Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.536 W North St.33-800 No. 33 -80 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: 6/80 STAFF: Karen Smith 2. APPLICANT: Christ Episcopal Church 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Warren Palmer 9252776 Box 2684, 4. PROJECT NAME: Episcopal Church Parking Conditional Use 5. LOCATION: 536 W. North St. 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC Subdivision Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus _Stream Margin _8040 Greenline _View Plane x Conditional Use Other 7. REFERRALS: • Attorney • Engineering Dept _Housing _Water City Electric Sanitation District _School District Fire Marshal _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas x Parks _State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric Other Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: To come before Aspen P & Z on august 5, 1980 (Conditional use application follows variance procedure - Section 2 -22) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director RE: Christ Episcopal Church Parking - Conditional Use and Special Review DATE: July 31, 1980 There will be a public hearing on Tuesday, August 5, 1980, for conditional use approval of a modified parking plan for the Christ Episcopal Church on North Street in the west end of Aspen. Because the applicant is also asking for a reduction of the number of spaces apparently approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in August, 1973, the application also requires special review pursuant to Section 24 -4.5, which requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to establish the number of parking spaces for this type of use in the R -6 zone. Originally, the applicant applied for and received a building permit on the basis of a parking plan showing 14 spaces (a site plan will be given to you at the meeting). Fourteen spaces was the number arrived at considering the four spaces that would be required by the new rectory, as well as spaces that had been required by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the basis of the 1973 expansion request. Parking for the 1973 expansion request was based on the design criteria of two cars per 1,000 square feet usable floor area. On this basis, the Building Inspector issued a building permit. Subsequently,and based on comments from the neighborhood, the applicant has agreed to process an application showing a reduced number of parking spaces, namely, ten, which would be located immediately behind the new rectory under construction. Four spaces,proposed to be located immediately behind and north of the church,would be eliminated, thus saving the landscaping that flourishes in that area. We have not received comments directly from the neighborhood, though property owners within 300 feet of the church have been notified of the proposed change in use. We have received the attached comments from the Engineering Depart- ment that recommend approval of the parking reduction and its configuration under both conditional use and special review, because of the advantages to be obtained in saving existing landscaping. The Engineering Department also noted the sporadic nature of the impact, and the apparent belief of the surrounding neighbors that on- street parking of a sporadic nature is preferable to losing the landscaping. We note for the Planning and Zoning Commission that a previous conditional use application on behalf of the Baptist Church involved similar conclusions regarding parking, that is, that the sporadic nature of the use and parking impact warrants a reduction in the amount of paving and the amount of parking provided. In that instance, it was noted that the church could share parking with the Forest Service on adjacent property. In this instance, and should the problem become more unbearable in the future, either with increased usage of the church or more constant usage, then it might be possible to explore shared use of the MAA parking lot. In conclusion, and given what we know of neighborhood opinion, the Planning Office recommends approval of the special review for reduction of parking to ten spaces, and conditional use approval of the configuration of parking spaces numbers one through ten, shown on the TriCo site plan dated August , 1979. Such approval is based on a calculation of one space per bedroom in the rectory, equaling four spaces plus 1.6 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area within the church itself, equaling six spaces for the total of ten. This approval should also be conditioned upon: An annual review considering the further development of the neigh- borhood, and future problems or complaints, and the overall impact of parking on- street. The first review would take place in August, 1981. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Episcopal Church Parking - Conditional Use DATE: August 13, 1980 The staff and Episcopal Church representatives will meet on Monday, August 18 to discuss further parking reductions based on input at the last meeting. For clarification, the application before you is a conditional use applica- tion for the parking only. Staff has previously ruled that the Code does not require conditional use approval for the rectory. cc: Ron Stock uk Z &AJ nd ' • o �lr �;oti �%� &�� �4� IVJ4 . / J/ AUWIr QA Q,� AA J a n� y..ki ilk- Warren I.laal,er ■ chitect box 972 carbondalo, co. 81623 " '26134 E!/1 I Cp. em tv I I 2v May 1900 1�Wi Coal J �31cv1 l . phone 963 -2155 V+%O(ne- 52 A-I5 �Y ovtr coa�v -�aen V� a�c��sv� c TVeA")AA _RnkA Igo I aria sanicMttbvl � C4Z� C C�1G�C -LK�' ��/ ►�V'�+I/tiG1 �.A4r' SX�°�� DYY ,V m TF ET c� It�b+ tr.�s s��F�etA - rte W ,Vn Mace acidI -UOna4 TZ-1--IciVII � ` V A ivy u'' c�'rc�tni► i cr3�n �A1c`V� ��'d Off) d <A cwt i rte J �R per } d Memo 2O Ii1NCTA(rv I40 T�� -7 rvZef--bt t `lo comp ;" W � -i tJ,� ca-c— ���c �i o� fit- — I � �) I 4" n CCz�C I co�nc Gntvv� Yzc AACkiOn a�- �Ct�t -l; i nuec4 � �n +Jn� F''J1G63 l�4flNA 1� IIL'��! - bite Minimu(°s/1 - nkAmlbo� - C* �.�i rP- Gib!" +lY� t �Gdl t E have cOumme4b` 7 g avti% , - hin1p %G �V1G��lJi '3 An cc, - �MlIGe "T w CLAYTD;4 mr = l" •I � 1 4� 7twF t# a tU v y i I ;:.iu 1p o&mV Warren I. pa € ier architect box 972 carbondal©, co. 89623 b e j 4 2&O- aw n I 2a Mai INO C€ L) C'lfM (�U,U;kj "a nn im OMCX '+n 1 Cotove- do- �Ito{ I Kt = OfP 6— � ( v+,eaue) . 46%✓ mcch I - Wcbs IA v viers. 1_c�, Clno�v � 1r�.reabze� 14-1 19 , aril Y -I 4y. - - z - tv �4-- ,• 3 SF O;CP03 3t7�F lAvqpev- to ►q - JZit L �LZr . �T _ vm R%e1' G 40 t V,er cy% Z j7 a v w�, tp � .O�w� - t1V� wi 41 .ovd I� .:, �z'�ceh CCS2�WivU� 5 1930 phone 9G3 -2955 . e 6z5-z7 to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September G, 1973 Chairman Adams called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Barbara Lewis, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Chuck Vidal, and Geri Vagneur. Also present Assistant Planner Donna Baer. Episcopal Church- Ms. Baer explained that the Episcopal Church was located Ordinance #19 at the corner of north and Fifth Streets. Further stated Review that the existing structure is a conditional use. Architect Ted Mularz submitted drawing of proposed building, and gave a brief history. Mularz pointed out the need for additional classroom facilities and a large meeting room. Mularz stated that the Building Committee had done a Master Plan in order to do the project in phases. Could take from 5 -10 years for ultimate completion. Stated the first priority.was the Church- proper. Mularz pointed out that they would like to re -do the roof. Under present regulations, can build to 37; feet, but are looking at 34 feet. Wculd extend the Church 10 feet to the south, or 300square feet, and would replace the present spiral staircase with regular walkup -type stairway. Mularz gave a present site description. Stated they would have room for 9 additional. parking spaces. Felt there were no technical problems as far as the variance concerned. Whitney Miller was present and pointed out that the existing structure is twelve years old.' Ids. Baer stated that the Planning Office had no objections to the proposal. Jenkins stated that he would like to see the project come in as a Master Plan since the function of the building will not, change. Chairman Adams suggest they come in after Ordinance 419 for the rest of the project. Commission agreed to grant approval of the project. Norway Shadows Chairman Adams opened the public hearing on Norway Shadows Ordinance #19 Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Review & Subdivision - Charles Brandt, Attorney, was present representing Preusch Preliminary Properties, Inc. Brandt described the location of the Plat project as 711 S. Aspen, the site presently occupied by the Norway Lodge. LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES RONALD O. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS M�GRATH. JR. w LL1AM R. JORDAN Q R03ERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH QUINN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 August 1, 1980 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 325 -2800 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Parking variance sought by Christ Episcopal Church Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Charles and Jan Collins who are adja- cent land owners to Christ Church. Mr. and Mrs. Collins live on Fifth Street and Gillespie, and the Church is located at Fifth Street and North Street. As you know, Christ Church has obtained a building permit for the construction of a rectory of approximately 4,176 square feet with four bedrooms and perhaps additional bedrooms to be added in the basement. The Church owns five lots. Generally the width of each lot is twenty -five feet. In our view, the Church should have been required to process a conditional use expansion application pursuant to Section 24- 3.3(c) of the City code prior to obtaining the building permit. As you may know, the Church has obtained a building permit and has constructed a foundation. In addition, the Church should still be required to file a subdivision exemption application so that the lot line between the Church and the rectory house meet City code requirements and be filed of record to prevent any hardship - application or confusion or uncertainty in the future. That is, the single family residence being built as a rectory .meets the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (it is appar- ently 6,025 square feet). But it does not meet the City code requirement of a sixty foot width at the front lot line, if one uses the lot line the Church shows on its building plans. That lot line makes for a width of approximately fifty feet. The lot line should be moved closer to the Church, or the land subdivided to meet City code requirements. The only OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission August 1, 1980 Page Two logical alternative is to treat the residence as an accessory use to the Church building, which would call for specific written conditions appropriate to its accessory nature. If the land is not subdivided, then it should be clear that the City erred in not requiring a conditional use expansion application. Clearly adding a very large residence expands the conditional use and a church is a con- ditional use in the R -6 zone. Section 24- 3.3(c) provides: "No approved conditional use may be modi- fied, structurally enlarged or expanded in ground area unless such modification, en- largement or expansion receives the prior approval of the commission which approval shall be obtained by repetition of the granting procedures herein provided." our clients' principal interest is in the parking places numbering fourteen shown in the rear of the Church and the proposed rectory on its plans. Perhaps "rear" is mis- leading since there should not be considered in that area of the West End, a "front" and "rear" that are treated differ- ently in a significant way. That is, the Collinses' view towards Aspen Mountain is curtailed substantially if not entirely by the rather large proposed thirty -foot high rectory building. Their view from their deck and backyard is directly upon the rear of the Church, which has been nicely landscaped. There are several trees of six -inch diameter that presumably would require a City permit for cutting if parking places are installed. Unless the Church proposes to expand its activ- ities, fourteen parking spaces may not be required in the least. It has been the Collinses' observation that the vacant lot on which the rectory will sit, which had been used for parking, rarely had many cars. The access is through a very narrow alley, with two power poles at each corner of the alley on Fifth Street, and a great many cars could not con- veniently use that access. It would not seem appropriate'to have no parking places at all in the so- called "front," or North Street side, and fourteen parking . places directly facing the Collinses 0 OATES, AUSTIN, Mc GRATH I- JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission August 1, 1980 Page Three and their neighbors. We recognize that since the Church has already put in the foundation, it may not be in a posi- tion to move many of the parking places, but some could still be put in the front facing North Street, as opposed to all of them facing the Collinses and their neighbors on the other side of the property. As we recall, a few years ago the Baptist Church was given a parking variance to eliminate many of the off - site parking places that might have been required, and we would urge the same be true with Christ Church, i.e. that no parking places be required or permitted on existing lots 11, 12 and 13, and that the parking on existing lots 14 and 15, directly behind the rectory, be limited to spaces mini- mally necessary. We would also urge that the Church be required to landscape the parking area to minimize the obstructions and impacts of the parking upon the Collins and other adjacent land owners. Obviously, when "paving paradise to put up a parking lot," one should be sensitive to the needs of those who live adjacent to the property. */ We will appear at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday to present our clients' views, and thank you for considering this writing. We are sending a copy to the applicant and its representatives so that they may understand the interests of the Collinses in advance. Sincerely, JNMjr /ss CC: Rev. Robert Babb Mr. David Farny iir. I-lax Freeman Ms. Karen Smith, Ronald W. Stock., OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By fi ��� U-t SA : . Y J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. Aspen /Pitkin Planning City Attorney */ As a matter of observation but the other view of the Collinses, a large parking lot. not objection, we add that toward the Institute, faces MEMORANDUM TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer Ron Stock, City Attorney,/ Jim Holland, City Parks Department FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Episcopal Church Parking - Conditional Use, Special Review DATE: July 21, 1980 The attached materials outline the Christ Episcopal Church's proposed parking addition. They are requesting a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, and a review of the configuration. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for a conditional use hearing on August 5, 1980; therefore, may I please have your comments concerning this application no later than August 28, 1980? (Many apologies for not allowing more time for referral comments...) �c� PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing will be held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a regular meeting on August 5, 1980 beginning at 5:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, City Hall, Aspen, to consider an application for a conditional use for the Christ Episcopal Church, located at 536 West North Street. The Commission will consider a reduction in the requ;red number of off - street parking spaces and also the proposed �onf�guraiicm of the parking. For further information, contact the Planning Ofii'ice, 3ru.loor, ry. ,'. ?, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, 925 -2020, ext. 225. -� r > MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Smith, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office DATE: July 29, 1980 RE: Episcopal Church Parking, Conditional Use, Special Review Having reviewed the above application for a parking reduction variance and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1) First of all, in view of the utilization of the property as a church and meeting facility, it is subject to large but sporadic parking loads. Were the neighborhood more congested, provision of the maximum achievable on -site parking would be imperative. 2) There are several factors in this case, however, that point toward a compromise solution of some type. One such factor is the low congestion of the existing neighborhood and the apparent lack of concern of the adjacent property owners with respect to the parking loads created by the church. I spoke with Dave Farny today who lives across the street from the church and this feeling was expressed and had been confirmed throughout the area by him. 3) Additionally, creation of maximum on -site parking, although possible, would eliminate considerable existing landscaping and several large trees that are currently an asset to the neighborhood. In view of these factors, the Engineering Department has the following recommendations: a) That the parking requirement for the church facility be reduced from the standard 3 per 1,000 square feet of floor area to 1.6 per 1,000 resulting in six spaces. b) That the new rectory be required to provide one space per bedroom as required of any other residence in the R -6 zone resulting in four spaces. c) That the ten spaces be located behind the rectory as shown on the site plan dated August 1979 prepared by Tri -Co Management (Alpine Surveys). d) That the four spaces behind the church on the above site plan be eliminated. e) That this parking arrangement be considered conditional and subject to some form of further review considering the further development of the neighborhood and any future problems or complaints. N MAXWELL ALEY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 July 15, 1980 Ms. Karen Smith City and County Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 13031925 -5953 Re: Lots 11 through 15, inclusive, Block 99, Hallams Addition, City of Aspen - property owned by Christ Episcopal Church Dear Ms. Smith, Reference is made to a conversation you have had with the architect for Christ Episcopal Church, Warren Palmer. Pur- suant to such conversations, on behalf of the Church, I am formally hereby requesting an exemption from required off - street parking for the subject property. Please schedule this matter for hearing. I also want to assure you that no further work will be done on parking on the subject property until the Planning & Zoning Commission has resolved this matter of the requested exemption. Very truly yours, Maxwell Aley MA ch cc Charles Shepard Warren Palmer l warren I. palmer box 972 cerbondele, cc. 91623 * k k G C�j ar Cann �rn I Calm anr► architl6ct phone2155 -I; �val ChOlrch mac" Ve3v ow�on: 1'v. CWHi -e rd �vow� Chv i�t c� l ChcnvGh c ���ed (Me -�: UJov► I tr >n -1 V I0 PAt on - the z requ►re an 1 OT dock I Y1ns Q,dd�bav,l G c -A� tf Ghcnvch beev\ vle-ce►vi" ( rWb -f -t-o rn -Uhc Aba tIL OW16t ►� � c811 ��� -�►� --F�, Leduc �r- tcMlnztt�e Chcn c`�v�rl wo Id I►Ir.� E� v50e 1 W I-� e ► � e cat 1 Qlr ab vv t �h el� i %,-Ox °1 c`yrw -bi' dl C,ot�%r-ry G�ric�ve�y CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM KAREN SMITH l �- ��r he ; � 7y� IL (-111 a s At",- t12 ezt �a N� V -1 �Y/ MF.MORANDLTM TO: Ordinance 19 Review Committee FROM: Planning Office DATE: November 29, 1973 SUBJECT: Christ Episcopal Church - Preliminary & -Final Presentation Water okay Electric okay Gas okay Sewer okay Fire Protection okay Engineering reco mnendations - as attached Parking was reviewed and approved at conceptual stage Construct sidewalk as shown on plan - escrow and build sucuner 1974. L .� vzr +r`rc3n 1. palmer - architect ri,o. box 972 carbondole, co. 81623 phone C303) 963-2155 TO 4N(911 GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter i' Attached ❑ Under separate cover via X Prints ❑ Plans E� Change order ❑ I COPIES DATE NO. NO. DESCRIPTION _ I _I J �r rt" L. M(Aliav2�,. Cmcc _70 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval V"For your use ❑ As requested S For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS -. Resubmit copies for approval SubmitcoPies for distribution Return corrected prints 19 i=. PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ E] Samples _the following items: �ji Specifications COPY TO_M>4�LWE�.L-I I ''��Z). CdMN1.•. - - - -- - "il—f ` H% IC.I: HT71jEQI SIGNED:\ LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES RONALD O. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH DEBORAH OUINN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 August 1, 1980 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -2600 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Parking variance sought by Christ Episcopal Church Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Charles and Jan Collins who are adja- cent land owners to Christ Church. Mr. and Mrs. Collins live on Fifth Street and Gillespie, and the Church is located at Fifth Street and North Street. As you know, Christ Church has obtained a building permit for the construction of a rectory of approximately 4,176 square feet with four bedrooms and perhaps additional bedrooms to be added in the basement. The Church owns five lots. Generally the width of each lot is twenty -five feet. In our view, the Church should have been required to process a c,5adz.tional use expansion application pursuant to Section 24- 3.3(c) of the City code prior to obtaining the building permit. As you may know, the Church has obtained a building permit and has constructed a foundation. In addition, the Church should still be required to file a subdivision exemption application so that the lot line between the Church and the rectory house meet City code requirements and be filed of record to prevent any hardship application or confusion or uncertainty in the future. That is, the single family residence being built as a rectory meets the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (it is appar- ently 6,025 square feet). But it does not meet the City code requirement of a sixty foot width at the front lot line, if one uses the lot line the Church shows on its building plans. That lot line makes for a width of approximately fifty feet. The lot line should be moved closer to the Church, or the land subdivided to meet City code requirements. The only 10 OATEs, AUSTIN, McGRAT.H 8, JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission August 1, 1980 Page Two = logical alternative is to treat the residence as an accessory /�f ,� use to the Church building, which would call for specific , V written conditions appropriate to its accessory nature. If the land is not subdivided, then it should be clear that the City erred in not requiring a conditional use expansion application. Clearly adding a very large residence expands the conditional use and a church is a con- ditional use in the R -6 zone. Section 24- 3.3(c) provides: "No approved conditional use may be modi- fied, structurally enlarged or expanded in ground area unless such modification, en- largement or expansion receives the prior approval of the commission which approval shall be obtained by repetition of the granting procedures herein provided." Our clients' principal interest is in the parking places numbering fourteen shown in the rear of the Church and the proposed rectory on its plans. Perhaps "rear" is mis- leading since there should not be considered in that area of the West End, a "front" and "rear" that are treated differ- ently in a significant way. That is, the Collinses' view IL towards Aspen Mountain is curtailed substantially if not entirely by the rather large proposed thirty -foot high rectory uilding. Their view from their deck and backyard is directly -`_ upon the r�r of the Church, which has been nicely landscaped. There are several trees of six -inch diameter that presumably would require a City permit for cutting if parking places are installed. Unless the Church proposes to expand its activ- ities, fourteen parking spaces may not be required in the least. It has been the Collinses' observation that the vacant lot on which the rectory will sit, which had been used for parking, rarely had many cars. The access is through a very narrow alley, with two power poles at each corner of the alley on Fifth Street, and a great many cars could not con- veniently use that access. It would not seem appropriate to have no parking places at all in the so- called "front," or North Street side, and fourteen parking places directly facing the Collinses OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission August 1, 1980 Page Three and their neighbors. We recognize that since the Church has already put in the foundation, it may not be in a posi- tion to move many of the parking places, but some could still be put in the front facing North Street, as opposed to all of them facing the Collinses and their neighbors on the other side of the property. As we recall, a few years ago the Baptist Church was given a parking variance to eliminate many of the off - site parking places that might have been required, and we would urge the same be true with Christ Church, i.e. that no parking places be required or permitted on existing lots 11, 12 and 13, and that the parking on existing lots 14 and 15, directly behind the rectory, be limited to spaces mini- mally necessary. We would also urge that the Church be required to landscape the parking area to minimize the obstructions and impacts of the parking upon the Collins and other adjacent land owners. Obviously, when "paving paradise to put up a parking lot," one should be sensitive to the needs of those who live adjacent to the property. */ We will appear at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday to present our clients' views, and thank you for considering this writing. We are sending a copy to the applicant and its representatives so that they may understand the interests of the Collinses in advance. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By . U6 C �. JNMjr /ss J. Nicholas McGrath, JA. cc .J Rev. Robert Babb Mr. David Farny Mr. Max Freeman Ms. Karen Smith, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Ronald W. Stock, City Attorney */ As a matter of observation but not objection, we add that the other view of the Collinses, toward the Institute, faces a large parking lot.