HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20100202AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, February 2, 2010
12:10 p.m. site visit - 301 W. Hyman
4:30 p.m. regular meeting- Sister Cities Room
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 301 W. Hyman -Subdivision and associated land use reviews
(continued from 1/19)
B. 217/219 S. Third Street -Amendment to the official zone
district map (rezoning)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 4
.A . P,
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE OF MEMO
MEETING DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner'(
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Community~~
Development Department
January 28, 2010
February 2, 2010
301 W. Hyman -Amendment to Zone District Map,
Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS for Affordable Housing
APPLICANT /OWNER: Establishing deed-restricted housing requires
John Cooper Growth Management review.
REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Peter Fornell Staff recommends that the P&Z remand the
proposal back to the applicant to meet PUD
LOCATION: standazds for azchitecture.
301 W. Hyman Ave.
SUMMARY:
CURRENT ZONING ~C USE Applicant regUCStS that the P&Z reCOInnlendS Clty
R-15. Four (4) free market Council approval of Rezoning, Final PUD and
residential units on a 3,600 s.f. lot. subdivision; and approves Growth Management for
Affordable Housing.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Applicant seeks to demolish
existing free market 4-plex and
replace it with a new and lazger
structure containing eight (8) deed-
restricted affordable housing units.
Applicant is requesting an
Amendment to the Zone District
Map to rezone the property from R-
15 to AH/PUD, which requires a
Final PUD Development Plan.
Establishing eight (8) new
residential units requires approval
as a subdivision.
301 W. Hyman
P2
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing
regazding the proposed redevelopment of 301 W. Hyman on 3anuary 19, 2010. At that
time, the P&Z approved a motion to continue the public hearing until February 2, so the
applicant could address concerns regarding azchitecture.
,~
~
• af'
E'
•
1 (cF / 1 t
y Y I. t~
`
~ ~:~+~ ..
'
-)
f ~ _ nay
n 1 ~
i
~y~ 1
y~ ~~~~~ 4 ~ 1
r
~ ~ ~~ r
~ ;, j i~.
J'L
~
71
M
I
~ yy
S
Y-Fe
<
i
r
~
~ ~
'K
xwY
U'
-`.a."Cry. _
_ -
Original application for 301 W. Hyman redevelopment
The initial application was abox-like structure with exterior staircases and second floor
walkways along the length of the building, somewhat resembling a motel in appearance.
Staff is always reluctant to act in the role of a designer -none of us are licensed
architects. However, in practice, applicants often ask staff how they could improve
architecture and meet the required architectural standard.
Staff made a number of suggestions and applicant revised the architecture before the first
P&Z public hearing on January 19. Staff still found that the proposal didn't meet the
PUD standard for architecture, emphasizing that architecture for affordable housing
should strengthen the perception of the city's affordable housing program and not detract
from it. The P&Z discussed the issue extensively and ultimately agreed to ask the
applicant to improve the architecture.
Applicant again asked staff for ways to improve the architecture, and staff reluctantly
made more recommendations. Staff suggested addressing the individuality of the eight
units, adding roof forms such as gables, adding patio space, improving window
treatments and generally improving "curb appeal."
Chances made by the aovlicant since the Jan. 19 P&Z public hearine (see Exhibit Al:
• What was once a single shazed balcony on the 2nd floor on the north and south
sides of the building are now two separate balconies, each accessed separately
from the upper floor units
• Replaced roof skylights with gables, for each of the upper units.
• There is now at-grade patio space for the first floor units, although it should be
extended to the west end of the property.
2
Window treatments have been adjusted to show flower boxes.
Window treatments on the east and west side have been adjusted.
Upon reviewing revisions for the Feb. 2 public hearing, staff sees improvements but still
does not believe the architecture is "compatible with or enhance(s) the visual chazacter of
the City," according to the primary PUD standard on azchitecture. Staff understands that
this can be a subjective standazd. It is staff's position that the initial application was very
box-like, and while it has been improved, there comes a point where the basic underlying
structure and form simply can't be transformed into a structure that "enhance(s) the
visual chazacter of the City." Staff has reached a consensus that effectively asks the
applicant to "start over" regarding the architecture.
Staff is providing some images of architecture that we believe reflects a level of
originality that would meet the PUD standard. Staff is not suggesting that anv of these
ima es is the "answer" to this site -some are on lazger sites, some might not work in the
neighborhood. Staff does not want to play the role of designer.
This is only an effort to display a level of architectural originality that would be
appropriate. There is potential for different roof forms, perhaps even a flat roof and
higher plate heights on both floors ... A higher standazd can be achieved without
excessive cost -the modular building industry is turning out much higher levels of
architecture than ever before.
P3
3
P4
At the January 19 public hearing, it was staff's impression that the P&Z was ready to
determine that the proposal at 301 W. Hyman met the required standazds of review, with
the exception of architecture: However, towards the end of the Jan. 19 hearing, several
P&Z members expressed an interest in adding a condition that would set aside most or all
of the head-in parking on the east side of the parcel for future users of the 301 W. Hyman
site. Upon reviewing this issue internally, staff believes this an unrealistic proposal. The
City cannot allow public Right of Way to be used for private purposes. The only way to
"privatize" the use of the pazking spaces would be to vacate the Right of Way and turn
ownership over to the applicant - a choice the City is highly unlikely to make, especially
considering the proximity to the public ice rink.
SITE VISIT: A site visit has been scheduled for noon on Tuesday, February 2, meeting
in the alley behind City Hall and proceeding to the site; or meet at the site at about 12:10
pm. Please RSVP to Ben.Ga non ,ci.aspen.co.us and specify if you intend to meet
behind City Hall or at the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends remanding the proposal back to the
applicant, due to concerns on architecture.
POTENTIAL MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to
recommend approval for the land use requests, they may use this motion "I find that the
Amendment to the Zoning Map meets required standazds of review, I recommend City
Council approval of a Final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision, and approve
Growth Management for affordable housing."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -Updated elevation drawings and site plan.
4
.~
Y~~
1 I~ 1~
~]
.
~ 1
q 1
i ~
~~ .
I
I~
I
' 44
.
,1
';
+ i
~~ .
,
' .41
~~ y
, i
.
~ ~
i
,i
~ .41
i
~
~ ; ~
'
+ ;
~
~
'
.41
{
' ~ i
I' ~
~
i
~
~ .41
, ~
5
I ~ '
~~ .
~ I
~~
' ' 4
.
4
' ~ '
a
1 '
~ ~ ~
I
i
' .44
i
'
o 1
''
I
+
.
i
, ~
' 4~
.
1
~' '
s
'' i
,~ .
~ ~
' 41
.
'i s
'
' ~
,~ .
, ,
I .41
~ '
~ 5
i '
I i .
~ ~
I I
, i
'
.44
~ '
i 5
,.
~
W ~
z Z
o
LL ~ ~ ~ ~
_~ Q
~ ~ U ~ ~
~ ~ i
4
~
Z 1 ~ I
C
(tf
O
M
Z
O
\~
W
J
W
H
Z
O
~~
a
D
C
(0
2
r
M
of
W
~ Z ~ ~ ~
Q
U Q
~ w
fl
w'
J
W
0
n
v
C
(If
2
M
C
(a
r
M
Z
0
w
J
W
H
W
0
N`d~d ~11S
116U.1/~H M ~~£ H12iON
3/~b NdW1~H
~~ P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 217/219 South Third Street -Map Amendment (Rezoning)
Resolution No. ,Series 2010 -Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: February 2, 2010
APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
YLP West, Inc. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
Suzanne Foster approval of the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map request.
LOCATION:
217/219 S. Third Street
CURRENT ZONING Rc
UsE
Located in the
Moderate-Residential
(R-15) zone district. A
duplex dwelling is
located on the lot.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is
requesting Amendment
to the Official Zone
District Map to rezone
the subject lot from R-15
to Medium Density
Residential (R-6). A
duplex or two detached
residences is the
maximum residential
density permitted under
the R-6 zone district.
Page 1 of 6
Figure 1: Existing duplex
P 2 ~ ~~
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use recommendation of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Amendment to the Zone District Map - An application for Amendment to the Zone
District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and
Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards
for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision-makinEi
body.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Suzanne Foster has requested approval to rezone the subject property from
Moderate-Residential (R-15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6). The existing lot is 9,942 sq.
ft. and cun•ently contains a legally established duplex. The property is located in the Shadow
Mountain neighborhood and is adjacent to the Midland Trail. The Applicant, according to her
application, is requesting to rezone the subject property to permit her to redevelop the site with
two detached residences. An option that is not presently available to her, due to the size of the
lot, in the R-15 zone district.
Permitted and Conditional Uses
Permitted and conditional uses for both zone districts are quite similar, the only difference being
that the R-15 zone district permits Agricultural Uses as a conditional use within the zone district.
The following table outlines the permitted and conditional uses of each zone district.
Page 2 of 6
Figure 2: Vicinity map
P3
Tah1P 1 Permitted and Conditional Uses with the R-15 and R-6 zone districts
Existi : R-1S : R-6
Permitted Uses -Detached residential dwelling -Detached residential dwelling
-Duplex -Duplex
-Two detached residential -Two detached residential
dwellings dwellings
-Home occupations -Home occupations
-Accessory buildings and uses -Accessory buildings and uses
-Accessory dwelling units and -Accessory dwelling units and
can•iage houses carriage houses
Conditional Uses -Arts, cultural and civic uses -Arts, cultural and civic uses
-Academic uses -Academic uses
-Agricultural uses -Recreational uses
-Recreational uses -Group home
-Group home -Child care center
-Child care center -Historic landmazk properties:
-Historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and
bed and breakfast and boarding house
boazding house
Staff Comments: As shown above, the permitted and conditional uses within the two zone
districts are practically identical with the exception of agricultural uses which are not permitted
in the R-6 zone district.
Dimensional Standards
As noted in Table 1, permitted uses in both the R-15 and R-6 zone district are primarily
residential, permitting for a detached residential dwelling (single-family residence), a duplex
dwelling (two attached residences), or two detached residences on a lot. The density, or number
of dwelling units permitted, is based upon the lot size. Generally, the larger the lot the greater the
permitted density. Shown below in Tables 2 and 3, aze comparisons of the dimensional standazds
of both zone districts.
Table ~ Fvictina and Prnnnsed Dimensional Standards for a Sinele- Family Residence
Existin : R-1S Pro sed: R-6
Minimum lot size 15,000 sq. ft. 6,000 s . fr.
Minimum lot area per
dwelling unit 15,000 sq. ft. (detached
residence) 4,500 sq. ft. (detached
residence)
Minimum lot width 75 ft. 60 ft.
Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. 10 ft.
Minimum rear yard setback 10 ft. 10 ft.
Minimum side yazd setback 10 ft. 10 ft.
Minimum total side yard
setback Not Applicable 34.71 ft.
Maximum site coverage Not A licable 36.86%
Maximum height 25 ft. 25 ft
Page 3 of 6
P4
E . : R-15 Pro sed: R-6
Allowable floor area 4,145.94 s . fr. 3,716.52 s . ft.
Allowable floor azea with the 3,109.45 sq. ft. 2,787.39 sq. ft.
maximum deduction for steep
slopes*
Note: * Lot azea is reduced with the presence of steep slopes greater than 20%. In no instance
can the total floor azea for a property exceed 25%.
Ms. Foster's lot in the R-15 zone district is currently considered anon-conforming lot of record
(with regard to lot size) and contains anon-conforming structure (with regazd to density). The
minimum lot size in the zone district presently required for either a single detached residence or
a duplex is 15,000 sq. ft., whereas the existing lot is 9,942. sq. ft.. With regard to density, a
duplex is required to be on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. If the lot were vacant today, only a detached
residence would be permitted; however, as mentioned earlier, since her duplex was legally
established with a valid building permit the land use code permits her to maintain a duplex
density on the property.
Table 3. Existing and Proposed Dimensional Standards for a Duplex or two Detached
ResiAencetsl
Existin R-15 Pro sed -6
Minimum lot size 15,000 s . ft. (duplex) 9,000 sq. ft.
30,000 sq. ft. (two detached
residences)
Minimum lot azea per
dwelling unit 7,500 sq. ft.(duplex)
15,000 (detached residential) 4,500 sq. fr.
Minimum lot width 75 ft. 60 fr.
Minimum front azd setback 25 ft. 10 fr.
Minimum reaz yard setback 10 ft. 10 fr.
Minimum side yard setback ]0 ft. 10 ft.
Minimum distance between
detached buildings on a lot 10 ft. 10 fr.
Minimum total side yard
setback Not Applicable Not Applicable
Maximum site covera e Not A licable 36.86%
Maximum hei ht 25 ft. 25 ft
Allowable floor area 4,145.94 sq. ft. 4,136.52 sq. ft.
Allowable floor area with the
maximum deduction for steep
slopes* 3,109.45 sq. ft. 3,102.39 sq. ft.
Note: * Lot area is reduced with the presence of steep slopes greater than 20%. In no instance
can the total floor area fora ro erty exceed 25%.
Staff Comments: As shown above, many of the dimensional standards are similar in both zone
districts. Since Ms. Foster has indicated that she would like to develop the property with two
A legally established non-conforming duplex is permitted to be replaced at the same density, although the
allowable floor area permitted is of a single detached residential dwelling (§26.312.030 (F)(2), Purposeful
destruction).
Page 4 of 6
P5
detached residences rather than a duplex, comments will focus on Table 2. Rezoning the subject
property will permit the lot to be considered a conforming lot and permit two detached
residences to be developed on the site or an attached duplex. Minimum required setbacks are the
same except for the front yard setback: 10 feet in the R-6 zone district vs. 25 feet in the R-1 ~ zone
district. Height, at a maximum of 2S feet, is the same in both zone districts. The overall
allowable floor area will be less than currently permitted if the property is rezoned to R-6.
Additionally, the R-6 zone district has a maximum site coverage restriction that is not applicable
to the R-1~ zone district
Neighborhood Character
The subject property borders city owned land to the south and west that is zoned Park (P) and
contains the Midland Trail. To the north, across the alley, are three properties that are also zoned
R-15 and contain single family residences. All four of these lots, although designated R-15, do
not meet the minimum required lot size of 15,000 sq. ft., instead ranging from 7,500 sq. ft. to
12,000 sq. ft.. Additional lots that are zoned R-15 and are adjacent to Hyman Ave. and behind
the Ice Garden also do not meet the minimum required lot size and are non-conforming.
Across Third Street the properties are zoned R-6, containing a number of residences and the St.
Moritz Lodge. In general the lots are smaller lots ranging from 3,000 to 7,500 sq. ft.; however,
there are a number of larger lots in the area that contain multi-family residential, a non-
conforming use in the R-6 zone district. The neighborhood character includes single-family
residences, duplexes as well as multi-family residences.
HIi1
IAaTy 6
3neanan une Atli
Let
Figure 3: Zone Districts(R-15 is surrounded by heavier
Page 5 of 6
P6
In looking at the purpose statement of the R-15 zone district, the paragraph states that the zone
district typically includes "additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of
the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the
Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district." With regard to the R-6 zone, the purpose
statement notes that lands in the R-6 zone are "generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite,
contain relatively dense settlements of predominately detached and duplex residences, and are
within walking distance of the center of the City."
Lastly, a parcel of land across from the Boomerang Lodge and adjacent to Hopkins Ave. was
rezoned from R-15 to R-6 by City Council in 2006 as it was determined that the character of the
neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses.
Staff Comments: The proposed rezoning would change the property at 217/219 S. Third from R-
IS to R-6. According to a staff examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses,
the neighborhood contains a mir of residential dlvelling types and uses. A zoning of R-6 would
actually be more compatible with t1~e existing neighborhood than the current R-1~ zoning. This
relatively high-density neighborhood includes R-6 and R-1 S zoning and contains single family,
duplex and s°esidential multi family housing as well as short term lodging in close proximity to
the subject parcel.
the property, although bordering Aspen Mountain, is part of the original Aspen Townsite. The
property is within walking distance to the downtown core and is not really on the periphery of
the city in a true sense. Additionally, land in the area has been recently rezoned from R-1S to R-
6, resulting in changed neighborhood conditions.
With regard to zone district standards, permitted and conditional uses are essentially the same
between the ttivo zone districts. Zoning the subject property to R-6 will result in less floor area if
the site is redeveloped. Setbacks are similar and the R-6.front yard setback is a pattern one sees
in the neighborhood. Allowing two detached residences vs. an attached duplex will permit the
mass on the site to be divided, potentially lessening the perceived mass on the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission find the
application meets the review criteria for an Amendment of the Official Zone District Map and
make a recommendation of approval to rezone 2l 7/219 S. Third Street to R-6.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution no. _, recommending the property
commonly known as 217/219 S. Third be rezoned from R-15 to R-6."
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B-Zone District Standards (R-15 and R-6)
EXH]BIT C -Application
Page 6 of 6
P7
RESOLUTION N0.
(SERIES OF 2010)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING) FROM MODERATE-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R-15) TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-6) FOR THE
PROPERTY COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 217 AND 219 S. THIRD STREET, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO
ParcellD:
2735-I24-65-005
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
YLP West, Inc. represented by Suzanne Foster requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of a Map Amendment'to the Official Zone District Map from Moderate-
Density Residential (R-15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6) for the property commonly
described as 217 and 219 S. Third Street; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the
official zone district map may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly
noticed public heazing after considering recommendations by the Community Development
Director and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standazds, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning
Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the development proposal under the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the
recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public
comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approva?;
and recommendation of approval of the land use request is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the official zone district map.
Section 1•
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves and recommends City Council approve the
zone district map amendment to rezone the following described property from Moderate-Density
Residential (R-15) to Medium-Density Residential (R-6).
Page 1 oft
P8
The subject property is legally described as Lots , P, Q, R, and S, Block 39, City and
Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P, and Q that lies south
of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5
feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and
southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded
February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628 and commonly described as 217 and 219 S.
Third Street.
Section 2:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 3•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on Febnxazy 2, 2010.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Stan Gibbs, Chair
Page 2 of 2
P9
Exhibit A
Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings
Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this Title.
Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title
and will change the status of the lot size from non-conforming to conforming.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Community Plan.
Staff Finding: rezoning of a property is not directly addressed in the 200 AACP. The
proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP:
• "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by
transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and
bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21)
• "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized."
(Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for a R-6 zoning designation, which is
compatible with a relatively high-density neighborhood that includes a mix of single-
family, duplex and multifamily residences on smaller lots. While there are also a number
of properties in the neighborhood that aze zoned R-I5, the characteristics of most of
these properties are more consistent with the R-6 zone district.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not increase the permitted density of the lot
as the property currently contains a duplex with two dwelling units and the property, if
rezoned is permitted up two to dwelling units in an area that is close to the urban core and
is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit.
P10
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding: To the extent that the proposed amendment would result in demands on
public facilities, the applicant will offset those demands in the form of impact fees,
upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage planning. Again, the
proposed amendment does not increase the permitted density of the lot as the property
currently contains a duplex with two dwelling units and the property, if rezoned is
permitted up two to dwelling units in an area that is close to the urban core and is
amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts
on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a conforming lot (with regard to
lot size and density) within the city. The density permitted on site is compatible with
community character in the city.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding: A parcel of land across from the Boomerang Lodge and adjacent to
Hopkins was rezoned from R-15 to R-6 by City Council in 2006 as it was determined that
the character of the neighborhood allowed for denser, smaller houses. This property is
within the neighborhood of the subject parcel.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest
and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in a conforming lot (with regard to
lot size and density) within the city and is not in conflict with the public interest is is in
harmony with the intent of the land use code.
ex{hg~ ~
26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-1~.
P11
•
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to provide azeas
for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses
customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod-
erate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and
subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are
also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate-Density Residential
(R-15) zone district.
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex;
3. Two detached residential dwellings
4. Home occupations;
5. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. Accessory dwelling units and Carnage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-Density
Residential (R-15) zone district, subject to the standazds and procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses.
2. Academic Uses.
3. Agricultural Uses.
4. Recreational Uses.
5. Group home.
6. Child caze center.
7. For historic landmazk properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse.
•
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (squaze feed: Fifteen thousand (15,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030
A.4, Historic Landmazk Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000)
2. Minimum lot azea per dwelline unit (square feet:
a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmazk Properties: 3,000.
b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmazk Properties: 3,000.
c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy-five (75). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic
Landmazk Lot Split: Thiriy (30).
4. Minimum front yazd setback (feed:
Residential dwellings: Twenty-five (25).
Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30).
5. Minimum side vazd setback (feed: Ten (10).
•
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 11
P12
• 6. Minimum rear yazd setback (feet):
Principal buildings: 10
Accessory buildings: Five (5).
7. Maximum heisht (feet): Twenty-five (25).
8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10).
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conformine and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De-
(S uare Feet) Sin le-Famil Residence* tached Dwellin s or one Du lea*
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor azea for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100
each 100 in lot area, up to a squaze feet in lot area, up to a maximum
maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 square feet offloor azea.
offloor azea.
3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30
plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor azea for each addi-
area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 squaze feet of floor
maximum of 4,080 squaze feet area.
offloor area.
9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet offloorazea, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7
plus 7 squaze feet of floor area square feet of floor azea for each addi-
for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor
maximum of 4,500 square feet area.
offloor azea.
15,000-- 4,500 squaze feet offloor azea, 4,920 squaze feet of floor azea, plus 6
50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area squaze feet of floor azea for each addi-
for each additional '' 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 squaze feet of floor
maximum of 6,600 squaze feet area.
offloor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, 7,020 square feet of floor azea, plus 3
plus 2 square feet of floor azea square feet of floor area for each addi-
foreach additional 100 squaze tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea.
feet in lot azea.
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the
floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor azea for multiple detached residential dwell-
.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 12
P13
ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) squaze feet listed on the Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential
dwelling.
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additiona1250 squaze feet of
Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one
Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties
listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in-
crease. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
(Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part), 2002;
Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7; Ord No. 50-2005, §2)
•
•
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 13
P14
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6). •
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district is to provide azeas
for long term residential purposes with customazy accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses
customarily found in proxinuty to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Me-
dium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, con-
tain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and aze within
walking distance of the center of the City.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Medium-Density Residential
(R-6) zone district:
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex;
3. Two detached residential dwellings;
4. Home occupations;
5. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. Accessory dwelling units and Carnage Houses meeting the provisions of Chapter 26.520.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Medium-Density
Residential (R-6) zone district, subject to the standazds and procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses.
2. Academic Uses.
3. Recreational Uses.
4. Group home.
5. Child care center.
6. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boazdinghouse.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all pemutted
and conditional uses in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district:
1. Minimum lot size s uaze feet :Six thousand (6,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030
A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000).
2. Minimum lot area roer dwelline unit (squaze feet):
a) Detached residential dwelling: 4,500. For Historic Landmazk Properties: 3,000.
b) Duplex: 4,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. For properties subdivided as
of Apri128,1975:4,000. For properties annexed subsequent to January 1,1989: 3,750.
c) Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requiremer_t.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): Sixty (60). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmazk
Lot Split: Thirty (30).
4. Minimum front yazd (feet): Principal buildings: 10. Accessory buildings: 15.
5. Minimum rear vard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. For the portion of a principal building used
solely as a garage: 5. Accessory buildings: 5.
~~
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 5
P15
•
• The folic
Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards*
Feet) each Side Yard
0--4,500 5 feet. 10 feet.
4,500--6,000 5 feet. 10 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 300
squaze feet of lot area, to a maximum of 15
feet of total side yard.
6,000--8,000 5 feet. 15 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200
squaze feet of lot azea, to a maximum of 25
feet of total side yard.
8,000--10,000 10 feet. 25 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200
square feet of lot azea, to a maximum of 35
feet of total side ard.
10,000+ 15 feet. 35 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400
square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50
feet of total side yard.
e.,... ~~,.,n ~,,,,i., ~„ a ter annexed suhsecuent to Januarv 1, 1989.
iwuig acy uu~.uiwaw ~ r.-~ ~ _ __ _ _____ _ _
Lot Size (Square Miuimum Size for Total of both Side Yards*
Feet) each Side Yard
0--7,500 10 feet. 20 feet.
7,500--10,000 10 feet. 20 feet, plus I foot for each additional 200
square feet of lot azea, to a maximum of 32.5
feet of total side yard.
10,000+ 15 feet. 32.5 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400
square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50
feet of total side yard.
* Two detached residential dwellings located on one lot shall not be subject to the combined side
yard setback requirements, provided that the minimum setback between the two detached dwell-
ings on the lot shall be ten (10) feet.
For purposes of calculating the minimum side yard setback for lots within the Hallam Lake Bluff
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), the area below the top of slope shall be subtracted from
lot size.
•
6. Minimum side yard:
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 6
P16
7. Maximum site coverage:
Lot Size Maximum Site Coverage (%)
S uare Feet
0--5,999 No limitation
6,000--9,000 50%, minus 1% for each additiona1300 square feet of lot area,
to a maximum site coves e of 40%
9,000--12,000 40%, minus 1 % for each additiona1300 squaze feet of lot area,
to a maximum site coverage of 30%
12,000--18,000 30%, minus 1% for each additional 1,200 squaze feet of ]ot
area, to a maximum site coverage of 25%
18,000+ 25%
8. Maximum height (feet): 25
9. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 5.
10. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. •
11. Floor Area Ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size
(Square
Feet) Allowable Floor Area for
Single-Family Residence* Allowable Floor Area for Two Detached
Dwellings or one Duplex*
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100
each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
maximum of 2,400 squaze feet 2,700 square feet of floor azea.
of floor area.
3,000--6,000 2,400 squaze feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor azea, plus 30
plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi-
area for each additional ]00 tional 100 squaze feet in lot area, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 squaze feet of floor
maximum of 3,240 square feet area.
of floor area.
u
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 7
P17
•
•
Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for'Pwo Detached
(Square Single-Family Residence* Dwellings or one Duplea*
Feet)
6,000--9,000 3,240 square feet of floor azea, 3,600 squaze feet of floor azea, plus 16
plus 14 square feet of floor squaze feet of floor azea for each addi-
area for each additional 100 tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 squaze feet of floor
maximum of 3,660 squaze feet azea.
of floor azea.
9,000-- 3,660 square feet offloor azea, 4,080 squaze feet of floor area, plus 6
15,000 plus 6 square feet of floor azea square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 4,440 squaze feet of floor
mum of 4,020 squaze feet of area.
floor azea.
15,000-- 4,020 square feet of floor area, 4,440 square feet of floor azea, plus 5
50,000 plus 5 square feet of floor area squaze feet of floor azea for each addi-
for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
feet in lot azea, up to a maxi- maximum of 6,190 squaze feet of floor
mum of 5,770 squaze feet of azea.
floor azea.
50,000+ 5,770 square feetoffloorazea, 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3
plus 2 square feet of floor azea square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 squaze tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea.
feet in lot area.
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not ex-
ceedthe floor area allowed for one duplex. Total extemal floor area for multiple detached resi-
dential dwellings on a lot less than nine-thousand (9,000) squaze feet listed on the Inventory of
Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor azea allowed for one detached
residential dwelling.
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant
to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additiona1250 squaze feet
of Floor Area. Each residence on the pazcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one
Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the
following exception: Properties within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development as a
sending site maybe specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence
pursuant to the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approval. The properties to be speci-
fied aseligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence shall be located within the
• same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development so as to enhance preservation of the historic
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 8
P18
resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, shall not •
be located adjacent to the sending site, and shall be described and depicted in the Subdivision
or Planned Unit Development approvals granted by City Council. The total number of Floor
Area increases permitted within the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development shall not exceed
an aggregate total of one (1) per non-historic residence within the entire Subdivision or Planned
Unit Development. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not
be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligi-
ble for this Floor Area increase.
(Ord. No. 56-2000 §§ 1, 7 (part), 10; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 1, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part),
2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 - §6; Ord. No. 48-2004 §1; Ord. No. 50-2005, §1)
•
•
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 9
-X~~~r-~
Text/Map Amendment application
Re-zoning application from Non-conforming R-15 lot to conforming R-6 lot.
219 S. 3rd Street
Aspen, Co. 81811
Table of Contents
RECEIVED
Page 1 -Attachment 2 -Land Use Application
Page 2- Attachment 3 -Dimensional requirements N~~ 1 6 2009
Page 3 -Agreement for Payment
Page 4 -Receipt for payment "~ l Y UI- HJF'tN
Page 5 -Name and address of mortgage holder ;OMMUNITY DEItEIOPMENT
Page 6 -Proof of Title Insurance
Page 7 -Existing conditions
Page 8 -Vicinity Map for parcel location
Page 9 -Parcel ID and legal description
Page 10 -Project applicant and legal representatives
Page 11-12 -Pre-application conference summary
Page 13 -Outline and history of project
Page 13a-c -Exhibit 2 -Aspen Land Use Code - R-15
Page 13d-13h -Exhibit 3 -Aspen Land Use Code - R-6
Page 14 -Exhibit 0 -explanation of R-15 zoning intent
Page 15-18 -Exhibit 1-Example of FAR use for non-conforming single family home in
R-15
Page 19 -Explanation of built by right under R-15 vs. R-6 rezoning
Page 20 -Exhibit 4 -Mass and scale of R-15 duplex
Page 21 -Exhibit 5 -Mass and scale of detached structures under R-6 zoning
Page 22 -Exhibit 6 -Schematic massing view from alley of R-6 detached dwellings
Page 23 -Introduction to written description of compliance of proposal
Page 24-26 -Written description of compliance of proposal
Page 27 -Exhibit 7 -Snow Removal
Page 28 -Exhibit 8 -Aerial view of neighborhood
Page 29 -Conclusion
Page 30 -Exhibit 9 -front yard building alignment
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION
?r ACT
Name: ..~ \`t S ~ -rJ S~z _~ ~pe~ ~~c ~ I ~ ~ I
Location: Pr~CtQ ~~ k~ 2 -1 `3 ~ - Kati ~~' ~ ^~' `'~
"
'
(Indicate street address lot & block number legal description wher i'~Ii1C1
e ap@®11
9
~r~.v
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
NOV 16 2009
APPLICANT: \,I e UI- H t
Name: ~ L (~ W t5~ Sr,e 'lhdllllAllrvn[trc~nos~'
Address: -1 S YYlti ,n S'}yf~.z~ ~jctu2cl~Cii ~c~ ~Qd~ )
Phone #: ~ I S`- ~ S'" 3' \`~ o ~
REPRESENTATNE:
Name: S l; ~ r.r2 ~' S~-<2
Address: '-) S 1f'C1C! ~ S-t ~ ~ Q +zc11 ez~~ ~"v (~ OCp ~
Phone #: a t ~' t~~f7a - 3 '~ 3 - l ~ ~~
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
^ GMQS Exemption ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Temporary Use
^ GMQS Allotment ^ .Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ~ Text/Nlap Amendment
Special Review ^ Subdivision ^ Conceptual SPA
^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Final SPA (& SPA
I Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
^ Commercial Design Review ^ Lot Split ^ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
^ Residential Design Variance ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Other:
^ Conditional Use
EXISTING
of existi
l9 4v' S NrJ .u C c-r. ~. c~ n ~ ~ 1 .ek iLK c~ o6n S F w c ~.
<• L'A.!'P t'~-~, eM Gtnn ncv Z[a0 _`~~ .4GC~n .
PROPOSAL: (description of
modifications, etc
~- d..~-u c.(...at S , v~~Q,t_ }~ m \ ~ ~ w zS I i v\c~~~~ 2 G G _, , S S F d1
Save you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ~~24 ~ ~'
] Pre-Application Conference Summary
] Attachment #l, Signed Fee Agreement
] Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
] Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
'-D Model for large project
A._ plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk witb an electric copy of all written text
Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
lectronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
y
ATTACHMENT3
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
N ~ Pt
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing.' Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing.' Proposed:
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed.'
Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed.'
On-Site pazking: Existing
Site coverage: Existing
Required: Proposed.'
Required: Proposed:
Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:-
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed.'-
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:-
Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed:-
Side Setback: Existing: Required.' Proposed:-
Side Setback: Existing: Required. Proposed:-
Combined Sides: Existing. Required: Proposed:-
Distance Between Existing Requrred. Proposed:
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or
Variations requested:
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REC~IVEp
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees NOV 1 6 8009
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ' ~ F W 2 S i t rx"~- t'I I Y Ur HJF'tN
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: (jN~N ~E~~.Q~ENT
APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
^f 4_ K r vim va-~ E3~vr < r~u rr~ <_
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land
Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application
completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible ai 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 [hat APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafrer permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. 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 Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and/or City Council to enable [he Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a determination of applic tion completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ k6 which is for ~ ~ hours of Community Development staff 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 at a rate of $245.00
per planner hour over the initial deposit. 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, and
in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN
By
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
APPLICANT
By:,,/~
Date: !i J lo~~ /
Billing Address and Telephone Number:
~ 5. ~na,h ~*-
~aac~[i.c~, p5 14~G7
~] ! ~c - '4 53-190-7
CITY OF ASPEN
Account name:
Applicant:
Type:
Permit Number
Permit Receipt
RECEIPT NUMBER 00025006
28499
SUZANNE FOSTER YLP WEST, LLC
check # 1013
0001.2009.AHPC
Fee Description
Date: 1/7/2009
Cal fee to Receipt HPC Deposit
Total
2.940.00
This Receipt notes the balancve of the unrefunded balance of fees
paid to the city of Aspen for the unsuccessful HPC review process
for this property. We are applying this unrefunded balance to
the R-6 re-zoning project.
RECEIVED
NOV 1 s 2009
'.~I 6 Y Vr NJt'tN
-QMMUNITY DEUEI-QPMFN?
Amount
2,940.00
~I
A REMINDER THAT YOUR LOAN PAYMENT IS DUE ON THE DATE SHOWN.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR PROMPT PAYMENT. BRING THIS NOTICE
WITH YOU WHEN MAKING YOUR PAYMENT. *** THANK YOU ***
ACCOUNT DATE
NUMBER DUE
240917 11/01/2009
TIMOTHY W FOSTER
23 W AFTON AVENUE
YARDLEY PA 19067
{BRH}
1
,~~
~ ~
~~
f 112Sf CUI.2 )It.\UU N.\IIONr\C, I
rn iu i~ uw
r.wn~i.~. i rn ant inn si~!,~. uui
i,:,ia+'i ii ~i-im ruin ;a-~u~
„„,~ in a.„~„i.i J,•ba ul, a~ui
A/L DUE NOTICE
PRINCIPAL INTEREST LATE TOTAL
DUE DUE CHARGES DUE
10,191.78 10,191 78
TOT DUE 10.191 78
BALANCE 1600,000 00
MAT DATE 12/01/2010
RATE "7.5000
10162009
Owner's Policy of Title Insurance -Schedule A
Issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
'~ i_andAmerica
Lawyers Title ~awye,~r,~rerns~,an~e~nan,ar,onsa,nemtie,nr~nerandAme„Karam,~yor~,~~e,ns~„a„~e~n~en"„yes
Lawyers Tdle Insurance Corpora lion
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
Fde No PCT22148L6 Policy No C29-2102631
Address Reference. 219 S 3RD ST ,ASPEN, CO 81611
Amount of Insurance $4,050,000 00 Premium $ 6,911.00
Date of Policy. December 2, 2009 @ 10.11 AM
1 Name of Insured: YLP WEST, LLC
2 The estate or interest in the Land That is insured by this policy is IN FEE SIMPLE
3 Title is vested In YLP WEST, LLC
4 The Land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and Is described as follows.
LOTS O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P and O that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as
a 17 foot strip of land being 8 5 feet on each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and
southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at
Page 628
Countersigned
Authorized officer or agent
ABTA Owner's Policy
Schedule A (Rev 6r06)
Form 1190-134L
Y../
> . __~ ._._..._ ~ - Li Z
m
p
,~
ri o
~
?~
:v T
'f10 ~ ~1
_- r ^f~
mo
r ~,
!7 1l ~
y >
T - ~
< r (/1
_ A
O O
IT ~
°
r) /
T,
~S
14g w1
am
~~4 rnar
.~ N
m~
~ O
~m
z
z
V V
O m
r
o
ro
e
~o
A
O
m C
x
O
C
\ RJ
T.-
D
V
~O -
//~C~
/ u ~ ~~R/
~~~. i
hoar
A
x
h
h
~ o X27
~o '`C
0
a ~
o h
~O
n
_~/
b /
p~~ ~
00
r~
yin„
9i~~~NR ~
-i -L1
f-L~
~ ~;
~1_
~~~
\%
e
^~
i~ic
OU l~~j •~
Z m j:
a o ~I{I
~ Z f ~
Q Q
~`
Q ~ ~ ~i~j
~~ej~~j i~~i
~ i;'i
~ <<ti
O
Proposed Development
219 S. 3`~ Street
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
Parcel ID# 2735-124 65-005
Legg] Description:
Lots Q,P,QR and S, Block 39, City and Towusite of Aspen
Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O,P and Q that ties south of the northerly
boundary of a right of way described as a 17 fool strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side
of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as
described and shown on deed and map recorded February 7_7, 1950 in Book 175 at Page
628
City of Aspen Comminity Development Department
Pi[kin County
Aspen, Colorado
The applicant for this project is:
YLP West, LLC
7 S, Main Street
Yardley, Pa. 19067
215-493-6100
215-493-6559 Fax
Representatives authorized to act on behalf of the applicant include:
Primary contact:
Suzanne Foster
7 S. Main Street
Yardley, Pa. 19067
215-353-1907 Cell
275-493-6559 fax
Suzannc(ditfoeterjcwelers com
Secondary contact
Timothy W. Foster
7 S. Main Street
Yardley, Pa. 19067
215-499-7071 cell
215-493-4559 fax
tim(ct1tfosterjewelers com
Suzanne Foster
TirhokHv W.
1~
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Drew Alexander, 429-2765 DATE: 10.28.09
PROJECT: 219 S. Third St. Map Amendment
APPLICANT: Suzanne Foster
Tel: (215)493.6100
DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant is pursuing an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the property located at 219 S.
Third St. The desired rezoning would alter the current underlying zone of R-15 to R-6. The lot, which is
approximately 9,000 sq. ft., is currently non-conforming to R-15 standards (well under the minimum lot size of
15,000 sq ft.), but would conform to R-6 zoning lot requirements.
If the rezoning is approved, the Applicant has plans to demolish the existing home and build two detached
single-family dwelling units on the lot, under condominium ownership. No lot split is planned. This type of
application would be a two-step review involving both the P&Z and City Council where both review boards
would determine if the application meets the standards for amending the offcial zone district map.
Below is a link to the Land Use Code for your convenience.
http //www aspenpitkin comlDepartments/Community-DevelopmenUPlanning-and-Zoning(Title-26-Land-Use-
Code/
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map
26.310.040 Standards of review
Review by: -Staff for complete application
Planning and Zoning Commision (15' Step of Review)
City Council (2^d Step of Review)
Public Hearing: Yes at P&Z and City Council
Copies of Application, 19 Copies
Includes appropriate drawing for board review (HPC = 12; PZ = 10; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning
Staff = 2),
Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional planning hours over deposit amount
are billed at a rate of $245/hour)
Total Deposit: $2,940
To apply, submit the following information:
Total deposit for review of the application.
2. Proof of ownership. ~
1
3 Completed Land Use Application Form.
4. A signed fee agreement. ~
~~
5. APre-Application Conference Summary. /
6. A letter signed by the applicant, with the applicant's name, address and telephone number in a
letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the
representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
7. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in
the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,
judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating
the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
8. An 8 1/2" by 11"vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
9 Existing and proposed site plan,
10. A written and graphic description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model
form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the
development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. Please provide
a written response to all applicable criteria.
11 I~ $ Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor
may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
12-
R-6 Zoning amendment: History
219 S. 3rd Street had been identified as a potential historic resource by HPC under
ordinance 48. The current owners underwent a 7 month negotiation with HPC and
Council. It was ultimately determined that the structure did not meet the criteria for
historic designation.
We are asking for a zoning change for 217/219 S. Third Street, which has an existing
non-conforming duplex use, from R-15 (moderate density residential see attached code-
exhibit 2, Pages 13a-c) to R-6 (moderate density residential-see attached code-exhibit 3
Pages 13d-h) for this reason:
We believe the fundamental purpose of the R-15 zoning district which requires a 15,000
SF lot for a duplex or single family and a 30,000 SF lot for two detached dwellings and
which generally runs along the base of Shadow Mountain was to create a buffer zone of
larger land areas with relatively smaller structures between the mountain and the higher
density R-6 district. (see exhibit 0 Page 14)
Under current zoning, allowable uses include the existing non-conforming attached
duplex or a new non-conforming single family home. Each of these non-conforming
uses creates a single mass building of 4149 SF of FAR creating a large single building
mass on a smaller land mass.
Our non-conforming duplex lot of 9942 SF fails to achieve the intended R-15 goal of
smaller structures on larger land lots and thus allows a relatively large structure (the
non-conforming attached duplex or an enormous single family home -see exhibit 1 for
sample floor plan and size Pages 15-18) on a relatively small land area. If the designed
purpose of the R-15 district is inherently not achievable - a rezoning to R-6 makes
sense for three reasons:
1. R-6 brings the lot into conformity.
2. R-15 precludes the ability to separate building mass by requiring a 30,000 SF lot for
two detached dwellings. The existing 9942 SF lot allows only anon-conforming
single mass duplex or anon-conforming single family home.
3. R-6 allows for two smaller detached structures rather than one large structure
breaking up the mass of buildings at the base of Shadow Mountain.
Our application will outline each of the criteria needed to enact this zoning change and
show that this amendment will benefit the City, the townspeople and visitors and, in
particular, the micro-community surrounding this property with no negative adverse
affects.
~3
26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to provide areas
for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses
customazily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod-
erate-Density Residential (R-1 S) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and
subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are
also included in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate-Density Residential
(R-15) zone district.
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex;
3. Two detached residential dwellings
4. Home occupations;
S. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate-Density
Residential (R-15) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses.
2. Academic Uses.
3. Agricultural Uses.
4. Recreational Uses.
5. Group home.
6. Child care center.
7. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (squaze feet): Fifteen thousand (I 5,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030
A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split Three thousand (3,000)
"2. Minimum lot area er dwellin unit a feet:
a. Detached dential dwelling: 15 000 For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000.
b. Duplex 7~Q.Q For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000.
c. Bed and breakfast, boazdinghouse: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy-five (75). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic
Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30).
~, / ~/ 4. Minimum front vazd setback (feet):
,```J~v Residential dwellings: Twenty-five (25).
v Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30).
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): Ten (10).
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 11
6. Minimum reaz yard setback (feet):
Principal buildings: 10
Accessory buildings: Five (5).
~~
L~
t
o~
C
~D~
X ~ ~~
'~ ~ S~
,, ~
~ 1~~
7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-five (25).
8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10).
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor azea ratio (applies to conformine and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size ~Ilowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De-
S uare Feet Sin le-Famil Residence* tacked Dwellin s or one Du lex*
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 squaze feet of floor azea for each 100
each 100 in lot azea, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum
maximum of 2,400 squaze feet of 2,700 square feet of floor area.
of floor area.
3,000--9,000 2,400 squaze feet of floor azea, 2,700 square feet of floor azea, plus 30
plus 28 square feet of floor squaze feet of floor area for each addi-
azea for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor
maximum of 4,080 square feet azea.
of oor azea.
9,000--15,000 ,080 square feet of floor azea, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7
plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
__~ for each additional 140
square feet in lot azea, up to a tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor
maximum of 4,500 square feet area.
of floor area.
15,000-- 4,500 square feet of floor azea, 4,920 square feet of floor azea, plus 6
50,000 plus 6 squaze feet of floor azea square feet of floor azea for each addi-
for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot azea, up to a
squaze feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 squaze feet of floor
maximum of 6,600 square feet area.
of floor area.
50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, 7,020 squaze feet of floor azea, plus 3
plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 square tional 100 squaze feet in lot azea.
feet in lot azea.
~`~k
~o ~~
;S ~.
A`~g1D
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the
floor azea allowed for one duplex. Total external floor azea for multiple detached residential dwell-
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 12
l~lo,
ings on a lot less than twenty-thousand (20,000) squaze feet listed on the Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential
dwelling.
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to
Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additiona1250 squaze feet of
Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one
Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties
listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in-
crease. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase.
(Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part), 2002;
Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7; Ord No. 50-2005, §2)
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 13
C ,
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district is to provide azeas
for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses
customarily found in proximity to residential uses aze included as conditional uses. Lands in the Me-
dium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district are generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, con-
tain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are within
walking distance of the center of the City.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Medium-Density Residential
(R-6) zone district:
1. Detached residential dwelling;
2. Duplex;
3. Two detached residential dwellings;
4. Home occupations;
5. Accessory buildings and uses; and
6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of Chapter 26.520.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses aze permitted as conditional uses in the Medium-Density
Residential (R-6) zone district, subject to the standazds and procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses.
2. Academic Uses.
3. Recreational Uses.
4. Group home.
5. Child caze center.
6. For historic landmazk properties: bed and breakfast and boazdinghouse.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and conditional uses in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district:
I. Minimum lot size (square feet): Six thousand (6,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030
A.4, Historic Landmark Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000).
2. Minimum lot area per dwelline unit s uaze eet
a) Detached residential dwellin 4 500. or Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000.
b) Duplex 4 5 .For Historic Lan mark Properties: 3,000. For properties subdivided as
of April 28,1975: 4,000. For properties annexed subsequent to 3anuary 1,1989: 3,750.
c) Bed and breakfast, boazdinghouse: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): Sixty (60). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmazk
\ ~,~ Lot Split: Thirty (30).
4. Minimum front yard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. Accessory buildings: 15.
5. Minimum rear yard (feet): Principal buildings: 10. For the portion of a principal building used
solely as a garage: 5. Accessory buildings: 5.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 5
l `~ d ,
6. Minimum side vard:
Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards*
Feet each Side Yard
0--4,500 5 feet. 10 feet.
4,500--6,000 5 feet. 10 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 300
square feet of lot azea, to a maximum of 15
feet of total side yard.
6,000--8,000 5 feet. ] 5 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200
square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 25
feet of total side yard.
8,000--10,000 10 feet. 25 feet, plus i foot for each additional 200
square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 35
feet of total side yard.
10,000+ IS feet. 35 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400
square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 50
feet of total side yazd.
The following re ui
~h~ti annly nn a tnt annexed suhseauent to .IariuarV 1, 1989.
Lot Size (Square Minimum Size for Total of both Side Yards*
Feet) each Side Yard
0--7,500 ] 0 feet. 20 feet.
7,500--10,000 10 feet. 20 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 200
square feet of lot area, to a maximum of 32.5
feet of total side ard.
10,000+ 15 feet. 32.5 feet, plus 1 foot for each additional 400
square feet of ]ot area, to a maximum of 50
feet of total side yazd.
* Two detached residential dwellings located on one lot shall not be subject to the combined side
yard setback requirements, provided that the minimum setback between the two detached dwell-
ings on the lot shall be ten (10) feet.
For purposes of calculating the minimum side yazd setback for lots within the Hallam Lake Bluff
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), the area below the top of slope shall be subtracted from
lot size.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 6
13~.
Maximum site coverage:
Lot Size Maximum Site Coverage (%)
S uare Feet
0--5,999 No limitation
6,000--9,000 50%, minus 1 % for each additional 300 squaze feet of lot azea,
to a maximum site coverage of 40%
9,000--12,000 40%, minus 1% for each additional 300 square feet of lot area,
to a maximum site coverage of 30%
12,000--18,000- 30%, minus 1% for each additional 1,200 square feet of lot
area, to a maximum site coverage of 25%
18,000+ 25%
8. Maximum height (feed: 25
9. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feed: 5.
10. Percent of ogen space required for building site: No requirement.
11. Floor Area Ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size
(Square
Feet) Allowable Floor Area for
Single-Family Residence* Allowable Floor Area for'Irvo Detached
Dwellings or one Duplex*
0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100
each ] 00 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
maximum of 2,400 square feet 2,700 square feet of floor area.
of floor area.
3,000--6,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30
plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi-
area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 3,600 square feet of floor
maximum of 3,240 square feet area.
of floor area.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 7
3 -~
l
Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two Detached
(Square Single-Family Residence* Dwellings or one Duplex*
Feet
6,000--9,000 3,240 square feet of floor area, 3,600 square feet of floor area, plus 16
plus 14 squaze feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi-
area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor
maximum of 3,660 square feet area.
offloor area.
9,00--- 3,660 square feet of floor area, ~0 square feet of floor area, plus 6
15,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 4,440 square feet of floor
mum of 4,020 square feet of area.
floor area.
15,000-- 4,020 square feet of floor area, 4,440 square feet of floor area, plus 5
50,000 plus 5 square feet offloor area square feet of floor azea for each addi-
for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a
feet in lot area, up to a maxi- maximum of 6,190 square feet of floor
mum of 5,770 square feet of area.
floor area.
50,000+ 5,770 square feet offloor area, 6,190 square feet of floor area, plus 3
plus 2 square feet offloor area square feet of floor area for each addi-
for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area.
feet in lot area.
c~X ~'a~
~, 5z-
~l~L
*Total extemal floor azea for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not ex-
ceedthe floor area allowed for one duplex. Total extemal floor area for multiple detached resi-
dentialdwellings on a lot less than nine-thousand (9,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached
residential dwelling.
Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant
to Section 26.S3S, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet
of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage
Houses, shall be eligible for one Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one
Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the
following exception: Properties within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development as a
sending site maybe specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence
pursuant to the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approval. The properties to be speci-
fied aseligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence shall be located within the
same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development so as to enhance preservation of the historic
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part'100, Page 8
I~ ck~
resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, shall not
be located adj acent to the sending site, and shall be described and depicted in the Subdivision
or Planned Unit Development approvals granted by City Council. The total number of Floor
Area increases permitted within the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development shall not exceed
an aggregate total of one (1) per non-historic residence within the entire Subdivision or Planned
Unit Development. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not
be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligi-
ble for this Floor Area increase.
(Ord. No. 56-2000 §§ 1, 7 (part), 10; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 1, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 § 20 (part),
2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 - §6; Ord. No. 48-2004 §l; Ord. No. 50-2005, §1)
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 700, Page 9
l~ fl,
Exhibit 0
R-15 -deduction of smaller building mass on larger land lot intent:
The minimum lot size for R-15 conforming is 15,000 SF
A conforming R-15 duplex on a 15000 SF lot would have 4920 SF of FAR
A conforming R-15 duplex on a 20,100 SF lot would have 5226 SF of FAR
This is a 34% INCREASE in required land with only a 6% increase in FAR
A conforming R-15 duplex on a 30,000 SF lot would have 5820 SF of FAR
This is a 50% INCREASE in required land with only an 18% increase in FAR
A conforming R-15 duplex on a 50,000 SF lot would have an FAR of 7020 SF
This is a 233% increase in required land with only a 42% increase of FAR
Our conclusion is that the R-15 zoning district was intended to have smaller building
masses on larger lot sizes
i ~I
Exhibit # 1
Example of FAR use for non-conforming single family home in R-15
Allowable FAR for site 3890 SF
Total Heated Living Space Achieved 7001 SF + 523 SF garage
I~
.4
t
iX~
J
~,
~.
t
.~: ~
'~,,
T
O
y
(~
~~ I ,
~~
'o
:~ l
~ ~
/ ~~
~ ~ I
i
0
9
Y
a
.N
S5
~
(~ yy c
k ab
~
a
~
~ J
d '~ ~
.y s' ~, ;k
tb
S
~ Y ~ O
CS o
9
~ r
M N v
S
~ ~ ~
i~
,~ ~.',
_ I
\ ~.. -~ ~
s
~-
,,.-
~~~--~
~~~~~
~I fit.
~.
I
i
~>=' ~
J - _. ~.
r
~ i
_~
~:
r~ -_
_j I
+'
,~
+I °' 1 '~ I
t ~~~__~.
`._. _.
~~ ~--
~'
N ~ r
y~ ~ ~ R'~
N
N ~
~
cd t-=
;~:
~~
~r
~
a
} ~
..
$
~
,~
,,,
'J
~ ~. ~
~T
d i, '~ Q ~
~ Ca ,~, ~ C{ 7 ~ '~~
~_ ~ I
~,. __ _
:-~
'i
i .~
i
i
i
~~ 1 -
,' `•
~~
n ~ ;,~T
9
,l~_J~-
,_ ~_. ~ ~.
3_
_,
Q
t.
~'
A
~7 ~ vv ~ ~~
~ I
~ ~~~~1 ~-
~ f i \1
JM y
~ ~ ~~I
i
~' I ----
`i
,._ }-- ~
j ., I ~ 'c
o\
f Y~
~~ ~ ~ ! ~~
~ -- - --
~ / T
" s.
'\ __,,
.-
~ \
~.
~ ~
~ ~ ^~
1 ~ ~~~
n ,~ ~
~ ti
x _ ~., j
~ 0.
c
~ ~ ~ 1,\'
~'~~ ~
} N ` ~
~ ~,~
M
q ~ r c5
~.l ~' ^~ r
!'~' ~
~ "~ ~ J
,~ ,
Description of building by right under R-15 zoning versus building intent under R-6
zoning. 219 S. 3`d Street
Exhibit 4 shows a mass and a scale proposed layout of anon-conforming allowable
duplex under R-15 zoning with an FAR of 4145. This is the most likely result of
continued R-15 zoning, although a single family home with 4145 SF of FAR is also
allowed. ~ Z~
i Q
Exhibit 5 shows a separation of mass and scale layout of conforming detached structures
under R-6 zoning -each with an FAR of Approx. 2067.5 SF (total FAR for parcel -
4135). This is the most likely result of an R-6 zoning change, although a duplex with an
FAR of 4135 is also allowed.
Exhibit 6 shows the improved neighborhood/hiking trail schematic massing under R-6
zoning. A
Q ~' L
~x ~ .~ ,~-
s l 4• so' a9° w 47.00'
'____
____
-___
~_ ~_
--- - -
- --
-
-
I
/
/
/
r-
/ /
/
l I
/ r /
/ I
/ /
/ ~I
/
/
/___
/
l
I r %
I l I w
Z I
/ / / I I J
I 3' I
t~ / i 1,285 S.F. 61
~ 1
r p / ~' I ! I 662 F.F. ~
~ q Il
%/
Z_
/I ~
I ~ /
lk
/ QY i
W / L~ ._._._._._._.
/ O r ~ / / I
~ I
l / 4
~ I I
N I ~ 125 F.F. I
~
_________ /
______ 2 r h/ / (9ara9e)
v / I
~W/ ~ I
/ U / O/
/ j
1
'
D t
" o
/ / ~
% lo
_ ~ o
/ b ~
1 / U /
2/ 1
/ r /
/ of 125 F. F.
/ (9ara9e) I
; I
I
3
/ m~
/ I 41 - 1, 1
/ / / hI
OI 11
I I l o
I I
/ ~ I
- - ~ __
C -~ I Z
~ C_-_~ I
r ti--a I I
I I I
I
' 1
1 I
I I I
~I ~ '-'-1-~ I
I
I i i; 1,zasS.F. ; I
I ~
/ ( ~ ~ j 662 `'. F. i o 1
1 r I !i i n
iJb
II I Imp
1 / ' II I
I
I 1~ I
I lu
Iz~ I
I
el I
II I F o
Ilnt
I r I 1 !
i I !<1
I
~ !I I
I II I I
i
I
~i I L -~ I I I
1
- I LT__}_
r_-y __r__ ____
i ________ _I
C--] i ~
r~
~
EXISTING LOT I o
I I I
1 L_N~
1
(PROPOSED EA.0..= 4,145 sq.RJ T
~
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (ivPJ I
- - N 14' SO' 49" E 75.00'
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
SOUTH THIRD STREET
n
z
m
Y
V
O
Y
J
Q
IL
I______.
I
I
1
_.
I
I
i
I
~______
I
1
I
L___
~ PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~ A-1 ~
FOSTER sv+Le I rza° = 1•-0"
279 5.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 87611 DATE: 10-10-09
//\
--_ $la'S0'49"W---47.00-_~
I
/ p„' I ; ~
I
/ , ~ ,
n /
/ I
n i
,
'
~ -/
~
/ / ^ / I
1
7/ ti
H
/ 3 LS I
/ O j
/ 1
~ I
a
/ O I
Q .
I
rv I
~ I
I O I ~ \
/
V W / I
S' /
~ I ~ 1
O I
O/
I 4 /
/ /
1 O N I l
~
\
2 I ~ I 1
I ~
l
W / j I \
w
I ? I l I
~ 1 /
/ I 1 I
~ / 270
~ I deck {~\
i
o ~ ~
/ I L01 k2
/ I
o
~ /
I
o /
o , ~~` PR~PO~ EOEO PROPE~TV LI ~E (tY V.)
"~~~
/
/ ~
I
I LOT UI
I I (4,846 s9. (Z-)
I
I
I
~
I
of II
I
o I
°I
I F___
II
jl
I
ZI II
I
II
I
~1
o ~
r I
II PO
I I deck
it
it
z
I II
__
~L ~
I ___ ___
PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE
- ~ - _ EXISTING PR OPERTV IINE(TVPJ ~
N l4' S0' 49" E 75.00'
~~~_ _-
/ ~~- EDGE Of
i
SOUTH THIRD STREET
Q
z
m
Y
V
m
Y
I
L _ _ - _ _
PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPES- ALTERNATE ZONING A-~
FOSTER
27 9 S.3RD ST REST, ASPEN CO 81 611
F.
I ~_
1
~o
0
0
I
I
3
I m
0 0
z
I
i
J
scALe Irzo° = r-a
oaTe as-ze-o9
N T T~
~ O /V
N ~ O
w m ~
o~ O
N N
~ m
z ~
m
~ y~
n T
m
z ~
o ~
n
D
z
n
m
T
D
r
r
m
o
q
D
N
o n
0
~x~b•
2
The following section provides a written and graphic description of the proposal and an
explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards
relevant to this development application. A written response to all applicable criteria is
provided.
A. Is the proposed amendment in conflict with any applicable portion of this Title ?
After reading through the Title, we find no conflicts with any of its portions.
B. Is this amendment consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan?
After reading through the Plan, we find no inconsistencies with any of its elements.
C. Is this amendment compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics?
We believe the R-6 zoning is compatible with the surrounding district.
As anon-conforming R-15 lot zoning allows for one single family home with an FAR of
4145 SF which will result in a home with almost 8000 SF of heated living space. We
submit exhibit 1 (Pages 15-18) which shows an existing example of this can be
achieved under current building codes, (actual FAR of 3890 SF which resulted in 7001
SF heated living space + garage), or one attached duplex that will create a single mass
attached structure of a similar size. The mass and scale of either of these two choices
is inconsistent with the mass and scale of the surrounding neighborhood which consists
of modest to medium sized single family homes. We have exhibit 8 (Page 28) which
shows the surrounding neighborhood.
A rezoning to R-6 would allow for the construction of two detached singe family homes
of a modest scale with approx. 2054 SF of FAR each and allow for a separation of the
building mass on this parcel which is in keeping with the residential design standards for
Aspen. Two smaller detached homes would also have a reduced impact on the hiking
and biking trail that runs directly behind the property.
The existing use under R-15 is nonconforming for lot size. Zoning requires a 15,000 SF
lot for a duplex and 30,000 SF for two detached dwellings. This lot is 9942 SF. R-6
zoning requires at least 9000 SF for two detached dwellings and 9000 SF for an
attached duplex. R-6 rezoning would perpetually bring this lot into conformity.
In addition, the R-6 zoning allows fora 10' front yard set back which reflects the setback
of the existing structure. No significant change in the look of the street scape will be
achieved with an allowable 10' front yard set back.
D. What is the extent of the effect the proposed amendment might have on traffic
generation and road safety over what the current zoning allows?
This parcel abuts 3rd street and a relatively narrow alley way that has a structure across
the alley that infringes on the alley right of way. This has caused some concern with
the neighbors who share this alley. HPC has consulted the Streets Department and we
submit exhibit 7 (highlighted area Page 27) that addresses existing allowable
improvement to this site.
We feel that the impact of traffic and safety is unchanged from what can be built
currently by right under the R-15 zoning, and what would be achieved under and R-6
zoning change. An R-15 duplex, which is the probable result of continued R-15 zoning
would have two 2 car garages and generate approx. 4 cars. The R-6 allowed attached
duplex or two detached single family dwellings would each generate a two car garage
with approx. 4 cars.
We do feel, however, that snow removal and storage would be vastly improved under
the R-6 zoning. as R-6 allows for greater distance between buildings for snow storage.
E. Does the proposed amendment result in increased demands of public facilities over
what the current zoning allows?
We believe that there would be no additional demands on public facilities between an
R-15 duplex that would house two families and the R-6 rezoning which would house two
families in either two detached dwellings or one attached duplex.
F. To what extent will the proposed amendment result in increased significant adverse
impacts on the natural environment over what the current zoning allows?
We believe that R-6 zoning will dramatically DECREASE adverse impacts on the natural
environment over the impact that would be created under R-15 zoning if the new
allowed detached dwellings can be achieved.
Less continuous mass will significantly improve impact on the hiking/biking trail.
Space between the detached structures will significantly increase the amount of green
space observable by the public and neighbors who directly share the alley.
Due to the unusual shape of this parcel, and R-15 duplex would result in a long narrow
mass of attached building that could stretch 115 linear feet along both the biking path
and alley that would result in a significant adverse impact on the natural environment
(the View) of the adjacent property owners and trail users (see exhibit 4 Page 20). Two
detached structures of which some elements must be single story will dramatically
lessen this impact on the natural environment (see exhibits 5 & 6 Pages 21 &22).
In addition, we have observed local wildlife as well as tamed pets in the neighborhood
move freely across this parcel. Two detached dwelling will help maintain the natural
movements of these animals.
G. Is the proposed amendment consistent and compatible with the community
character of the city?
a~
We believe the community of Aspen's residential districts always benefit from building
masses that can be broken down into smaller units. R-6 rezoning allows achievement
of this goal.
H. What changed conditions have there been in the surrounding neighborhood that
affect the subject property and support the proposed amendment?
Three changed conditions that occurred in the last number of years support this
amendment.
1. The mountain side Boomerang subdivision located a block away at 505-509 W.
Hopkins was granted a zoning change from R-15 to R-6 and contains two modest
size single family homes and an affordable carriage house.
2. Anew modest sized two story single family home was recently constructed at 218 S.
Third Street on a lot that previously housed a small one story structure. This lot is
directly adjacent to the subject site.
3. A medium sized two story home was erected approx. 7 years ago at 413 S. Hopkins
on a lot that previously housed a small one story structure. This lot in directly across
the alley from the subject site.
The Boomerang subdivision, which prior to rezoning would have resulted in a massive
single family home or attached duplex and that now contains three detached modest
sized structures, and the two new two story single family homes built directly on
adjacent lots have helped redefine this micro-community and would now best be
complimented by two additional modest sized detached single family structures rather
than an oversized and truly out of character single family home or a duplex, when no
other duplexes exist on any adjacent lots.
I. Is the proposed amendment in conflict with the public interest and if not, is the
proposed amendment in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title?
We see no conflict of public interest that would result from this zoning change. Benefits
of achievable detached building masses to the public under R-6 zoning include
improved views from the hiking trail and for the neighbors, consistency of scale within a
mostly modestly built community, open space between buildings for pet and wildlife
migration and a net reduction in built FAR of 6 SF.
We believe that a community must always have the ability to look closely at its zoning
character and be able to amend its codes to reflect the scale and scope of its many
micro-communities. That is why Titles such as this exist.
A zoning change for this parcel from R-15 to R-6 will help achieve significant
improvements for our neighborhood and help maintain its existing charm and scale.
a~
Co~nc ~I - ~e ' I~ t5{~rr ~c O~eS~s~cF
environment of Aspen as it developed into a ski resort. The neighborhood surrounding this
~' property is a microcosm of the architectural influences that have dominated Aspen's history. To
the north is perhaps the oldest residence in town, a circa 1885 log cabin. 1930's tourist cabins
occupy the nearby L'Auberge property. Along Hopkins Avenue are The Boomerang Lodge and
several 1960's era apartment structures. To the east, Chalets, Wrightian structures, and
Victorians are common.
As part of landmark designation review, staff typically completes an integrity score sheet to
determine the amount of original features and material that exists. We are unable to do so for
this property because [he Modern Chalet style is one that has become recognized as potentially
significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48 discussions. At this point no context
papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use, although a draft statement is attached as
"Exhibit B." This house appears to be unaltered from the original design. We did not locate
building permits for any significant work on the exterior of the structure, therefore we feel that
the building has a high degree of integrity and authenticity. Staff supports landmark designation
for this structure finding that the review criteria are met.
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark LoC Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section
26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.120(A). In preparing this
review, staff has discovered that recent amendments to the code have rendered the latter two
code citations inaccurate. Section 26.470.070(C) previously provided for Growth Management
exemption of a new home on a Historic Landmark Lot Split parcel. The exemption is now found
at Section 26.470.060(2). Section 26.415.120(A) refers to appeals of HPC decisions. The
correct code citation is 26.415.110(A), which is procedures for review of Historic Landmark Lot
Splits. The relevant code sections are addressed below.
During the previous HPC reviews, a neighboring property owner raised concerns about whether
the subject site is impacted by natural hazards due to its location at the toe of Shadow Mountain.
Staff asked the applicant to provide a professionally prepared analysis of this question. A letter
from Yeh Associates is attached as "Exhibit C." In addition, the neighbor raised concerns about
adding another residential unit on what is a dead end alley. The alley currently serves the
neighbor's home, a log cabin, and the Modern Chalet at 219 S. Third. Staff consulted with the
Streets Department, who stated that they are required to remove the snow regardless of how
many units use the alley. Property owners must retain their own snow on their site, and not
dump into the right-of-way. There are other dead end alleys in town with multiple residential
and commercial units located along them.
The Fire Department is not concerned with providing service, particularly because the dead end
alley is only half the length of the block. They are likely to require fire sprinklers for the new
house on the Historic Landmark Lot Split as a precautionary measure, but would not ask for a
fire truck turnaround or other mitigation.
~a~ ~
Q
~Q
Q
7
7 ~~ L. ~ G. ~ `]IF<
~q
Conclusion
We believe that a re-zoning of 219 S. Third Street to R- 6 zoning fulfills the following
goals:
1. R-6 brings parcel into conformity
2. R-6 allows for the development of two smaller detached structures instead of one
longer, larger single building mass.
3. R-6 decreases allowable FAR by 10'
4. R-6 allows better views of Shadow Mountain for the neighborhood through separated
building mass.
5. R-6 allows less impact on hiking trail views through separated building mass
6. R-6 allows less impact on wildlife and allows wildlife and neighborhood pets a more
natural movement on this parcel through separated building mass.
7. R-6 allows for improved snow storage between the detached structures.
8. R-6 zoning has a 10' front yard set back. The existing structure has anon-conforming
10' front yard set back. R-6 zoning aligns any new structure with the existing log cabin
on the block (which has a conforming 10' side yard set back) creating a unified
streetscape (see exhibit 9, Page 30). R-15 would push any new construction back 25 feet
creating a disjointed streetscape. Unified streetscapes are in keeping with Aspen's
Residential Design Standards.
9. Recent changes in the neighborhood -including R-6 re-zoning for the Boomerang
parcel on nearby West Hopkins, which resulted in three smaller detached dwellings
instead of one larger duplex or single family home; the completion of a new two story
modest sized single family home at 218 S. Third Street, which replaced a single story
cabin; and the completion of a two story structure at 413 W. Hopkins, which replaced a
single story cabin -have helped redefine the neighborhood and are consistent with two
smaller R-6 zoned structures rather than one larger R-15 structure.
10. There are no known adverse affects from re-zoning and no known increased demand
on services.
J~
m
. d
7
~x~;b.+ ~
r R-~
~rv4 l~ 4 /cQ
~~~
3~
a l \~ n S N.~w
~ lc 5 h ~ ~ r ~ S ~N '~'".tc--~
O ,h -M ~ p t o C I~, Tam
~_,'~/ ~ ~
/ Q 1 ~ ~ .
z
J
~Q~~'~N 3 ~1 ~ 2 ~ ~~~
z 3 :. I ~. ~a ~:
ss r° ~ , ~%a a
3 3 ~
~~
~~
.ls ~/~ .S
r ~
-~ l
~ C- ~
s~a~o~s
-~
!~
2 ~~g g -
,. q
~ .. 3 1s °~~~s s
~~ L
z.
,,
Vii, I ~ ~
-. 3j -: _
1`
ti
M
~~
- tl
'~~.yil 'f7
~~
is
r+larga~ s
l ar
lg ~~~ s ~ r
~, -
lgd~El S ~;
S
'e _- ..
~ ~
2
Z '~ ..
~~ I = ~ ~
Q
Q
_' ,%
3
i
:. Via,
~~
~a
~° ~ o
~~ ~ ~
s~
~ s
_ o .. ~ ~
~, o m
a ~ ~~
. Qf ~ _ ~ ~
~ ~ rc
~~
U O
e
0
! ~
~~
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF 219 SOUTH
THIRD STREET, OPPOSE THE UPZONE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM R15 TO R6. WE
OPPOSE THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS
PROPOSED, THE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND INCREASED IMPACTS ON
THE DEAD-END ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL.
NAME
~~~~-~-
~~ ~~ ~ ~
-1 ~~yz~~
_>
C r~..-~a~~f
~~
~~u
. ~.
~ ~~1-~.
~~ ~
~~~ ~-
c ~ ~~`~~
ADDRESS
~3v~W~ ?-~~~'~-~ s
~3 v west ~--f ~k ~~~ f'{ ~~
-~t3 ~.('_ ~~c ~S ~K~
~~~ w.,~yM~N ~~~.
3l2 G~ ~ ~t Y M ~,~ ~-,~~
~~l ~, }~f~I~~C ~~ ~3
13 3 S 3 ~ STu
1-/~- ~
i 3~ S 3 -~ S f- ,~r,~,,,~-7~-~
3~ ~, ~/ ~-~- y,-
~ S ~~~ ~til ~~~
Iz2 w ~oPicr~S
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF 219 SOUTH
THIRD STREET, OPPOSE THE UPZONE OF TH[S PROPERTY FROM R15 TO R6. WE
OPPOSE THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS
PROPOSED, THE REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND INCREASED IMPACTS ON
THE DEAD-END ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL.
NAME
~v~,d ~ t~e„~y
ADDRESS
2~1 S.~'1~+ 3~d Sfi • HSBw.
FES 02,2010 06:2oA 000-000-00000 page 1
WE, THE UNDERSEGNED NEIGHBORS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF 219 SOUTH
THIRD STREET, OPPUSE THE UP'LUNE UF'1'HIS PRUPER'1'Y FRUM R15 TO Rb. WE
OPPOSE THE INCREASED DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SEPARATE HOMES, AS
PROPUSED, THE REDUCED FKUN't' YARll SL CBACK, ANll INCREASED IMPACTS ON
THE DEAD-END ALLEY AND THE MIDLAND TRAIL.
NAME ADDRE55
~„M ~ ~°~ ~ ~S~
/"~'
,.~EN S~ N Z~74
404572 5134 king & Spalding Ilp KING & SPALDING LLP 15:09,40 02-02-2010 2 /3
KING SC SPALDING
King & Spalding LLP
I l80 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 3D309-3521
www.kstaw.com
Jahn C. Stalon
Rztired Partner
Direct Dial: (404) 5724985
Direct Fax: (404) 572.5134
jstaton(a~kslaw.com
Februazy Z, 2D10
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen, Colorado
Re: 217 & 219 S. Third Street
Proposed Rezoning - R15 to R6
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is John Staton. I am the owner of the house at 431 W. Hopkins (comer of 4`s
Street). I have owned this property since November, 1993.
2. Applicant has been unsuccessful during the past yeaz in obtaining a historic designation
for this property including overly aggressive FAR's.
3. Applicant now seeks to obtain similar relief by coming through the backdoor with a
request for a zoning change.
4. Applicant was well aware of the zoning in the neighborhood when she purchased the
Third Street property.
The burden is on Applicant to conclusively show that zoning change would not adverse]y
impact the neighborhood. Applicant tries to address this issue by saying that changed
conditions over the last nlunber of years support their amendment.
The three changed conditions Applicant refers to (Pazagraph 14, Page 2b) do not support
their amendment:
A. The Boomerang mountainside was zoned to R-6 based on negotiations between
the neighbors and Chazlie Patterson, owner of the Boomerang. The initial project
had underground parking and other changes that would protect the neighborhood.
It should also be noted that the proposed buildings would only impact the
404 572 5134 king & Spalding Ilp KING & SPALDING llP 15:09, 59 02-02-2070
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 2, 2010
Page 2
Boomerang and not the other neighbors. Further, the access was West Hopkins,
not an alley.
B. The house at 219 S. Third Street was an original house that predated Aspen
inning. The new house has the same footprint as the original house and its line of
sight is blocked by the St. Moritz and condos on West Hopkins as it has been
since the St. Moritz was built.
C. The house at 413 S. Hopkins (Applicant has the wrong address. The house is at
413 W. Hopkins and is my next door neighbor}. This house was built according
to the zoning code and without any variances.
Summary
a. Applicant was awaze of the R-15 zoning when the lot was purchased.
b. Applicant's filing materials don't support a zoning change.
c. The Planning and Zoning Commission should REJECT Applicant's request.
Respectfully submitted,
ohm. C. ~a
John C. Stators, Jr.
431 W. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado
3 l3
~`q '~~l
JCSlds
February 2, 2010
The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 219 SOUTH THIRD STREET
APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM R-15 TO R-6
Deaz Commission members,
We write this third letter (HPC, Mazch 10, 2009 and City Council, August 7, 2009) to
again express our concerns regazding development plans at 219 South Third Street, this
time in regazd to the request for rezoning.
As the Boazd of the 1,000+ member "Friends of Shadow Mountain" organization, we aze
concerned about the request to increase the zoning and build-out of this lot adjacent to the
historic Midland Trail. Zoning all along the trail is at a lower density to provide a zone
of transition from the higher density urban lots to the wilderness of Shadow Mountain.
The lower zoning provides a necessary transition to a populaz trail and valued open
space.
We respectfully request any development on land adjoining the trail to adhere to the full
and complete setbacks. With any approval, please include planting requirements to
screen the development from the trail and restore any vegetation that may have been
cleazed from the trail. A "staz-friendly" lighting plan is urged, which would require all
outside lighting to point downward, so as not to interfere with the night time sky. We
suggest appropriate consideration for wildlife, since beazs live neaz-by.
Any new development, including this one, must not diminish the community investment
and ongoing efforts to maintain and enhance the Midland Trail and Shadow Mountain
Open Space.
Sincerely,
FRIENDS OF SHADOW MOUNTAIN
Board member
Cazol Blomquist ~2~
Donna Fisher ~ 1 ,O
Fonda Paterson CJ~-- ~7
Martha Madsen
Michael Behrendt ~~~~
March 10, 2004
Atfi; Sara
Adams
Aspen Historic Preservatlon Commisson
Re: 214 5. Third Street, Aspen, CO petltlon
Shcedulefl: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Oear Hlslndc Preservatlon Commission members;
AS you n?vlew the Third Street development applkatlon, pkese wnslder all posstbfe negative
ramlftratlons It vAp have on an Important Aspen mining era landmark. The hislonc 188ffs'Midland
raaroad right-of-wey Is a suote~ story of oonvertlng 'rails to trails.' Together with the RIO
Grande railroad rtght-of-way on tfie north side of Armen, It Is the ~uthem half fn fYitt
BenedlcCs "neddace trail system endreling !open," emdslaned and ~advooted by him. HI5 vlslDn,
arong with AI BbomquiCs and others, helped Aspen lay the Fcundatfon for this troll "nedderp"
around the perlmet~ of Gown.
Any new hlsmnc deslgnatlon should riot compromise or degrade the quapty of this Ntdl
pedestrian/bike! and crass country trail gnkage 6o and from town.
Although neither tlme rror resources albw us to contact Ule over 1,000 members of "Fiends of
Shadow Mountain" on this IndMidual issue; one of lire three key tenants we guard Is "preservation
of the In~ggty oP the Midland Trall.° Any new drhaelopment, induding this one, Shoutd not
diminish the community Invesbnent and on-gt>tng dtorts to expand the troll and open space
experience on Shadow Mountain.
ANawirg any greater dersity, redudng set bade requirements at aAowing building heights above
boo stones will have an irreversible adverse Impact.
Sincerely,
AtIENDS of SHADOW MOUNTAIN
Board members
Carole Bloomqulst
Martha Madsen
Donna Fisher
Michael Behrendt
Fonda Paterson
From David E Bentley, (davklet~entleyr@comostnet)
211 South Tnlyd St
Date: February Ol, 2010
TO: Aspen planning and 2aning Commission
RE: 219 S. Ord St, Appllcatton to re-zone to R6
I do NOT support the request for upzoning from RSS to R6 as it pertains to 219 S. 3rd St. The current
R15 zoning In our block serves >p protect the transltlonai buffer t~etween Shadow Mountain and the
neighborhood. i supportt ONE structure being built at 219 S. Third St. with the front entrance oriented
to 3rd St.
Beginning in November, 1471, I have Ilved in a 220 s.f. shack dating to the early 1B90s ]ust
across the alley from the exlstlng duplex.
The Fosters sernnd house would surely be occupied by renters rather than buyers. There will
never be less than one car Der bedroom, whether couples or housemates. Th{s is my 38th winter In this
shack. There are AL.wayS a renters ear Jammed against the wail of the duplex because the carports
are single, tllted by the snowbank_
The Fasters second house would make this even more of a blight.
Thank yau, David E Bentley
To: Aspen Planting and %oning Commission
from: Jennifer Sherwin, member oPSherwin Enterprise, LLC (Owner of 205 and 217 S.
Third Street properties)
llate: 2/2/1010
Rc: 219 South "Third Street - Rc:rone Rcyucst:
'I'bis memo is to stale that I um against the rc-zoning of the 219 S. "Third Street property
and that 1 agree with the statements made by Jake Vickery, Architect and Neighborhood
Consultant concerning the rcliuttal to the application for request to rezone 21) S. 'T'hird
S U-cct.
As the owner of u truly historical property, the log cabin and small shuck at 205 and 217
S. `T'hird Street, I wouM like to say that ] have N1;VBR received any kind of leniency
when requesting to maintain or upgrade these properties. Lven when I was making some
repairs to the small shack where David Bentley lives (217 S.1'hird Skeet), [was forced
to spend additional money in order to please the historical preservation society.
Example: There was a significant sag in the old root'structure of the shack, which was
required fo he left in place. 'I'bis caused additional expenditure and complications, as
fixing the sag, would have been much easier. When putting on a new roof on main log
cabin at 205 S. "Third Sh'cet, 1 was required to use cedar shakes, a product that is much
more expensive than other material. "There arc cheaper products ~+~ilh a similar look and
quality that could hove been used. As a result of the historical society's rcyuircmcnts, 1
always end up spending double what anon-historic property would rcyuit•c.
1 don't see any reason to allow fhc owner of 219 S. Third Street to get the re-Toning or
the variances she's requesting. According to the attached memo, these changes clearly
don't follow cun•enl Land lJse Code or Design Quality Codes. 13' a truly historic property
can't get a variance to maintain the property, I don't understand why the owner oP the
219 S. "Third su-eet property should be allowed her rc-zoning and variance rcyuests.
ll'you would like to contact me directly, I can be reached at: 919-30~-1145.
Sherwin
Manager, 5hctwin lntcrpriscs, LLC
January 31, 2010
T0: Members of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Re-zoning application from R-15 to R-6, 219 S. Third St
We do not support the 219 S Third St. proposed re-zoning change to R-6 which
creates a higher density. Any increased development will adversely affect an already
congested dead-end alley in our neighborhood block as it pertains to the safety of
our children and the operation of city services.
Sincerely,
~~ ~",-
John and Kathleen Callahan
205 S. Third St
Aspen