Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Block 8 Riverside addition.1971yn� Rl CIO D �.✓ _ January 28, 1971 The Doremus/Fleisher Company P. 0. Box 164 Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: At the Council meeting held on January 25, 1971, the Councils decision on your request was denial. The Council indicated they concur with the Planning and Zoning Commissions reasons for denial. Sincerely, Lorraine Graves City Clerk 0 • LEGAL NOTICE REZONING HEARING Notice is hereby given the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on December 8, 1970, 5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to consider the request for rezoning made by The Doremus/Fleisher- Company to rezone Lots I through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning. Proposal is on file in the office of the City Clerk and may be examined by any interested person or persons during office hours. /s/ Robin Mo1ny Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times November 19, 1970 We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept...:"density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner- ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- section. r r �v.f�%Jao1cC> l 935-- L. e or- , MOMWAY mmon.—a. tie ME (r 4 • 4 r We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be coiitradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept...."density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner- ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- section. flu t�K �,yqL✓� IIU,�JW� l: Ci rt.�-U-r U 1 Gt J( We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept...."density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of conticsi n„G PmP n�.7nc�r— ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- • section. Ct V QL 10 6c/ 414W i j err � G V V ( `- i 9 We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept ...... density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner- ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- section. • 00 We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept...."density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner- ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- section. fLe 1V60,(>(O o N j t-ft ,Zy — AL �► /ems .��� io ��/�� s 2 `5 3 C� C] We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the follow:.ng reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an evLq h,ighQr "intensive use" of RMF woiild be Jcontradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept...."density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner- ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- section_ 64 • We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons: This area was developed in the 1950's and became congested due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became "non -conforming." If these non -conforming cases are per- mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes, we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law would be cancelled out. To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning and zoning concept...."density and scale to create the feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the community, etc." To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner- ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests. The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase an existing population density, create an intense building complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter- section. (� N\ 3.rn►•9` TO: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Herb Bartel, Regional Planner SUBJECT: Rezoning application: Lots 1 thru 3, Block 3 Riverside Addition. East of Cooper Street Bridge, Right Side o.f Highway 82 across from Park Avenue. Size of Property: Approximately 21,000 square feet Present Use: Storage yard for masonry materials Present Zoning: R-PC - 15 Proposed Zoning: R-MF Proposed Use: Apartment house for long term rentals Plans for Area: 1966 Aspen Area General Plan recommends R15/40 residential/Planned Unit, Page 4. The Plan makes the following comments on Page 7 for Residential - Planned Unit designation: "Application of this designated use is recommended on an individual project basis following review of precise development plans. Principal uses include single family dwellings plus the associated uses allowed in the rural residential category." Zoning History: Present zoning of R-PC-15 was applied in the spring of 1967. 1.969 - A request for AR-1 Zoning of Guido Meyer's property in the vicinity was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Comments: Any zone change application proposed to make a contribution towards the employee housing problem should be considered within the limits of the regulations, specifically, the regulations do not insure that the zone change requested if approved would in fact be used for employee housing and do not provide for design considerations. Therefore, written agreements committing the uses and design should be considered. Such agreements could include: 1. Understai,.ding that the units will, in fact, be uses by residents employed in the area; 2. Contracts with major employers reservin; units; 3. Agreements to keep necessary records for enforcemeac; Recommendations of R-MF zoning would require an amendment to the Master. Plan and any amendment to the Plan should not be considered on an individual parcel basis but rather on a neighborhood basis. In that regard the extent and future boundaries of R-MF which is correct for the area should be considered. It should be noted that R-6 residential does allow two-family dwellings with a minimum. of 3,000 square feet per dwelling. Establishment of 11-6 zonln- in the area, would have a smaller impact on the solution to the housing problem, but with proper design criteria could be very compatible with the neighborhood. the doremus/fleisher company October 30, 1970 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission c/o The City Clerk P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen, This letter is our formal application for the re-classification of zoning for Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision. We would like to request that its present classification of R-PC-15 be changed to R-MF . We request that this application be considered at your next regular meeting, November 10, 19.70. There are four basic considerations in this request. First, the property is contiguous to a present R-MF zone. Secondly, the property lies between non -conforming uses and the R-MF zone to which it is contiguous (see attached reference map). The non -conforming use is an eight unit apartment building located directly east of and adjacent to the property to be re -zoned. There are, additionally, two apartment buildings in the very near vicinity of the property. One lies north of Highway 82 and east of the Roaring Fork River and is known as the Cantrup Apartment. The other also lies east of the Roaring Fork, but south of Highway 82 and south of this property. It is known as the Kastel is Apartments. Thirdly, re -zoning of this property would not contribute to spot zoning in the area . The purpose of zoning is to meet the needs of the community . The need for permanent housing, long term apartment rentals included, is understood and agreed by all . The final consideration then is that if re -zoned the property would be used for the development of an apartment house for long term rentals. We are willing to make a commitment to the occupancy of a proposed building on this property to that use. We would like to bring to your attention that the R-MF zone, to which the subject property is adjacent, is approximately two acres and in one post office box n-3 aspen, colorado 81611 303 925-2122 pag e two ownership. It is the only R-MF zone existing in the entire City of Aspen. If you need any further information we will provide it immediately. Yours truly, onald J , eish r DJF/sl Enclosure cc: Saint John's Episcopal Church PROPOSE® CHANGE � OF ZONING FOR RIVERSIDE ADD N � BLK. 8 NOTICE OF REZONING HEARING APPLICANT: The Doremus/Fleisher Company P. 0. Box N-3 Aspen, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Lots I through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision City of Aspen HEARING DATE: December 8, 1970 TIME & PLACE: 5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, City Hall REQUEST: To rezone the property from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning. You may be present to state your views at the hearing, or you may submit your views in writing prior to the hearing to the City Clerk, City Hall. Lorraine Graves, Secretary Planning and Zoning Commission the doremus/fleisher company December 17, 1970 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: John and I have given consideration to some ideas for covenants to be placed on the "St. John's Property" in the event that it becomes rezoned. The following is a list of four of our suggestions: 1 . that not more than 12 units be constructed on the property 2. that the units would be rented to permanently -employed residents of Aspen only 3, that there be 12 parking spaces provided for each unit constructed 4. that completed building would not cover more than 40% of the available land excluding a cover for the parking area - if one were built John and I would like to cooperate with you in every way possible. If you have some suggestions for ideas that we have overlooked, please let us know . We would be willing to discuss them with you; and if they seem feasible, we would be willing to incorporate them also . Sincerely, onald J . FI isher DJF:ha post office box n-3 aspen, colorado 81611 303 925-2122 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM `0 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a L. C1. R E S O L U T I O N PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, a request was made to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rezoning of Lots 1 thru 8, Block 8, Riverside Addition from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning by the Doremus/Fleisher Company; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the request December 8, 1970. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Com- mission recommends denial of this request based on the following points: (1) No changes in the character of the area have occured; (2) Existing zoning is correct and in compliance with the adopted plan for the area; (3) Zoning is available that could be developed for multi- family dwellings; (4) The increase in density in this location would have an undesirable affect on the neighborhood. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission is committed to the study and recommendation for means of encouraging inclusion of R-MF type zoning into the existing AR-1 zone, the AR-1 zone presently being too extensive and a combination with R-MF as a conditional use subject to the approval of the Planning Commission is contemplated. DATED THIS 8th DAY OF January , 1971 Robin Molny, Chairman To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Co --mission Date: December 3, 1970 The undersigned are against the proposed change of Lot 8, South of Hiphway 82, between Anderson's Stables and the Buckwheat, presently zoned R-15 to Multiple Dwelling for the purpose of low cost housing. A previous request by Guido Meyer was rejected at a public hearing for property located one block East of said property. Property Owner X e— ✓�ot Address �-e 116 A) C V tx -s e 7- RESOLUTION • WHEREAS, a request was made to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rezoning of Lors 1 thru 8, Block 8, Riverside Addition from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the request December 8, 1970. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of this request based on the following points: (1) No changes in the character of the area have occured. (2) Existing zoning is correct and in compliance with the adopted plan for the area; (3) Zoning is available that could be developed for multi -family dwellings; (4) The increase in density in this location would have an undesirable affect on the neighborhood. HE NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission is committed to the study and recommendation for the inclusion of�R-MF type zoning into the existing AR-1 zone, the AR-1 zone presently being too extensive and a combination with R-MF as a conditional use subject to the approval of the Planning Commission is contemplated. 44 i.'u the • • isnen =- .1ynn.'.S_F • s3►? '` 0?21'lEr k"or ` F-sion The undersianed are a: a in,- t th. :;rc chenr'c of zon in_ of orasentl; - zoned R 15 to !-•ultip? -_: ,a, ily. To zrent a varieneo to one own._r wool_'_ r)v.,,ntuali, eecaletc to ed.jolriin? _,rop©rtia end thi,reby tho cho-rac-�or of the area. "`he present owner rave a ri-lit to protection a.eia t uch threats. They nava settled thore wit'i confidence in too existing law. Constant chences in zonint, will relult in cor_rusion end instsbi ; ity, it will be detrinc�ntal to a crt?prly build—up of s neic-hborhood. It will inject an ins,?curity to the u. � er_t resijents. ' o also wouldik.. e Streams t�.e fact that t}.E ls: in r,`,ontion i:= ;;re:aentl3y, and wes for a lot - timog used ;n violation to the existing zoninf. res-;:)ctfully REZONING RECOMMENDATION 1. - No changes in the character of the area have occurred. 2. - Existing zoning is correct and in compliance with the adopted plan for the area. 3. - Zoning is available that could be developed for multi -family dwellings. 4. - The increase in density in this location would have an undesirable affect on the neighborhood. 000 •WWI — Ar- OF M w I jotp -&.-U . I t AV L�0-2 Pii. i__ 4 • 0 N0M 211- A 12011 d.- 540 -_cK A- - / J lJ i 1 [/c K //'�✓ic ♦ , iJ �t c. vac f-G"f � � 6� D . � ., � � iyss� ✓ese s�. _ �LUC'(L. I / !\QR LL/NL VOA✓LT ut/vd �,CKad.> lc f �Z a,..r FoR �- /LIPr/�/ ez Th Cc NfvrL T_ 4-u r l v LCaS- lC�.�s Z I3 -z- - --- - (; OCR_ �oX 7 1 r M '�IV�ys��✓� 40 E✓rv�r` � t.l'cc — /�B�C ��jUZ �,y�., C'e' _ 4.-L/C L.Q rS p, iY. Cc � Fr/✓ C /,. _ 407S � cI /0 z ol 4LrZ r�lr,34/n 7S7 of IL)Oy rS a - ---- C° t-r --- --- -l?), o C/L J Y No. 303A. RECEIPT AND orTIor.—Bradford Publishing Co., 1824-4G Stoat Street, Denver, Colorado Aspen ..................................... Colorado, ....October 15, .............. , is ... RECEIVED or The Doremus/Fleisher Company the sum of .............. Ten.-a.nd-.no/10-0 . .... �.L'���''�`•� .....Dollars, deposit on account of the purchase price of the following" described real estate, situate in the ........................ ity-.of.Aspen--------------------------------County of ............. ......................................... and State of Colorado to tvit : Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. CONDITIONS: This purchase is contingent upon the re-classification of the above described property from its present classification of R-15 P/C to M/F,,(multi-family) as it presently exists in the City of Aspen Zoning Code on or before days from October 70 eentep ice to be paid is.Thirty.-_Five-.Thousand..and_.no/100x'A-'"'. .................Dolla"�s, of which the amount of this receipt is a part, and the balance is to be paid as follows: Within 10 days following the re-classification of zoning an earnest money payment in the amount of $3,500; on January 15, 1971 the sum of $6,640.00; on January 15, 1972 the sum of $12,250 ,00; on January 15, 1973 the sum of $12,250, with interest at•the rate of 8% per annum on all unpaid balances . Insurance, rent, interest and water to be adjusted to date of transfer. Taxes for the yearn 19 70 are to be paid by the seller. Taxes for the year 1971 are to be paid by the buyer. Price to include: An abstract of title certified to date, or a title insurance policy as evidenced by a title commitment in an I e t t �c �� seller's o �tion and expense, shall be furnished within.3.Q._.. 'c°�za�'�ett�ilbi�' p�'t1,1e�n arranty. clays role e. = gooc anc ut�l lent .................. __________________Deed is to be delivered X-XDh`COC on.1/15/_7c'1i,?tx coliveying said real estate to the said --- Daram- us/F_lei.sh-er.-Company................................... ........M.-its............... heirs or assigns, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances MX*X provided payment is made or tendered as hereinabove set forth. If a merchantable title be not shown by said abstract or title commitment, except as aforesaid and cannot be shown -within .... 9 Q........_.days, the amount received as evidenced by this receipt is to be refunded, but if a clear title be shown, and if pay- ment is not made or tendered as above mentioned, then the money hereby reccipted for is to be held as liquidated damages, and in either case both purchaser and seller are released from all further obligations hereunder. This receipt is made in duplicate. The Terms Hereof Are Hereby Accepted. 4 ....................... _...... ....... .... 6C AKr- THE G DOREMUS/F EISHER CO. 47� i s `s .` ... j.wjl Regular Meeting Aspen_ Planning & Zonin November 10, 1970 Ac�rTDA Minutes - 10/27/70 Pre -hearing - Rezoning Request City Manager Communication Alley Setbacks Leased Parking Locations Planner's Report Rezoning Criteria Transportation Planning Commission Member Reports 0 CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,colorado, a>fsn box v is NOV 19*70 CGLC� f.l) ti�33E51 .__ _1K RcT Uq •34 i �n yF0 SaintY 's Episcopal Church ATT: Father McKeown Pine Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Insuf#icient address 0 11 °.6 ■ a ��*- ,. - ` y: � �• � �;� ,� — —�. # .,;�:� �� .:tea, 7'* { ��• :. .'.e^'' ., -� � ;� -,. ,.' •s°� .. 1 e '� ::. -. � :�'� � �,• a, A:� a ►s; , a � A , r LL � r k• a ,k X sk1' ° r ♦*e a 4, 1x .. AP • � III i „a „ a s - �.. �' '�. i ° '" � • °.:#f �!! H., u' . � ;� � ;;��. fie' , MR - ,,[.. .« , � lam•'. -. ., ail ..` ,� � t f " �'lr # „ ' it � ' � .; •' d *. . ; � pi,` I(�}'�j �ia �-:�j ;sy'.� �° � p v ♦ v, , e "m jam' s, • R a^ , � 4 i i l i u � F c b , ( l III t- r Sa , ar T , a. a