicant shall perform corrective measures to prevent snow shed
onto public rights-of-way.
cc: Cris Caruso
M94.393
f"""\
.~
MEMORANDUM
TO: - Kim Johnson, Planning Office
THRU: George Robinson, Parks Director
fROM: Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
DAlE: December 12,1994
RE: 303 East Main St
We have reviewed the memo sent by Jake Vickery, dated 1218/94, and have no comments or
objections to the further protection of the trees by reducing the size of the basement.
.~ ,
,
j
j
.i
1
1
!
/""",
.... ~_'._"_'_~_'__"""_.H__,___
r--,
PLANNING ~ ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBI'l' ~, APPROVED
9 BY RESO~~'l'I()~_ _ ._ _ ,. I \'
.-..-. '1 ,~ I
_J":\ \ II
OEC- SSlA!!\
,::;\
V:
... \
TO: Kim Johnson
FROM: Jake Vickery
RE: 303 East Main
DATE: DEC 8,1994
A
J(
J
.
\ I ( h. I J'l
.-..----
Dear Kim,
In addition to the representations made at the previous meetings, this letter is to
summarize proposed changes the Applicant proposes in response to the outstanding
concerns of the Staff and Soard regarding this project, These items are as follows:
1. Employee Housing
The applicant met with Dave Tolen, Director of Housing, and Amy Amidon, HPC Officer,
on Friday DEC 2, The Applicant and the Housing Director agreed that it would be too
difficult to provide a "quality of life" unit on site and providing mitigation by either (listed
in priority) buying a free market unit and converting it or, if this is not possible, then
paying the cash in lieu, The applicant has been investigating the replacement unit
option and is willing to enter and agreement providing the employee impact mitigation in
this manner, Therefore the employee dwelling unit is proposed to be deleted from the
basement level. This also reduced associated, housing related impacts on the
property.
2, Tree Protection
The location of the existing trees (2) on Main Street have been added to the site plan
and the drip line located, The north basement wall and the excavation line for
construction of this wall have been moved in, approximately 4 feet, just beyond the drip
line to help protect the life of the existing trees. This results in a reduction of 168 s, f.
from the basement area,
3, Trash and Trash Enclosure
The Applicant is now proposing to provide the code required floor area of 10'by 20',
The area is adequate for three 2 cubic yard dumpsters or 2 such dumpsters and a
"apartment building" size compactor which can handle any foreseeable uses that might
occur on this property, The applicant is requesting that the 10' height requirement be
waived in lieu of a standard 8 foot ceiling. SFI has informed the applicant that the
dumpster door requires a clearance of 7'-6" (see attached diagram) and that 8'
clearance is adequate. SFI did not understand the requirement for 10' of clearance and
said it seemed unnecessary. This request is made to facilitate the tower being lower.
100 SOUTH SPRlNG ST, iI3
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE
( 3 0 3) 92 S . 3 6 6 0
,
,-,.
,-,
"
According the Fire Marshal, the fire code permits the storage of trash in dumpsters if the
area is protected by an approved fire sprinkler system as per 11,201 (d) (copy
attached), The applicant agrees to provide an approved fire sprinkler system for the
proposed trash area as well as the occupancy separation wall and door the building
code requires,
The applicant agrees to provide floor framing in this area to allow for a stair access to
this area from the basement should the actual uses require it.
4, Snow Shedding
Snow shedding off the little outbuilding does not proposed a danger to people walking
on the sidewalk because of its low eave height and small contributory roof area. The
snow will need to be shoveled similar to the rest of the sidewalk and the applicant
commits to doing this.
If sloped as proposed, snow shedding off the tower roof onto the alley occurs only at the
corners of the roof affording protection to the majority of the perimeter of the tower,
Snow and ice build up at the corners will be controlled on this roof with a positive system
of roof material, snow stops, heated surfaces, and interior drains,
The applicant agrees to all other requirements of the engineering department, electrical
department,
5, View Plane
The applicant will be returning to the HPC on DEC 14 to revisit the discussion of the
tower roof, The view plane issue, which was not directly addressed by HPC previously,
will be discussed. Alternative tower roof designs, including a flat roof alternative, will .be
discussed, The applicant is seeking either a letter of support to P&Z from HPC for the
roof as currently proposed or approval of the flat roof scheme, If the flat roof scheme is
approved, the request for a view plane review will be withdrawn eliminating the need for
any further review on this matter,
The expansion of the basement space and construction issues related to existing house
will also be discussed,
6. Use of the Lower Floor of Tower
The applicant has reviewed alternative uses to the lower floor of the tower. Applicant
feels that this space is inappropriate for any residential use due to impacts from the
adjoining commercial alley, The applicant feels the proposed service uses are
appropriate given the service nature of the location. These are no specified tenants
for the basement space so it is difficult to know how it will be finally be configured.
Provisions for a stair to the basement will be incorporated in the structure should actual
uses require such a linkage. The applicant understands staffs thoughts about this area
and is continuing to look at more optimal uses for this space, Applicant is trying to
preserve the option of utilizing a portion of this space for protected parking if actual uses
permit. .
. r:?WWaste
IlUSystems~
BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES
. ,OF MINNESOTA, INC.
I
44
j
34
V
One Cubic Yard Dock Container
-..---.....
Two and a Half Cubic Yard
T. ._
..
'-40
\
r-..
^
PLANNING ;ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT ...J:;> , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM:
Dave Tolen, Housing Office
DATE:
December 7, 1994
RE:
303 East Main GMQS Exemption, Special Review, Etc.
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-29-001
ISSUE: The original Housing Office referral on this application
recommended that the proposed housing mitigation would not be
acceptable. After meeting with the applicant and Amy Amidon, we are
prepared to recommend off site mitigation. We understand that there
are several competing publicobj ecti ves on this site, including
historic preservation and scenic corridor.
The Housing Office has worked with several applicants in the past
year to buy down existing units. The Housing Office recommends
that, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed
project at 303 East Main, the applicant shall purchase a two
bedroom or larger unit, not currently deed restricted, and sell
that unit to a qualified category one household .chosen by the
Housing Office. The sale price for the unit shall not exceed the
category 1 sales price then in effect and published in the Housing
Guidelines. The unit shall be subject to inspection and approval
by the Housing Office.
,-,
1"'\
1"'\
303 EAST MAIN
PROPOSED ADDITIONS
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICATION SUMMARY
1, This property lies in the CC Zone and is on the National Register of Historical
Places. It is a 4,500 SF corner lot. It is currently improved with a one story
historical residence in use as retail and a small one story outbuilding in use as an
office, The historical residence has been well maintained,
2, The primary goal of the proposed work is to preserve the historical structures as
much as possible, following the local guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Renovation, while allowing reasonable use of the properly and
accommodating the changing family needs of the owners, The applicant acquired
the property on February 26, 1981.
3,
To accomplish this goal, a development strategy was devised which places new
space subgrade in the basement to minimize impacts on the historical resources
and locates above grade space in a differentiated side addition and in a tower-like
addition to the inside rear of the property, By configuring new space in this
manner the project attempts to emulate a set of forms to maximize the distinction
between old and new and to break down the massing into differentiated and
connected components, This is consistent with the Neighborhood Character
Guidelines,
1""".
4. Conceptual Review approval was granted by HPC on July 13, 1994 by a
unanimous vote after an in depth process involving several meetings, This current
scheme represents the balancing of historical concerns with owner's needs..
5, The negotiated and approved scheme allows the owner/applicant to increase the
above grade net leasable commercial space by 640 nsf, add a 1,315 nsf free
market two bedroom residential unit, add 2,217 nsf exempt basement commercial
space and increase FAR by 2,680 sf, The existing FAR is 1610,75 sf, Allowable
FAR is 6,750 sf (1,5:1), The proposed FAR is 4,291 sf which is 64% ofthe
allowable FAR.
6, The scheme provides one additional on-site parking space for the new commercial
space, HPC granted a variance of 2 spaces for the free market unit and ,28
spaces for the new above grade commercial space finding that it was more
compatible with the historical resource to do so. There is a parking garage 1 and
1/2 blocks away,
The applicant requests that the parking-in-lieu fees be waived as per section 8-
104-B-1-c-2,
7,
As measured to the midpoint of the gable roof, the height of the tower-like element
is 30 feet. The highest ridge is 34 feet. Allowable height is 40 feet.
f'
\~
3
!"""\
.A,
8,
The tapered upper third of the cross gable roof on the tower element, as approved
by HPC, infringes in the Main Street View Plane by a maximum of S,3 feet at the
highest point of its ridge, The effects of this infringement are minimal and an
exemption from the requirements of the View Plane provisions and from
application of PUD as per sec 7-S0S,c,1 and 2 is herein requested,
1""".
q, The project provides 874 nsf, 2 bedroom category 1 employee housing unit
located in the basement
, D. A "garage" space in the ground level of the tower accessed by garage doors
accommodates trash, utility, and storage areas, This service area is 10 by /4by 8
feet high and is adequate for the proposed retail, office and residential uses, The
applicant is willing to sign an agreement that if the nature of the uses changes he
will provide additional trash/utility space as required for this change is use,
I"""
1""'.
j.\J
4
f'.
~
,
~
KUHNCALC.XLS
SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULA nONS
, 303 EAST MAIN
SUBGRADE GROUND SECOND THIRD TOTAL
AREAS
Proposed Gross Square Feet 3,766.40 1,555,63 933.62 441 6,696.65
Existing FAR 0 1610.75 0 . 0 1610.75
Proposed Additional FAR 137.47 *" 1,168 933.62 441 2680.14
Proposed Total FAR 137,47 2,778,75 933.62 441 4290.84
Allowable FAR (1.5:1) 6,750
Proposed Total % Allowable 0.64
Existing Net Leasable 0 1,509.88 1509.88
Proposed Add, Net Leasable 2,216.98 640 2,856.98
Proposed Total Net Leasable 2,216.98 2,149,88 . 4,366.86
.
Circulation . 131,76 131,76
Storage 25'1 2.S'l
Utility I Trash . r4c 140
Mechanical/Toilets 120 120.
. .
Apartment 68,25 846.38 400 1314.63
Employee Unit 874.41 874.41
*' I~OUJ~ 4'4-1 C1?;f ''t,~~" (01JeMi~ , ~)mATt1)
5
,\., !.
"-"
r--
.~
SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
IMPORTANT
Three sets of clear, fullv labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11")(17", OR one
dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 11"X17" format.
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
ZONE DISTRICT:
LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEel)
EXISTING FAR:
ALLOWABLE FAR:
PROPOSED FAR:
EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial):
PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial):
EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE:
PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE:
EXISTING % OF OPEN SPACE:
PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE:
EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: I
1/ -r/. ~v? /I
PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: I iJ ()) t; (<.. .
PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION:
EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS:
EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES:
ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
SETBACKS:
EXISTING:
Front:
Rear:
Side:
Combined FrtlRr:
J ~,t)
~l1!1ff
EXISTING NONCONFORMITIESI
ENCROACHMENTS:
ku II i)
~.~ MA(N
~T.
615Q
4-vQ/
/1510
Zr/ ~() Afuvt CI!A,{)~: 12(:; Bf'w,;J,
/6 9" 31 % /
~q?q 00 ~
~6o? h "?Yo
11J4-1 ~4%
/C;,? MIDPr. 19 !?rUrE.
~ 0 fYjIDPr. ? 4- PEA-f--
o
o
-z,. -1 ~
o
f
efnflwVje+6 fI6Y1S/N{'
Pot fPOP()sE-D
fi/ONti" n/Z..
?-jJ<;'?A'YI~
ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED:
Front: 0 Front:
Rear: Q Rear:
Side: 0 Side:
Combined FrtlRr: 0 Combined FrtlRr:
~D bj,Jr.J.7/)..Af4~c; cJiZ/ A~
lro ,~
o
~
~
VARIATIONS REQUESTED ell ible for Landmarks onl . character com atibilit findin must be made b
HPC): qm~? U17[J]e~ tof2- M J1/;;~. iJP /fION
fJ~r r..e.-'A?;,:/kf1U'A? reR a6C;..?, o+-A~/-h-d-
FAR: Minimum Distance ?etween Bui dings:
SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces:
Rear: Open Space (Commercial):
Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only):
Combined FrtlRr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only):
6
r-.
!'""'\
,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT V , APPROVED
19 _ BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
,
TO:
Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE:
303 East Main street: GMQS Exemptions for Enlargement
of an Historic Landmark and a New. Affordable Housing
Unit, special Review for Trash/Utility Reduction, and
Development within the Main street Mountain view Plane
DATE:
November 22, 1994
----------------------------------~----------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
for the
employee
Mountain
The Planning Office recommends denial of GMQS ExemptiOns
proposed expansion of the Historic Landmark and the
housing unit, denial of the proposed intrusion into the
View Plane, and denial of the trash area reduction.
APPLICANT:
Vickery.
LOCATION: 303 E. Main street (Lot A and 1/2 of Lot B, Block 80,
city and Townsite of Aspen)
Niklaus Kuhn, represented by Roget Kuhn' and Jake
ZONING: CC Commercial Core
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project consists of a 2,680 s.f. FAR
expansion of an Historic Landmark. The total expansion includes
a 1,315 s.f. two-bedroom free market residence, 2,857 s.f. of net
leasable commercial space, a 874 s.t. two-bedroom Category 1 deed
restricted unit in the basement, and a storage/trash area of
approximately 400 s.t. One on-site parking space is proposed. The
HPC granted a waiver of any additional parking (.3 space) during
conceptual review. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the application
drawings and text.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are .attached as Exhibit
"B". Summaries are as follows:
Fire Marshal: The trash area must meet the Uniform Fire Code which
prohibits dumpsters of 1.5 yards or larger from being stored in a
building or within 5 feet of combustible walls, openings or eaves.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: Connection charges will be
assessed for the two new dwellings. A new service line will likely
be needed.
Housinq Office: The Housing Board prefers on-site housing for
mitigation of new commercial or residential growth. However, the
Board recommends denial of this proposed two bedroom unit because
1
\{)
^
~
of its lack of reasonable outside entry (the occupants have to walk
down the stairs, through a long corridor past the commercial
bathrooms and mechanical area). Also there is a lack of adequate
natural light or air to this unit.
Enaineerina: 1) Any increase in storm run-off must be contained
on the property.
2) The new development on the alley creates a snow shed impact on
the alley and the relocated commercial outbuilding will shed snow
onto the Monarch street sidewalk.
3) A handicap ramp shall be constructed at the Main street
crosswalk prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
4) An easement for the Monarch street sidewalk shall be signed by
the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permits.
5) The interior of the proposed alley building should be revised
so that the mountain view plane will not be violated.
6) The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for construction of right-of-way
improvements.
7) The applicant shall consult city Engineering for design
considerations of development within pUblic rights-of-way, Parks
Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any
work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-
of-way from city streets Department.
Parks: No digging shall occur within the driplines of the existing
right-of-way trees.
Water: No concerns.
Electric: If a new transformer is required, the applicant must pay
for the improvements and provide a site on the premises for the
transformer.
Historic Preservation: This property is a local historic landmark
and is on the National Register of Historic Places. HPC reviewed
the redevelopment at the conceptual level during four meetings,
eventually granting conceptual approval in July of 1994. Concerns
of HPC were the light wells, attachment of the addition to the
victorian building, open space on site, the outbuilding and tower
elements, and objection to any relocation of the victorian
building. HPC believed that concentrating square footage into the
tower would have the least impact to the street frontage. Since
conceptual approval, the plan indicates that the basement will be
expanded to encompass nearly the entire lot. The HPC will not
likely approve more lightwells to the basement area. The expanded
basement will also clash with HPC's mandate that the building not
be relocated (moved) to protect the pristine sandstone foundation
on which the building sits.
2
\\
1"""'-.
1"""'\
PROPOSAL: The property is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and is designated as a local Historic Landmark.
It is within the Commercial Core Historic District. The existing
victorian building's floor area is 1,611 s. f. The proposed FAR
will be 4,291 s.f. The application also calls for excavation of
the property to create a basement which encompasses nearly the
entire 4,500 s.f parcel. Above grade and below grade space will
total 6,508 s.f. The new basement will create 2,217 s.f. of
commercial space which is exempt from mitigation for parking or
affordable housing because of the parcel's historic landmark
status. The basement will also contain the 874 s.f. two bedroom
affordable housing unit which is provided as mitigation for the new
above grade commercial and free market housing.
At the ground floor level, 640 s.f. of new commercial space will
be added to the existing victorian building. The small outbuilding
which currently houses an architecture studio will be relocated to
the western edge of the parcel. A new "tower" will be added along
the alley and connected to the main building. The tower will
contain trash area and storage at the ground level and a two
bedroom free market unit on the second and third floors. The trash
area does not meet the size requirements in the code so it needs
Special Review approval. The tower projects 5.31' into the view
plane and must also be approved by the commission.
One parking space is proposed along the west side of the tower,
under a cantilevered cover. As mentioned above, the basement
commercial space is exempt from parking and affordable housing
mitigation.
STAFF COMMENTS: The project must complete the following processes:
Planninq and Zoninq Commission:
recommendation to City Council for the Growth Management
Exemption for the affordable housing unit
approval/denial of Growth Management Exemption for the
enlargement of an Historic Landmark for more than one
residential unit, and for mixed-use commercial, office or
lodge development which increases the building's or parcel's
existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage.
approval/denial of Special Review for the reduction of
trash/utility service area
approval/denial of the tower's intrusion into the mountain
view plane
citv Council:
approval/denial of Growth Management Exemption for the
3
\11
f"\.
~
affordable housing unit
Concerns already voiced in referral comments include the tower's
projection into the mountain view plane, the inadequacies of the
affordable housing unit, the snow shedding potential created in the
alley and on the Monarch street sidewalk, and the potential impact
of the excavation to the mature cottonwoods within the Monarch
street right-of-way.
Historic Landmarks are allowed many incentives within the code in
order to offset the high costs of upkeep and improvements. The
most significant incentive is that below-grade net leasable area
is exempt from housing and parking mitigation. After learning of
this allowance, the applicants substantially changed the project
between HPC review and application to P&Z in that the entire parcel
is now slated to be excavated for a full basement which includes
2,217 s.f. of net leasable area. This extensive excavation is
contrary to HPC's earlier discussion that.the structure cannot be
moved from its current location to protect the unique sandstone
foundation. If the applicant still intends to excavate to the
extent shown, the HPC must approve any relocation or foundation
underpinning work. To this date, the applicant has not indicated
how they intend to accomplish this aspect of the construction.
The overriding concern of staff is that there is too much
development being proposed for this 4,500 s. f. property. There are
severe deficiencies in the affordable housing unit, the historic
viewplane is being violated, the service delivery is split between
three entryways, valuable at-grade space within the tower building
is devoted to storage and trash area, and only one parking space
is being provided for the entire development. staff believes that
with two dwelling units, 640 s.f. of above grade commercial space
and 2,217 s.f. of below grade commercial space, the site exceeds
its capacity even though it is well under its maximum FAR.
Review criteria:
I. section 24-8-104 B.1.c.1-4: Growth Management Exemption for
the enlargement of an Historic Landmark for more than one
residential unit, and for mixed-use commercial, office or
lodge development which increases the building's or parcel's
existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage.
The review criteria reads:
1) For an enlargement at the maximum floor area permitted
under the external floor are ratio for the applicable zone
district (excluding any bonus floor area permitted by special
review), the applicant shall provide affordable housing at
100% of the level which would meet the threshold required in
section 8-106 for the applicable use. For each 1% reduction
4
\~
~.
i""""\
in floor area below the maximum permitted, the affordable
housing requirement shall be reduced by 1%.
Any affordable housing provided shall be restricted to
category 3 price and income limits.
response: The applicant has designed the project at 64% of the
allowable 1.5:1 FAR, and the calculation for affordable housing has
taken this into account.- The commercial space generated employees
as well as the free market. residential unit. - A total of 2.11
persons must be housing for the new development. Please refer to
page 7 of the application text for the housing calculations. In
order to get the most mitigation credit for a two bedroom unit, the
applicant has chosen to deed restrict the unit to Category 1 rather
than category 3 as permitted by code. Also refer to the staff
comments further in this memo regarding the GMQS Exemption for the
housing unit.
2) Parking shall be provided according to the parking criteria
if HPC determines that it can be provided and be consistent
with the historic compatibility standards. Any parking which
cannot be located on site which would normally be mitigated
via cash-in-lieu shall be waived.
response: The HPC has waived the .3 space which is not being
provided by the project. As earlier mentioned, all of the basement
commercial space does not have to provide parking, and there is no
residential parking requirement. As a practical matter, a project
of this impact should provide as much parking as possible.
3) Impacts of the development to the water supply, sewage and
solid waste disposal, drainage, transportation and fire
control shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the
commission.
response: The Engineering Department has indicated that the tower
roof will shed snow into the alley and the relocated shed will shed
snow onto the Monarch street sidewalk. These problems must be
addressed to Engineering's satisfaction before any approvals can
be granted. Also, the Fire Marshal has indicated that there may
be problems with the proposed trash storage inside the building.
certain fireproofing measures must be taken before Fire will
approve any plans. There are no other apparent issues with the
other utilities.
4) The project shall demonstrate its compatibility with
surrounding properties and its appropriateness to the site,
including but not limited to consideration of the quality and
character of proposed landscaping and open space, site
coverage by buildings, any amenities provided for users and
residents of the site, and the efficiency and effectiveness
of the service delivery area.
5
\~
,"""
,~
response: The HPC reviewed and directed the applicant to preserve
the setbacks and yard areas on the Main street and Monarch street
frontages. They also worked to establish what they consider
compatible massing and site coverage in respect to the existing
historic resource. Planning has no issues with the HPC's direction
on these items. However, staff believes that the project does not
meet the criteria regarding the amenities for users and residents
of the site. There are two residential units proposed along with
the 4,366 s.f. of commercial space. Even though the HPC waived .3
space as calculated required by code (residential uses are not
required to provide parking and the below grade commercial area has
parking waived), staff believes that there should be more parking
provided based on the simple fact that the site will be much more
intensively used. Logic would indicate that above and beyond the
code requirements, parking is essential to residences as much or
more than commercial uses.
other amenities for users have not been addressed such as bike
racks (since parking is not available), transportation alternatives
for the commercial tenants, and outdoor space established for the
residents of the basement apartment.
The service delivery for the site is split between three entries,
one on Monarch street, one through the tower storage room, and one
via the basement entry which is shared by the affordable housing
unit. staff finds this to be confusing and inefficient and desires
that any redesign of the project take a serious look at
consolidation of service access. ' This includes consideration of
how trash gets back out of the building to the trash area.
Based on the amenities and service issues, staff believes that
criteria (4) has not been satisfied.
II. Section 24-7-505 A.G. establishes the dimensions of the Main
street Mountain Viewplane. Insubstantial mechanical equipment
is exempted. Subsection C. allows exemption from the height
limit if another development infringes into the viewplane
behind the subject property. This section also give the P&Z
the ability to review viewplane infringements:
"When any mountain viewplane projects at such an angle so as
to reduce the maximum allowable building height otherwise
provided for in this chapter, development shall proceed
according to the provisions of Article 7, Division 9 as a
planned unit development, so as to provide maximum flexibility
in building design with special consideration to bulk and
height, open space and pedestrian space, and similarly to
permit variations in lot are, lot width, yard and building
height requirements, viewplane limitations.
The commission may exempt any developer from the above
6
(
\'0
,~,
~
.~
~.
enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the
viewplane does not so effect the parcel as to require
application of PUD or that the effects of the viewplane may
be otherwise accommodated."
response: The above cited code section allows a project to proceed
as a PUD for site design flexibility. However, because of HPC's
direct involvement in site design (setback's, open space, bulk and
massing) for the landmark, and the lack of required setbacks in the
CC zone, staff finds no benefit in followiqg the lengthy PUD
. process to provide "flexibility" for site desif1ning.
The applicant has designed the 34' ridge h~ight of the tower
element in consideration of discussions with HPC. The HPC wishes
have the tower's roof pitch be compatible wi ththe National
Register structure and to protect its visual prominence on the
corner. It was HPC's concern over retaining the existing front and
side street yards and setbacks that has caused the applicant to
place floor area upward rather than outward on the groundplane.
Therefore they approved at conceptual review the height and bulk
of the tower.
However, in subsequent discussions with the applicant's architect
it was learned that the HPC was not made aware of the Main street
Mountain Viewplane when they were considering the tower element.
Staff finds this to be a critical omission because the Main Street
viewplane was established to protect the views of Ajax and Shadow
Mountain from the block of Main Street fronting the historic Hotel
Jerome. The principal concern of the HPC and P&Z reviews should
be to protect the community's cherished historic visual resources
first, then work on a site by site basis to protect individual
historic resources.
There are only six viewplanes in Aspen. Because of the limited
numbers of viewplanes, any intrusions should be studied carefully.
Alternatives should be virtually eliminated before the P&Z should
find that the parcel and specific viewplane are not adversely
effected. In the case of this project, staff has a difficult time
rationalizing a trade-off to the 5.31 foot projection into this
viewplane so the applicant can place one level of storage and trash
area at grade within the tower. If parking were proposed in the
building, it would pose obvious difficulties to lowering the
finished grade of the first level. However, HPC has reduced the
parking to one space, so parking in the building is not an issue.
Even if living space were in the first level, it could be designed
as a garden-level apartment for an overall reduction in height of
the building. Staff wants the applicant to review the range of
options available and return with an alternative which respects the
viewplane limitation on the property. Another consideration of
staff is that the adjacent property also contains a victorian
building which has expansion potential. Allowance of a waiver of
the viewplane on the 303 Main property would open the door for a
7
\\0
~
-"'"
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson
From: Chuck Roth
Postmark: Nov 18,94
9:09 AM
SUbject: 303 E. Main
Message: ,
As we discussed on the phone, I met with Nick & Roget Kuhn on
November 10. During the course of our meeting, I learned that the
applicant plans to construct full basements beneath all of the
development. This was not indicated in the application. This would
result in impacts to adjacent public rights-of-way and especially the
alley. I provided Code sections to the applicant that establish
dates of work in the public ROW's and discussed the need to have the
alley open during the summer visitor season, from June 15 to Labor
Day at a minimum.
-------========x========-------
L
~.
--,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Johnson, City Planner
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
303 E. Main street
DATE:
November 15, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This house was built in 1887, is a local landmark, is within the
Commercial Core Historic District and is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The HPC reviewed a redevelopment
proposal for the site during for meetings, between April 20, 1994
and July 13, 1994, and awarded conceptual approval on July 13th.
Numerous design issues were discussed, including making sure that
there is no demolition to the historic structures (the addition
does not directly tie into the historic house and only a small
portion of the roof may be affected), directing the applicant that
the house cannot be moved, site plan concerns in terms of
lightwells, "ppen space, parking and the location of the
outbuilding, arid discussions of the tower element.
From the first meeting, the majority of the committee seemed to
agree that the mass and scale of the new development was well
thought out given the applicant I s programmatic needs and the
allowable build out on the site. Some members felt that this
design treats the site as a "whole" (creating a complex of related
buildings) rather than some of the more awkward additions which are
attached to and obscure historic structures in Aspen. Although HPC
would of course have preferred to see no changes to the site at
all, this is not the precedent which has been set in this community
and we do not have the ability to establish a measure such as
"transfer of development rights" which would further protect a
historic site of this importance.
The proposal is at about 66% of the allowed F.A.R. for the site,
and the committee expressed a feeling that concentrating the
desired square footage in a "tower" at the rear of the property
would place bulk in an area which would have the least impact on
the streetscape. The height of the tower was discussed at length,
and several configurations were rejected before this proposal was
agreed on. Staff expressed concern about the height of the tower
and suggested that it be lowered an entire floor, placing the
storage areas below grade, but this was not supported. At that
time, the trash area was shown to be placed outside, between the
outbuilding and the tower.
The basement floor plan has been expanded substantially between
HPC's approval and the application to P and Z. The Committee is
unlikely to approve any,more lightwells to get natural light down
'3~
.-.,
-.,
into this space, because they were concerned about creating a
"moat" effect and wished to preserve as much open space around the
structures as possible.
In terms of the view plane issues, if the applicant wishes to keep
the three story configuration, they will have to change the roof,
probably to a fairly shallow pitched hip roof. This would appear
almost flat from the street and again, is unlikely to be approved
by HPC.
~
.",.......,
.~
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DAlE:
RE:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
George Robinson, Parks Director
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
October 24, 1994
303 E. Main St., GMQS Exemption, Special Review
We have reviewed the application submitted by Niklaus Kuhn for development of the property
located at 303 E. Main St.. There doesn't appear to be any impacts to the existing trees located in
the right-of-way, however, protective measures should be taken during construction to protect the
trees to the greatest extent possible (ie. no digging in the dripline of the trees). If any changes are
proposed to the ROW trees, then a detailed landscape plan should be submitted to the Parks
Department for review and approval.
TO
Kim Johnson
Froni:
Postmark:
Chuck Roth
Oct 21,94
Subjlact:3.030 E. Ma.in
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Be
Chuck Roth
'c
2:39 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mlassag~:
Imla-t wi~ th4aapplicant's representative. this afternoon. We
discuss.ed the side'Walk, which will be; relocated, and. .the snowshed
. onto the sidewalk, which he will look' at further. We also discussed
the height of the tower.. He demonstrated to my satisfaction that he
could not reasonab~y reduce any ceiling heights inside the towers.
Therefore I would ,like to amend the last'sen1:ence in my memo
concern$ng.the view plane. It does not appear that the internal
spaces c~ be adj~sted to reduce roofhlaight.
cc: Jake>Vickery
'---
-----~--------~x
"'~
,,-,.
-.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE:
October 18, 1994
RE:
303 East Main GMQS Exemption, Special Review, Etc.
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-29-001
ISSUE: The applicant wants to increase the above grade net
leasable commercial space by 640 square feet, add a 1,315 square
feet for a free market two-bedroom residential unit, add 2,217
square feet of exempt basement commercial space, and increase the
FAR by 2,680 square feet. The project is also to provide an 874
square foot, two-bedroom Category 1 employee housing unit located
in the basement.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Board has established policies in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable
housing impacts. Their preference is as follows:
1. On-site housing;
2. Off-site housing, including buydown concept;
3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Office recommends denial of the
proposed employee dwelling unit. This unit is unacceptable as
proposed as there is no outside egress and there isn't any natural
light or air to this unit. The employee would have to enter the
unit through a long corridor, which customers would also be using.
jclc:word\referral\303em.em
~4v
.-
.
t"""'-o.
.,,-,.
.
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department ei2...
Date: October 17, 1994
Re: 303 E. Main St. GMQS Exemption and Special Reviews for View Plane,
Trash/Utility Area Reduction, and On-site Parking Reduction
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site Draim.ge - One of the considerations of a development application use is that
. there are adequate public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is
inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must
provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm
run-off must be maintained on site.
2. Snow Shed - The roof plan of the tower appears to have a reasonable snow shed'
impact on the alley. However the relocated, existing shed would shed its roof snow load
directly onto the public sidewalk on Monarch Street. The site plan indicates a space
adjacent to the parking space which could provide for the existing shed to be relocated
away from the public sidewalk.
3. Encroachment - The application does not specifically state that the existing shed
encroaches into the alley right-of-way about four feet, however the proposed site plan
indicates the shed being relocated onto private property. This is necessary in order to
provide full twenty foot width alleys for commercial vehicle use and for emergency access.
4. SidllWllllc Curb and Gutter - Section 19-101 of the City Code requires construction of
sidewalk, curb and gutter. The existing sidewalk, curb and gutter is in acceptable condition
with the exception of the lack of a handicap ramp for the crosswalk across Main Street.
Construction of a handicap ramp prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy should
be a condition of approval.
A portion of the existing Monarch Street sidewalk is located on the applicant's
property. The applicant should be required to sign an easement for the sidewalk prior
.1"""'-0.
r"'\
, .
to issuance of a building permit.
SPECIAL REVIEW
5. View Plane - The view plane calculations have been correctly performed. The
requested infringement into the view plane suggests policy similar to infringements into
river floodplains where cumulative effects are of concern. It would appear that ceiling
heights, floor plans, and relationships to existing grade could be adjusted so that the view
plane need not be infringed upon.
6. Reduction in Trash and U~ Area - The proposed trash and utility area appears to
be satisfactory for the proposed land use. As offered in the application, the applicant
should be required to. sign a trash and utility space enlargement agreement prior to
issuance of a building permit. Or the language could be contained in a project
improvements agreement.
7. Reduction in Parkinl! - The Engineering Department has no comments to the contrary
regarding the proposed reduction of on-site parking. The property is sufficiently close
to public parking and to mass transit to permit a reduction in parking.
OTHER COMMENTS
8. Imnrovement Districts - The applicant did not offer to agree to join future
improvement districts, however it is recommended as a condition of approval that the
applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
9. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work
and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso
M94.3S3
/""",
.1""'\
, ,.. ,fill;
MEMORANDUM
TO:
KIM JOHNSON, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
FROM:
PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR
OCTOBER 13, 1994
303 EAST MAIN STREET, GMQS EXEMPTION
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject application. The proposed project is located
within the City limits and will receive water service through the City system. We have not
identified any water-related conditions or concerns which should be addressed in the proposal.
The project will be reviewed for compliance with standard requirements prior to connection to
the Aspen water system.
PO:rl
IpbiJI303EMam.gmq
1"""'-0.
,,-,
., {,.Il, .,
Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation C])istrict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
October 10, 1994
FAX #(303) 925-2537
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
c :;: :~:Jl~1
iL1\
fr---
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Sy Kelly - Chairman
Albert Bishop. Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy.
Kim Johnson
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
.._._.._--~--_.-
Re: 303 E. Main St. GMQS Exemption
Dear Kim:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ourrently has
sufficient line and treatment oapacity to serve this project.
Servioe is oontingent upon oomplianoe with the District Rules and
Regulations which are on fi.le at the Distriot offioe.
Separate oonneotion charges will be assessed for the two
additional dwelling units. A new six inoh servioe line will
probably be required to handle the additional uses proposed. The
applicant should oontact our line superintendent, Tom Braoewell,
regarding servioe line requirements.
Total oharges oan be estimated onoe detailed plans are available .
and a tap permit is completed at our office.
.Please call if you need additional information.
Sinoerely,
~ ~ "'-...~.....~
Bruce Matherly
Distriot Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 . 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
,,-,
/..-,
!l ,d.".
.,
:.'
....,. ~
ii -l/, ."'~~"'I
.J" \\
/.. ;..1
; I'.
. ilj
4 : II/
/994i!
. ;;1
.IiI
._----_._;./!
.yJ;'
I
.;1
'~I
OCT
l__._,___~
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Bill Earley, Electric
Date: 10/4/94
Subject: 303 E. Main st. GMQS Exemption, etc.
I have reviewed the information submitted from the applicant and
it does not provide information on the electric requirements for
this development. We have three phase power available in this
alley so we can meet almost any requirements by installing a new
transformer. The applicant would have to pay for any improVements
needed to our system to meet their power requirements. If a new
transformer is required, the applicant would have to provide a site
for this transformer.
Without the load information I cannot be sure, but based on my
experience we should have no problem providing electric to this
development.
,,-,
/-,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920~5197
September 29, 1994
Jake Vickery
100 S. Spring St., #3
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 303 E. Main St. GMQS Exemption & Special Review
Case A76-94
Dear Jake,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We
have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
on Tuesday, November 1, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be
inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After
that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the
application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application
is available at the Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5100.
Sincerely,
?:::t~ff
Administrative Assistant
Corma:apz.IlO.ph
1""'.
,,-,
" .J. .,
ASPEN/PITKINPLANNING OFFICE
. 130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Parks Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Pire Protection District
BPI
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
303 E. Main St. GMQS Exemption, Special Review, etc.
Parcel ill No. 2737-073-29-001
September 29, 1994
RE:
DATE:
;
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Niklaus'Kuhn.
Please return your comments to me no later than October 15.
Thank you.
~.~c4 ~ .~ ~~~ /t?"<'< e. =t:--iL~
&pe?<? lur~~ . .
A-t.-(~
fJtkl4-S~ <:;;;e.~ /4--1/ p B-1 ~ 1-
'Of( C 1lr.J.M.A 0 cJ - I~ "$:00
CfJ1>>ro.:) c~
,~:.lfrJfL/~/cJ#"-'~0tvl-nUH'~ I:L/o ..-"""\
11.201-11.203
UNIFORM FIRE CODE
products or rubbish of any kind shall uot be permitted to remaiu uP9n any roof or
in any court, yard, vacant lot or open space. All weeds, grass, vines or other
growth. when same endangers property or is liable to be fired, shall be cut down
and removed by the owner or occupant of the property. When total removal of
growth from a piece of property is impractical due to size or to environmental
factors, approved fuel breaks may be established between the land and the
endangered property. The width of the fuel break shall be determined by height.
type and amount of growth, wind conditions, geographical conditions and type of
exposures threatened.
(b) Containers and Removal. Combustible rubbish or waste material, when
kept within or adjacent to a building shall be. stored in approved containers
e~ui'l'!d or in rooms or vaults constructed of noncombustible materials. Metal,
metal-lined or other approved containers equipped with tight-fitting covers shall
be provided for oily rags and similar materials. Combustible rubbish or waste
material; unless stored in approved vaults or rooms, ,shall be removed from the
building at least once each working day.
(c) Rubbisb Under Trailers. It shall be unlawful to accumulate or store
combustible waste matter beneath trailers or at any other place within an auto and
trailer camp.
(d) Dumpster and Container Location. Dumpsters and containers with an
individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards (40.5 cubic feet) or greater shall not be
stored in buildings or placed within 5 feet of combustible wails, openings or
combustible roof eave lines.
EXCEP110N: Areas containing dumpsters or containers protected by an ap-
proved automatic sprinkler system.
Handling of Readily Combustible Materials
Sec. 11.202. The person responsible for an occupancy that manufactures. uses,
stores or handles any combustible waste matter such as shavings, excelsior,
rubbish. sacks, bags, litter, hay. straw or other similar combustible materiais
which create a fIre hazard shall cause all such material to be removed from the
building at least once each working day.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. When such material is completely baled and stacked in an
orderly manner in an approved location so as not to create a fIre hazard.
2. When such material is stored in approved vaults orin metal or metal-lined.
covered receptacles Or bins.
3. The chie~ may require such material to be removed more than once' each
working day when a ftre hazard is created.
The chief may require baling presses to be installed or other approved methods
to ensure that such materials do not create a hazard or menace of fIre.
Storage of Readily Combustible Materials
Sec. 11.203. (a) Permit Required. Permits shall be obtalned for combustible
material storage when required by Section 4.108.
64
'"
r".
A:PPLICATION FOR GMQS ExEMPTION
SPECIFIC SUBMITTAL
303 EAST MAIN STREET
September 1,1994
..-,.
GMOS EXEMPTION
(6-1) Description
This property was listed on the National Register of Historical Places in 1987. It was made a
local landmark as part of this application in 1994. The requested exemptions allow the existing
historical residence to remain in its current location on the site, with its primary street facades
unaltered, and give reasonable use to its owners. This proposal further preserves the out
building through on-site relocation allowing it to also be preserved in tact. New floor area has
been added to the interior of the property in such a way as to minimize impacts on the integrity
of the historical structures. New square footage has also been placed subgrade to minimize
any impact on the historical structures. The resultant configuration allows for only 1 additional
parking space on site without detracting from the historical resource.
(6-2)
Complete set of architectural preliminary drawings are attached.
(6-3)
This project received HPC Conceptual Review Approval on July 13, 1994.
2 Parking spaces were waived. See Attached HPC minutes.
(6-4)
Copies of recorded documents which affects development: A -r-rALI.Jeo
(7-3) Affordable Housing
An 850 sf 2 Bedroom Category 1 Deed Restricted Employee Housing Unit
is provided to satisfy the Employee Housing Requirement for this project.
Calculation as follows:
New Retail Square Footage = 640 nsf x 3.5 employees/1000 nsf = 2.24 employees.
2.24 residents x.6 (minimum threshold) = 1.34 employees.
1.34 residents x.64 (reduction for FAR below allowable) = .86 employees.
New Free Market 2 Bedroom Unit = 2.25 employees
20 Housing Points Available x .35 (minimum threshold) = 7 points minimum required;
Test 1 Bedroom Studio: 2.25 + 1.25 = 3.5 employees.
1.25/3.5 = .35; .36 @ 1 point per .05 = 7.2 points. Studio is OK.
1.25 for Studio + .86 for New Retail = 2.11. Provide a 2 Bedroom Cat 1 Unit =2.25 > 2.11
(7-b)
There is a demonstrated need for such housing and it complies with the Housing Plan as
to number, size, type and price category.
7
r-
"......."
1
(4-8) Parking
Parking for one car is provided,
Calculation as follows:
New Retail "40 nsfx 2 spacesl1000 nsf= 1.28 spaces. Shortfall of.7B space. Variance
granted by HPC. '{
New 2 Bedroom apartment requires 2 spaces. Variance granted by UJpf!:.. ___ ,-
New 2 Bedroom Employee Housing Unit requires 2 spaces. Variance granted by t..op€," ----... '(
This project is located 1 and 1/2 blocks from the Town parking garage. on the Main Street '
bus routes, and proximal to downtown.
It is hereby requested that cash in lieu payment be waived.
(4-C) Trash
1. Requested is a reduction from 200 nsf to 160 nsf and a reduction in height from 10 feet to 8.
2. Access is off alley
. 3. Dumpsters on wheels will be located behind garage doors.
4. Owner will participate in compaction as it becomes available
5. Public: utility area is adequate and safe.
6. Construction is integral with the construction of the alley "tower" element.
8
;-
.~
VIEW PLANE
(2-5) Written Narrative
Integral with the design strategy, a "tower" element located on the inside rear of the property.
This element creates visual interest and variety to this architectural composition as well as
containing new square footage apart from the historical residence. The allowable height of the
property exceeds that allowed by the Main Street View Plane. Please refer to attached diagrams.
As proposed the tapering "tower" roof infringes on the view plane by a maximum of 5.3 feet
at the ridge and an area approximately 23 feet wide at its base. Various other roof shapes were
tested and reviewed by the HPC and to be determined less compatible than the one shown. A flat
roof, a shallower hip roof and a shallower gable roof were tried. The HPC choose the cross gable
roof.
The proposed roof is the most.compatible with both the historical residence and other historical
residences in the neighborhood. The penetration is minimal and does not block anything even
marginally significant. Tall cottonwood trees are located behind the "Tower". The angle of the
view plane was probably established by the view directly towards Aspen Mountain.
(3-A-1) see Site Survey
(3-A-2) see existing and proposed drawings
(3-A-3) large trees in vicinity
(3-8-1) see proposed drawings
(3-8-2) see attached photos and graphics
(1) Exemption from PUD
As per Section 7-505-C-1, the applicant requests either (1) Exemption from the
enumerated requirements of Section 7-505-C OR , failing (1), (2) Consideration of the
project as a PUD.
The HPC Conceptual Review was thorough and afforded adequate flexibility to minimize
effects on the view lane while accommodating HPC considerations. Due to its prominent
location on Main Street and its listing on the National Register, this project's design serves
significant community interests beyond those of the view plane. The GMQS Exemption
processes addresses mitigation and impact issues adequately.
The intrusion into the view plane is minimal in comparison to other development options and
historical considerations. The flexibility of the HPC two step review, with the exception of the
view plane issue, in effect functions similarly to a PUD review. An additional PUD review,
considering the extremely limited issues involved in relation to the PUD review standards and
procedures would be unnecessary, redundant, ands serve no public purpose..
The minimal nature of the intrusion does not impact the property so as to reqUire application of
9
r".
.1"""'-0.
,
a rezoning and map amendment. Concerns have been adequately addressed under current
zoning and HPC.
(2)PUD
Consideration of the project as a PUD (applicant requests that the reviews be
consolidated as per sec 7-903.c.30)
7 -903-C-2-a:
Much ofthis Section is duplicative or inapplicable. This application conforms generously
to all underlying zoning. No phasing or partial construction is considered at this time.
A city topography map is attached. No subdivision of condominimization is requested.
Other submittal information for this PUD submittal is provided elsewhere in this application.
The purpose of the PUD is to accommodate historical concerns within the view plane,
will require rezone to PUD and a map amendment. This is excessively involved for the
minor view plane infringement requested especially when balanced against the other
development restrictions placed on this property.
10
"....".
r"'\
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE:
October 18, 1994
RE:
303 East Main GMQS Exemption, Special Review, Etc.
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-29-001
ISSUE: The applicant wants to increase the above grade net
leasable commercial space by 640 square feet, add a 1,315 square
feet for a free market two-bedroom residential unit, add 2,217
square feet of exempt basement commercial space, and increase the
FAR by 2,680 square feet. The project is also to provide an 874
square foot, two-bedroom Category 1 employee housing unit located
in the basement.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Board has established policies in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable
housing impacts. Their preference is as follows:
1. On-site housing;
2. Off-site housing, including buydown concept;
3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Office recommends denial of the
proposed employee dwelling unit. This unit is unacceptable as
proposed as there is no outside egress and there isn't any natural
light or air to this unit. The employee would have to enter the
unit through a long corridor, which customers would also be using.
/clc:word\referral\303em.em
.<'
J
..
r-..
~
,,-,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and _}.,IJ /tLA U5 ._
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
~-? eAtf} mAl N 4TR13ET
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
r-.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application,
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
1"""'-0.
~
1""'\
.~
~
r-..
~
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $
which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
. CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN . APPLIC~~.~5.
1\ . . _ - fi'JE AI/f..Y4fJ-' J4;IfN
By: .~rnMI't.R... By:
Diane Moore Mailing Addressf?~. Pox <g1J Ik
City Planning Director ~j), CtJ. ~/~II
,
Date: iJ . /3. '1'1-.
2
\
,,-,
('\
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 10174
Commitment Number: CC 82278
1. Effective dale:
FEBRUARY 26. 1981 AT 8:00 A.M.
/"""..
2. .Policy or Policies to be issued;
.\1, " ~~" ~, ,I' In S'JI ;) "c"
Premium
A. ALTA Owner's Policy
P'opo.cd In..<ed: NIKLAUS G. KUHN AND GERTRUD E. KUHN
s
300,000.00
$687.00
8: ALTA Loan Po!;cy LENA VAN LOON
Proposed Insurp.d:
s 240,000.00
$ 20.00
c.
S Tax Certificate
$ 5.00
3. The eslate 'or interesl in the land described or rererr~d to in Ihis commitment and covered hCfein is (ell' sImple and lill/' lh~r,.to
is -'t the effective difle hereer vesled in:
LENA VAN LOON
4. The land referred to in this commilment is dp.scribed 81 follows:
Lot A and the West Half of Lot B, Block 80,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN.
County of Pitkin. State of Colorado;
t"'"
Page 2
8T E"'AH'1' TIT LE
OU"IIA.NTY ~O'fl'AN\"
1652
13
',<. : ,~. l-
,..'Wto'f'
: . '. ~ ,'. .
\\." "i
I"""
r-"
SCHEDULE B - Section 1
Order Number: l 0174
Commitment NUfllbCl: CC 82278
(""'
Requirements
The following are the reqlJi, enllmts to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the hili comidol<ltioll for the C!>tillc or intercst
to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrumcIH(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed ami duly filed for rceul'll,
to-wit:
Cc) Deed from the Hayor of the City of Aspen to Lena Van Loon.
Cd) Deed from Lena Van Loon to Niklaus G. Kuhn and Gertrud E. Kuhn.
(e)
- -. 'I' ; 1" '.~ i' I' I . ", ;
Deed of Trust from Niklaus G. Kuhn and Gartrud E. Kuhn to ti,e' Publfc' Trustee
of Pitkin County for the use of Lena Van Loon to secure $240,000.00.
,-.
f"""\
Page 3
STJn",\H.T TITLE
n I! ~ " I 'Tl' f'll'l ". ,.,
14
,-..
:
,-..
,-..
OQncuVt::C-t7"'-t)t:'C1nJP,r...
/""",
Exceptions
Order Number: 1017l.
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to
satisfaction of the Company:
Commitment Numher: CC
the following unless the same are di~poscu of to the
822n
1. nights or claims of parties in possession 110t shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of oaseinents, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a corrc<;t
survey and inspection of the premises would di<;close and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material thel'etololc or hereafter furnished, ilnposed by I<'IV\!
and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, Cleated, first appearing in the pulllie
records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the datc the proposed insured acwlir es
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6.Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any and all tax sales whirh
have not been properly redeemed or cancelled. Treasurer's CertH icate of
taxes due has been ordered.
7.Terms, conditions and obligations of Notice of Historic Designation as >'pt
forth in instrument recorded January 13, 1975 in Book 295 at page 515.
a.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subjpct
property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Street Improvement Distr;ct,
Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen Valley Hospital District and the City of Aspen.
Exceptions numbered
are hereby ornitted.
Page 4
STE'VAHT TITLE
OUAnA:iTY CQ:.II-AN\'
1654
15
(""\
(""\
t""
"-
'.
September 4, 1994
To Whom it May Concern:
,-,
.~
Jake Vickery has my permission to represent me on the development hearings concerning
my property, located at 303 E. Main Aspen, Colorado. He will be representing me
before the Planning and Zoning andCify Council specifically.
'JJfl~
Nik1aus G. Kuhn
Owner 303 E. Main St.
P.O. Box 8016
Aspen, CO 81612
Tel. 925-3142
16
,,-,
.,-,
~ May 3, 1993
~
I""""
To Whom it May Concern:
Roget Kuhn is my representative authorized to act on my behalf for the development
application for 303 E. Main, Lot A and the West Half of Lot B, Block 80, City and
Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Roget Kuhn
P.O. Box 8016
Aspen, CO 81612
TEL. 925-3142
Sincerely,
)//ihU
Nik1aus G. Kuhn
P.O. Box 8016
Aspen, CO 81612
TEL. 925-3142
17
~
~
r"'
~.
~-.,.,
y
. ...
COIDRADO
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
This is to certify that
a~ Uflomas
r"'
has been entered on the
National Register of Historic Places
by the
United States
Department of the Interior
under provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966.
entered ~dl6 7 J 9 & 7
f~~~ ~&\~
State Historic Preservation Officer for Colorado
t""
18
r-.
I~
r-
;"""\
r-.. ~~~~~ """'
',". , '.' ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ -29 _ QLL
-....L.I 82-164/1021
~~L f CUlr/ -;z . 1$ ;2. :<75".-
7/1/0 7/-/() tf.Y.brj/ 7iJ"/) h'~~~LV~'
.0." ce. nlral Bank ",.....""so"" MO~MARKETINSURI!DSAVINGS
~~ '-' Aspen =;,~::" ~~ .
~ i5'jA'8."O")7'AJ/J ~ _ . ~
I: ~o 2 ~O ~ b I, 51: 205 91, 2 1,11' :i ~ ~ 7
&
311 7 ~
I
r-
.
19
.'-"
1"""'-0.
i}.) ~i."", Ai,! 1 ~
/ ", tes!re
\j jO /14
~o/1'f
,-...
.
CITY OF ASPEN
..,..KE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Sv.lMARY
PROJECT: ,3o~ E Ma.;" Shu-t
'2-
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: .]A 'cL \/:c.l:.:'.V\/
,
qQ.S"-.:fC,bO
~/' I ' / c ;Jfl0llDlri':L~ CIt:tC,u..(.
6_ ,(..~ .IlIa -..J .:::::::r J../.';<I~I\JV
/' CoMM'::;:
S~Y' /7' ~-IO~ B .1.<2-' .
Type of AppHcation:5C(lI;'C'J: i:"" F lit M! 6~J\ &.5 f'/.PI~+1.C,,",,/Sft.~'/) iZzV1CW
2. .~ Describe action/type of development beinqrec;iuested: CC 2.0"'\0/ 1
~1t.L. . "" ".'^ . 'oi11\ ,,-t -h
/1'0"" 4CC" /J. II
'J ~C"U. .s p'p C.U+dl.h>J 1\ n,'~; 1..- . .' f<12dJJ.C:
l.bcQroo<Y'. F. 111.'; '1fd.~A
5rofl.i!i-
Applicant has been requested to respond, 5-2.01-
requested: "
"'. I.
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME:
-e01C.J ~v\"1'\
,G~
2-
.-
/.2-t
~.
It\ccrtt '!j.\:'b;i\,\,'
~.
., j ..~A.)I Areas is which
1 <:;'oco \':.~~VJII(~,' types of reports
.2. S ''''
~ ,L'f:OO;P".. P l' Ar I
"" 0 \I I' 0 ~cy ea .
Z,uJO'o D 7< .. ; Refe=al Aaent
\0 a/;! 1.3<11
i';;r;~'.. .'. g Pf'Ji.N,};""
!<.~b_.-:2JO i\ I ^8
~H(,. .
Connnents
/ 1\02r:1 +0 rtdArel.!./1 S'ti'r\ic. Vi i..... f) itll'\2...-7 - j 05'
I -SrtCl"-O lliiic.w t", cl1+tn,,,'/M-tr;i.,0h Iv-h'li~ arr..J_
.~ G-rJ\1?t5> ~Xt"f~'"" -b" rll,b"L lu^d M..ili\. ,q. ic~i'Z.L
'jjPCr~''';1V_v -.I-",i P'''''\y4.(',,~Jfjn
, \..;
'2.:2..~ {<w,"l' -..::i .
.f\".1I1<AW'" \)
r il ;\:..3
1.z.(S~ . .
~ ( ir<w ') "fut)-$l-
:J,.5Ii~ WaM:\.
30/0 ,bi~4. Review is:'
~SG-
,/
5.
Public Hearmg:
G .
Number of cop~es
of the application
to be submitted: . 7
submit: t..-'Pl~;"e- i ,<;:
'2)111+ ~cl;":3~
&0 + q~ - . _' .
tfr . .,
~~ ~ . ... '
(' 1. i
6.
,
,~~
~
7D;,,, ~J 8.
H5J.F'o'V1f.:J
,,-,
7.
What fee was applicant requested to
Anticipated date of submission:
9.
;.
,-
.
I .j.. f' (' frm.
WIlliG./( I !VV1 -\-ill {le,A.! Cl}!M.>tI\i.ifC!o1;i W f!v-t N~ -f'1".Q./ ~;\J.,vtu/,' Wfo...V
r".
"-,,
'-
f"""\
f"""\
303 EAST MAIN
111
JAKE VICKERY
A
K
,
100 SOUTH SPRING ST. 13
POST OFFICE BOX 12360
ASPEN. COr..ORADO 81612
TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE
(303) 925.3660
VICKERY
f"""\
f""\
MAJlN
STREET
fO\lNO~()W)WlC:,Ni
O"'ii h
S 75009'11"E
45-23
I
I
I
St." coNe.. ,
":';':\\'1_:__
Fo
~
~
I:!:;
Fo
C!.l
v
z
3
"
0-'"
0_"
6 g
o.
- '"
'"
Z
<(>-:
o:::;::w:
c::::;>(
0:'
1-;;),
(/).
C/)w
<($
W<!l
z
('I)i=
OIQ
('I)Gj
"
~
~~
,-
"
. :1
1,?Jr-,
.1 I
.
J
~
i3' i
. .~-i-~"
ti:l 'i
Q
I:!:;
f""\ ~
0 \
~ I
f""\
".
\ \
: !
",~
/:>
./
'./
:'~
I /
1----..-,.---------- I '/
I /<'/~.4 / , '1/"
: /-/;j;/:;;~ :l '!y
: ~:~;~~ /~ i f,
45 23 : ~,~ ,/,))HE )/;'%~ ~ I t>.~ "j\.i"
. I",: ' ,,/ - 5\:,.1.'. \'11 \'\... .
NT5 09 II W~0!~LG~~}D~~j \~~~.~,~4
: :
1 ;
i i
i i
. ,
! I
0:,1;:1' C01~C.
"i.'\N
,
,
...1
./"'""\
~
12
~
r"
I
'V ./ I
.~ICDII
I
~
..-
"i 3
'I, ..-_
II
11_.____
I
r"
.,........"
~
><
z
o
f-
e:(
>
W
...J
W
I
f-
=>
,0
CI)
'0
Z
f-
CI).
X
W
=-
~
~
.
",-.,.,
f"""'..
.
L
I
I
[DO
0
"" ".
,
. , !I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
f"""'.
f"""'.
",-.,.
LO
><
z
o
l-
e::(
>
W
....J
W
I-
(j)
e::(
w
(!)
Z
I-
,(j)
X
w
0--.
,-,
,.-"
c.o
X
,-.
--.
,I II
I
I i
I t
i r
i
I I
l- I-
:J 0:
0 0 Cf)
Cf) Z Z
0
I-
<(
>
W
..J
("""> W
0
W
I
en
(9
z
I-
Cf)
X
W
I
i
, I
,
, ,! , I
'Ii! ! I 1
1"li:
,;j !il l-
i' 'g' Cf) l-
I! c:::::=' . W en
I , , 3: <(
I , W
(""">
. c
~,
.
--'I-::;~
...~ I JY.-
F - ?~ I I
,,~ I
l~ I I
I
11 +'~I I I
l I
\
'"
"3:
<
T-
- .
:i.-'
I?
J.,?3-:;J1-7 N IYW
~
City Council EXhibit c..
A~roved , 19
By Ordinance
,...
X
w
z
~
....J
Il.
ill'
1:::-
CJ)
G
z
I-
CJ)
X
ill
1
-y
r'\
--I
!EI
~l
ifl
I
I
w
w
"
o
"
w
o
in
/
//'
/
, '
w
~
..
z
w
..
o
#-
"
....~:.,..
",
~
... CJ
~
o
"
"
z
;;:
w
"
w
w
~
w
z
w
..
o
~i
'1
.' ,
,
,
, ,,!
'+-... .-..--
"''::\
,~
o
w
0"
w"
5~
0'-
~w
~~
+
z
-
~
~
<:
ril
OJ.
o
OJ
.......
z
:r:
::J
~
e
>
~
~
u
;;
~
~
:!.
'l
1;;:2
'2
.-
=~~ :t"
~~~ i:
.~~ 1:
~~I
I-
W
It:
....
'"
,2
2<(
:50:
a.u..
LUO
1-0
CI.la:
00
LULU
CI.lCl.l
00
a. a.
00
a: a:
a. a.
<(
-'V't
-I Z
-
I ~ > ~~~
.
I . !!~8
... ~ .
v , ,
z I ;; '~g
"
w . i'.
w I ~ . ~~~
> ~
9 I
..
'" C':l
w 1 ~~I
'0
+f- C':l
0: " "-
'" ... z
"'''' :I:
"'0: ::>
w"
0:0
0: lil" ::s::
'" " .\:.
)
~,--~
~~
1'.-11n
J:i-
w
::!:.. ..
r"'\.
,.
I
I
'tl
I~
I~
I~ 1\
15 I~
I~ I~
t:I Igj
I I~
10:
r-----l----Jl
If') I
w
...
'"
;)j
;s
...
3:
w
z
I
1
I
~
I
I
I
-~-----..j.
!"""\
l\J
<(
- .1 . ....
,,0:
~5
"'0
..
" ,-
,
,
I
J
z
:5
0..
a:
o
o
I- ...J
ill LL
ill
U. I-
~ - Z
UJ
:2
UJ
C/)
<(
co
o
UJ
(/)
o
0..
C)o ~
tt.---_
I I
I I
It--__u
w
...
'"
<
~
...
if:
z
:~.;
-j z
-- ~~; ~:
<C ~
:E ~ ~~8g:
w
" Oi.;.! '...
I l- V ~~g ~:
" E-< ;: 10' >.
~ W "'0
I " ~p.
:!. \! --
t I ~
I ~ ~~I
I '0
I ~
"
'R'- Z
> :r:;
::i ;::l
~
r \.)
~ -~
~.Or~.11
r '!In J[
Jffi(--'
:E . ,.
~
-I
I '"
'"
I "'>-
I "''''
! w::>
"'0
"'u
, w
'"
'"
I
I
t:l
I~
I;:;
I~ 1\
~ ~
I~ :~
l~ l~
t:I I~
I [:5
-'"
---1---- I
r--
I I ___ ---4
~
'"
"
"
"
w
~
;:
w
Z
I
I
I
1:1
I
I
tI-____
I
I I
I -1=1
l+--u;-
~
~
~
;:
w
z
.-,
~
z.
::5
0-
cr:
o
o
I- ...J
LU LL
lJ: l-
v Z
'" - W
~
W
Cf)
~
o
w
Cf)
o
0-
~~ ~
Vo- 0-
l\J
<(
'V~
, .
r"
"'
'"
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
::;
!5
%
'"
~
"'
~
'"
<li
'"
<li
~
I ~
z
I
I
I
I
+-- .--- - -_.- '-
--- -1-
I
I
I
----I-
----~1
IT
i
;~h~.jl
-~
"'
~
j
~
"
~
'"
Iii
I
-,---l-
,
zl
c
~
.~
Z
I-<
<:
::E
~
r2
Ct)
o
Ct)
......
z
::r:::
;:J
~
<.:
~
.
~
~
y
;;
~.
~
~
;~i H
~~8 t::
:xt:~ ...
g~~ C
Sl!-~t:
!2. EO
~~I
I-
W
W
U.
...
C\I
z
::s
0..
a:
o
o
...J
LL
o
Z
::J
o
a:
(!)
o
UJ
(j)
o
0..
o
a:
0..
':P
r-.
~
~
<l::
1 r I)~T r I z
>- I
i! I 2: ~
I ~ i'I I
, i !! I
i
" I ~
i ~ 'I' ,.
&1 ~ J;;~~ ;..
~ ';,~8 c':
zl , j u
o I':' ;; . :i ~.
>- .. _. . I .: ~ "e ,:
z ~ ~~ "
w t.:,.t._~'~'" r.l ~
'" ~ .~ 1;
Ii: L__ l~ ,~
0: ... Ct') --
.. 0
Ct') I~I
.. "
" z
::r::
:::>
:::=:::
!
/
;
!
[ ---1
L
-,
I
~
J---]
i
~:'
I ',-
I -',-
i.--.,J-
'@
. ...-..0..- -
1"---
z
:5
CL
0:
o
o
....J
LL
0:'
w
CL
CL
:J
o
w
.CIJ
~
o
0:
CL
~\
r",
.
lli
, i
c_~
I 1
I I
I !
I
I
,
I
I
j
':::';li'''''I<'-''"''\''''''''';'''O,.:,,:;,
.
I
_~...,_---i._
,~.
@Ol
,__dO
z
-
~
~
ex:
~
O':l
o
O':l
'-
z
::c
;:J
:::0:::
~
w
w
u.
1,
r'
~
~
.
~
u
;:
.
~
:!.
~~I
.""'"
'-'J
~
=!i ;:
~i8 ~:
5-~ ::
_!.! ....
.. .
~o'" ~;
'~5 ,:
z
~
-J
c..
a:
o
o
-J
LL
tL
o
-J
0:
UJ
.~
o
I-
o
UJ
(J)
o
c..
o
a:
c..
"J'2r-
~
,,-,
z
~
~. ~
~ ~
> en
LU 0
....J en
LU .......
:r: Z
I- ::r::
:J ~
o ::c:
CI)
o
LU
CI)
o
a...
o
a:
a...
co
<(
>
.
w
.
V
;:
w
.
~
mi:
1l~8 ~~
... ::
~!:!8 ..~
ISj i;
~h~:
~~I
- -- 1:-
V
*
~
<:t::
~
Z
o
j::
<(,
>
UJ
....J
UJ
I
I-
a:
o
z
o
UJ
(f)
o
a..
o
a:
a..
r"\
, .
f7~'
IA(~ "__
kJ I r
~_ \1,"-
'\.~
.,,-'
'\":,,I.llli111111
i'i
Ii,m
.
,
.r-..
\-
-,
il
~.
~
t;
i"
'"
\-
J-
~,
<\
~
"'.
~
~
~-)
z
-
<t::
~
~
<t:
ril
OJ
o
OJ
"-
z
::c:
::>
::s:::
c.o
<(
~
m
~
~
U
.
~
~
~
:" ,:
....-z.
~=g ,-
.lil;:!:';'
ig~ ;:
sou ~;:
~_a ,.
~n ,:
~~I
"
/l~
.:).J
1"""'-0..
_ _ -i...-_._~_
,
!
I
I
I
I
1/
f
1"""'-0.
z
-
<t::
~
~
~
CQ
o
CQ
........
z
::r:
;:J
::s::
~
>
"
.
.
u
;:
.
.
~
'I
0-
o~
~~
"'
~~
~!
~~I
z
o
I-
<(
>
w
-'
w
I-
CJ)
<(
w
o
w
CJ)
o
0..
o
a:
0..
-::,\P
~u '..~
. .- :t f"'"
_ 0'.
\J
^
Z
(f)
/
/.
CA;)
o
CA;)
m
):>
(f)
-i
s:
):>
-
2
I I <
,f -
~o,Q
~~
-i
-<
s:
):>
"U
o
.....
::
o
1/
01
o
::
\-
-,
1.1>'" ~ "0....'
0:;; ";l@8
1.I>:g ~""iB
'-'g 8~S
~: 5~;;;
;~ ~:~
wQ 8~z
~- ~
'" ~ ~ E ~
Om ;: g~
J
':S\
\j
....
):>
o
-,
"
-'n
I'
I"
"
II
II
II
II
'I
'I
I
I
, ,'- .~~_:-'.: -~..7.~: ~;
o
o
~O
x
Qj
CD
!D
....,
STREE\ /
,! -
. \
' '
Cd
o
- f,;x STREET
T'
o
x
I
I~ I
I I~
-
>
~
'"
<:
~
n
~
'"
i'Il
0<
r - -
STREET
Q
~~ - ..........'."
." ,,:>
.'
"..J
Cl 1...1 10..0
<ll
(0
N
Cox
~
)>
Z
_::I
Qj
lB
Co
x
\
,
~
o
~
0,/\
o
o
-II
I,
"
"
I,
II
II
II
, J
I'
II
II
I:
I,
I'
,
,
I
L
'u
(f)
--j
::0
ITI
ITI
--j
,
~
~~"~"
.,...........,.'~",.
'I
I I Qj '--,
I I 1S X v----'l
" bl .')
1'- _
I -~
1---- -- --
I -
,.', "
o
A
CJ
_..J
,-j
o
en
J:
fT1
m
,-j
p
'-
,
J>
X
/---.
I "
I. '
~\ .,/'
:(
I
I
"
I
I
I
o
. I
'~
t:::
b::
;~
,'-
'CJJ
,0
CJJ
trj
~
r:n
l-3
~
s
'0
z
)>
::0
o
I
(J)
-i,
JJ
m
m
-i
m
r
m
<
)>
-\
o
Z
~
m
(j)
-\
"-"
.
-~ ~2lg
~~ ril ~lS
<..Iz !!-oc
-0 n"1l-t
z O;!!::C
..0'" r"i'"l\ll
N... ~rfl~
<.11.., '> ~z
':'Q 8 ~~
'1'i; ~tl:-l
:~ ~ g;e
~
>
x
'"
<:
-
n
X
'"
~
-<
.'
)>
-.....J
!
,
.
.
I
I
,
I
~
~
I
I
._---~, .-.-,-
.' ~ .,
: ....:.1. . t ____
. 11--[\1 I . .,. , '1---
. . ,It ~ -.~ _ I, . ,,_.....
I!::":I .. i"i;"-""""~----l
.' ..._- -~. I~"-'- -' !, / '-.
' ,.-- . "! --.--. --. - \ -'-'"',,
f~t tELl '? I~t::~ ' ='r];;'-l"-~
~.~T~7-"~". ~ :..~'~~~~~,~'~ -- r. '"~ ' :~\_.,
1 ,,-.._- '-1' '<,
. . ~~ff'i ~ \ Jpd~j=,l::-~r ~~
@j .~-~, 't' ijlh~~= .~~ ,f'"
I ie:-=~,-", '. /, I-t=~I /,:
' '. Iii ".
". ......=... .-. //.(.'
' ~':;'=~'i:: ~.j, .., . //
':;:;;'~.J:'= -'--, ~ I
'--. D", . ..-[ . ... '/h' I
' .,;'=----'-cc-:::- "j - c =0,' "~',? t
· -<':.~:~~ j "f==""-,,:\~
Ji':".~;-:"''''''' ~_ . ~'~. . I
: "~':i"'C:;:' :,. I f~l /,""d ..If __.". _"_ _. ..
:'::!!it..~';';~~~::;,~'; --- ,.~/ ..........
. '.- .--~- ~
'I ~.
, '..
\l
.~ .
J.
. ..
-_. ..,....~.
:. :::::_ "1
'-"-
111'r.= .
:~2:' i--....-
I
.,
,
-..,
.~.
'~:.,..
0'1"\, '1
'.; ''\:\'
11:10))' !
1;1./ I
[j-~
'f
~ .
vd
OJ
~~
-+--. ~
\\-\
~
...-,
<
m
~
"'U
~ ~
z \:l.
m
Cf)
m
o
-j ~
o
z
<
""'(J
.....
~
" ,~ I ~
,;' ~ I ,~
~ \ ~ ."
- s: 1 \' . .~, ~- ~
.::'.\. ( ~; ~\\iil ."~
1. ,~ ~ ;t\; ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ..Q.\N . n . .
. : ... ~ .~. l' ~ ~ ~
h.t. ;,' ,'" <{.. ><( ""\'
~ : I '" . ii )c; ........ \"<.>
.~ ., '",!I\!" Ii
(b " ~ .. if::::S tQ\
n (;;' 1'1' \I"t. . i .'N,.J
! ~ 1'1 :~~ i; i i
I "'.; .' I :
I' .... ~ ..;---' i' II'
i . .1 ~ H";T.----i-~.~ -~
YI'~
",. I: : '.
+.
\,)\
\@
..:s"
~
.~
-
(~"
~
~..
,
~-
~
.,1\
~
--S>
,,=~
'-...:J
<
m
~ "
~ "'U
I );:
z
m
i s:
)>
"'U
.. .....
, 'I
.
II
~I (.,
0
-\'-'
-i
I
.:..
.
"
I-\-
,~
: -
.
.
I
I
I
i
.1
Ie
i:I:
\~
"
UJ
o \)'\
UJ .
t:rj .~
)0 ~-::;;:-s -
C/) ii ~$
~ S;\ ~ 1(.
\\\ ~:s
~ :!Sc
~ ~3'
~
:j
~
.'-,
;!
;i
I.
I;
Ii
I
i
I
I
i
!
I
'I)
.~
\>:
~
r
~.
/./
I I
.'-"
Q~
o
'-..-'-
~.~
~~'
'\""~
l$'
-- ../
ex ./
-"\ .//
/'
./
/
/'
/'
/'
/'
./
/
..-..
j! !"
" I ~
I I
. (1 {) f\:
'. ,r Ii
~ -\-, ~f -d
~. ~Ul ';:::: fI
~\. ~ ~ ~ ~.
~l'- rr+>
ts) ~ I: ~
~ I..~~ ' ~c
liU1, , . ,
! I """ I" "
! ; , .
I
U ~
~
~ i
~
Q
, I'"
./
~
.'{ '.
rl.> , \\'
{II)';, '
'-J ['.'/
. jl '
'I
~~i
-S\~
-f>-
~
\l\~e
,
~
~
\