HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.1975 Downzoning.74-77 f ,
4
! t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (Kane)
RE: "Zoning Code Changes" - Report from the Planning and Zoning
Commission
•
DATE: May 5, 1977
In °the fall of 1975, John Stanford and I appeared before the Council
with a presentation on a wide range of zoning amendments to the City
Zoning Code with the major thrust of reducing tourist condominiums and
commercial and office densities in the City. This set of recommenda-
tions was referred to P&Z for comment and review and on April 2 , 1976
that Board did pass on a set of recommendations to Council . In sub-
sequent study sessions, the Council arrived at a concensus on certain
P&Z recommendations and formally amended the Code by ordinance in
areas where agreement was reached (CC, 0, and CL zones) . Certain
other recommendations by P&Z were referred back to P&Z in hopes of
receiving more stringent controls.
There are two general classes of recommendations before the Council
at this time and consist of:
1 . Items referred back to P&Z
2. Items upon which the Council and P&Z agree.
Please find attached a P&Z resolution which deals with the first set
dated April 19, 1977 and a simple listing of those items for change
upon which Council and P&Z agree.
On Monday night we will recommend and ask for authorization for pre-
paration of an ordinance for first reading for your May 23 meeting.
The amendments outlined in the attached list have the full support of
the planning staff. We will make a detailed presentation on Monday
night.
•
lmk
•
RESOLUTION
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING .COM'1ISSION
Recommending Several Changes to the Zoning Code as
Refined from City Council
•
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission made recom-
mendations to amend the Aspen Zoning Code and Zone District Map over
the past year, and
•
WHEREAS, City Council has received the Planning and Zoning
Commission' s recommendation and has either: 1 ) acted on the recom-
mendations by holding public hearings on ordinances that , after two
public readings , have been adopted, thereby amending the zoning code , (:;,--
2) delayed action on the recommendations pending further study and
discussion, or 3) referred specific recommendations back to the Planning
and Zoning Commission for further consideration, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a
public hearing on those changes referred from City Council as properly
noticed for April 5, 1977, and
WHEREAS, Section 24-11 .7 provides that if the Commission
shall affirmatively recommend changes to the map or code, and do so
by resolution, such recommendations shall have an interim effect all
as further described in said section, and
WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to make known its recommendation
with respect to those referred changes , and formalize its report in
resolution form such as to enjoy the effects of Section 24-11 .7 .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen , Colorado recommends the following
amendments to the zoning code and district map:
1 . Commercial 1 : The Commission confirms their first recom-
mendation to amend the floor area ratio (FAR) of the Commercial One
(C1 ) District to 1 :1 by right plus a density bonus of 0.5: 1 for resi-
dential use, constructed in conformance with a duly adopted housing
plan for the City of Aspen, the Commission being of the opinion that:
•
i ) this change will generate a desirable mix of uses in the commercial
areas of town; ii ) commercial uses will be available to subsidize
residential uses , and iii ) commercial uses beyond the second floor
are not practical and the third and fourth floors are more amenable
to residential uses. In addition, the Planning and Zoning Commission
is of the opinion that future development in the Cl district will
have at least one-third less space in commercial use than presently
permitted.
2. The Commission recommends that the maximum square footage
of major appliance stores be 6,000 square feet (The code permits
12,000 square feet and Planning and Zoning 's first recommendation was
to reduce the maximum FAR to 9,000 square feet).
3. The Commission recommends that the property located north-
east of the intersection of Spring and Main Streets (presently zoned
R-MF) be zoned as follows : i) zone the south portion of the property
between Main Street and the extended center line of the first alley
north of Main Street as R-MF PUD; and ii ) zone the property north of
the extended alley centerline R6 PUD. In addition , the Commission
recommends that this property (along with the Buchannan Property)
should be considered for future public moderate housing (PMH) after
such a zone category is adopted.
4. The Commission hereby notifies the City Council of their
intent to develop a concept for the public moderate housing zone
(PMH) , and the Commission is currently studying the concept.
5. The Commission recommends amendment to Section 24-3.7(3) (2)
to include basements and sub-basements in the CC and Cl FAR calcula-
tions (not to include sub-grade off street parking , however) . In all
other districts, sub-grade space and parking accessory to primary uses
are excluded from FAR calculations . Space dedicated to mechanical
operation of the building in all districts shall be excluded from FAR
calculations. This provision is designed to encourage the innovative
use .of alternative energy sources.
DATE "„ ' // e/ /97 ;7 ��{:� `" � •
'Y Chairman , Planning and Zoning Commission
•
I , (7(^-1)( (-4 lac , Deputy City Clerk for the
City of Aspen , Colorado, do certify that the foregoing Resolution was
adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular
meeting held Tuesday, April / J , 1977.
- 2 -
4
AREAS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNCIL AND P&Z
— Neighborhood Commercial - PUD
FAR 0.5:1 (formerly 1 :1 )
— Service Commercial/Industrial
FAR 1 :1 (formerly 2:1 )
— Square Footage Limitations
Food Store - 12,000 sq.ft. net for food products
3,000 sq.ft. accessory products and storage
15,000 sq.ft. TOTAL
— Mixed Residential (West)
R-15 (formerly R-6)
— Oklahoma Flats
R-30 P.U.D. (formerly R-15 PUD)
— Holy Cross Property
R-30 P.U.D. (formerly R-15 PUD)
— Lakeview Subdivision
R-15 P.U.D. (formerly R-6 PUD)
— R-15 Lodge P.U.D. Areas
Maintain R-15 Lodge PUD
MEMORANDUM
•
•
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Rezoning from 1/1 to 0.5 F.A.R.
Referral Comment From Planning and Zoning Commission
DATE: June 23, 1977
As part of the general rezoning for the City of Aspen approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and now pending before the City Council
(Ordinance #30) , the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone Floor Area Ratio
(F.A.R. ) is recommended for change from 1/1 to 0.5. As a practical
matter, the 0.5 F.A.R. has been in effect for a year-and-a-half due to
the fact that after the Planning and Zoning motion recommending a .5
F.A.R. For example, the Trueman project was reviewed and approved
according to the .5 F.A.R.
Mr. Bayard Hovdesven is the owner of Lots R and S, Block 106 Aspen
Townsite which are the two undeveloped lots directly east and contiguous
to 'the Durant Mall . Mr. Hovdesven has applied to the Board of Adjustment
for a variance to the .5 F.A.R. to allow a 1/1 F.A.R. on these two lots.
The Board of Adjustment refused to act on the application and referred
the matter back to the City Council to consider changing the F.A.R. back .
to 1/1 .
The City Council has tabled Second Reading of Ordinance 30 establishing
the .5 F.A.R. for the NC Zone pending comment from the Planning and
Zoning on the Hovdesven request.
The Planning and Zoning Commission by unanimous vote on June 21 , 1977,
supports the retention of the "old" 1/1 F.A.R. for lots R and S, Block
106 and thereby recommends against the adoption of the .5 F.A.R. for the
NC zone. This conclusion is based on the following reasons :
1 . The Hovdesven lots are the only remaining undeveloped
lots in the NC zone. The .5 F.A.R. would produce a
one-story building of 3,000 square feet in size.
The adjacent Durant Mall complex approved via Ordinance
#19 has a 2.5 to 3.0 F.A.R. A small one-story structure
adjacent to the Durant Mall would be significantly out
of scale with the massive structure of the three story
Durant Mall . Also, development in the immediate area
exceeds a .5 F.A.R.
2. The Planning Office anticipates additional requests for
rezoning to NC. At the time of these requests , we wi l l again
analyze the appropriateness of the 1/1 F.A.R.
3. The NC zone is mandatory P.U.D. zone. Specific develop- '
ment review will be accomplished at the time of P.U.D.
application.
4. The applicant has previously argued for a change of zoning
from NC to C-1 . We strongly support the retention of the
NC zone for this property.
lmk
{
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Status of Pending Downzoning
DATE: December 18, 1975
The recent "downzoning" proposal for Aspen was initiated by the City
Council and referred to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for
comment approximately two months ago. Due to the pressure of ongoing
case review items (Callahan Subdivision, and Trueman Property, etc.
and various ordinance reviews such as 66, 67, 71 and the open space
dedication requirement). A special study session was set by the
P & Z on December 4, 1975, to consider the downzoning proposal . The
P & Z further considered the proposal at their December 9 and December.
16 meetings, at which time the Planning Office. submitted additional
data requested by the Planning Commission on buildout estimates allowed
by the new zone requirements.
At the December 9, 1975, meeting of the Planning Commission the members
unanimously voted to request a study session with the Council and
Planning Office concerning various items which included the downzoning
proposal . This request has been forwarded by letter to the Council
under separate cover.
The next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission will
be January 6, 1976.
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • P. O. BOX 4096 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE. (303) 925-5232
T August 7, 1974
K
Spencer Schiffer, Chairman
NCity Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: City of Aspen Revised District Map and Zoning Code
0
UDear Mr. Schiffer,
NThe Board of Commissioners of Pitkin County at their
Tregular meeting on Monday, August 5, 1974, endorsed the following
Ymotion by majority vote:
"That a letter be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the City of Aspen to be read into the record of the Public
Hearing on August 8, 1974, stating that
1) Pitkin County has recently enacted a rezoning resolution
for the County;
2) The Commissioners have recently reviewed the City of
Aspen's Revised District Map and Zoning Code, and find
the proposed rezoning in the City to be compatible with
and directed to the same goals and objectives as the
County rezoning and the two codes appear to be comple-
mentary; and
3) The Board of Commissioners wholeheartedly endorse and
urge that said Revised District Map and Zoning Code
be adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission
for the mutual benefit of the residents of both the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Joseph .C.7w.r.s, •
•
ASPEN/ PITK • ,� - ing Department
� � •
"i street
130 so • ,
aspen , - 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Rezoning Notice Procedures
DATE: June 11 , 1976
This is a proposal initiated by the Planning Office to amend the
ntoice procedures required for public hearings in the City of
Aspen as more specifically defined in the proposed ordinance
written by Sandy Stuller. The essential change would be to give
ntoice to residential condominium unit owners via their home owners
association rather than individual unit owners.
The reason for this proposal is to reduce the significant administrative
costs involved in public and private development related applications.
For example, the recent decision to rezone the property of Stan
Johnson at the base of Little Nell , Aspen Square, Aspen Chateaus, Aspen
Alps, etc. Normal procedure for the applicant is to contact a title
company for a listing of current owners within 300 feet of the subject
property researching of addresses, and mailing by first class mail to
property owners. Such a detailed process is time consuming and
expensive.
The Planning Office feels the proposed amendment would satisfy our
legal and moral obligation to notify owners in the vicinity of the
application; significantly reduce public and private development
expense; and facilitate the process of development review and code amend-
ment. We recommend adoption of the amendment.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 17, 1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROM;- Sandra M. Stuller
RE: Amended O-S District; Amendment to the
Zoning Code; Ordinance No. 05 , Series of 1975
At your request I am submitting a redraft of the
previously submitted Ordinance No. 85 which creates the O-S
Open Space Zoning District. I hope it meets your objectives.
SS/pk
•
1
ri(44-7
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 16, 1976
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: , • - u uller
R:, : Homes for the Age _
Members of City Council:
The General Assembly this year addressed the question
of the exclusion by municipalities of homes for the aged from
residential districts. More specifically, the legislature, in
H.B. 1058, declared that it is "the policy of this state to enable
and assist persons sixty years of age or older who do not need
skilled or intermediate care facilities, and who so elect, to
live in normal residential surroundings, including single family
residential units" . Consequently, the General Assembly has
mandated that each municipality, which has adopted a zoning
code, provide for the location of group homes for the aged
within the municipality.
Aspen has never, to my knowledge, prohibited such
uses in its residential districts; however, to comply with the
mandates of H.B. 1058, we presented to the P&Z for its consideration
the following amendment to Sec. 24-3 . 7 (Supplementary Regulations)
of the zoning code:
(m) In all residential districts there shall be
permitted the establishment of owner-occupied
or non-profit group homes for the exclusive use
of not more than eight persons (sixty years of age
or older) per home, provided that such persons do
not need skilled and intermediate care facilities.
A group home for the aged established under this
subsection shall not be located within seven hundred
fifty feet of another such group home. Nothing here-
in shall be construed to exempt such group homes
from compliance with any state, county or municipal
health, safety and fire code provisions.
The proviso prohibiting establishment of such homes
within seven hundred fifty feet of each other is contained in
H.B. 1058. However, the bill permits the City to reduce this
" w
Memo to Members of City Council
November 17, 1976
Page 2
distance or remove such restrictions altogether. The P&Z
retained the 750 foot limitation; consequently, it is incorporated
in the ordinance proposed.
SMS:mc
Attachment
e,rif CJE
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (JS)
RE: Council's review of P & Z zoning amendment recommendations.
DATE: November 15, 1976
City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission's zoning amendment
recommendations on two different occasions, and this memo identifies
the present status of the recommendations. Some items represent less
restrictive positions than taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission,
and either have been or will be scheduled for ordinance adoption by
Council. Others are more restrictive than P & Z positions and will
require rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Less Restrictive Positions by Council
- Commercial Lodge - CL
Council changed P & Z's CL recommendation from a reduced
external FAR of 1.5:1 to maintain the present external
FAR of 2:1. P & Z's recommendation to reduce the height
limit to 28 feet was supported by Council plus a recom-
mendation for the Planning Office to study measures by
which design flexibility could be incorporated into the
code to permit building designs that would maintain FAR
but permit encroachment in height and other area and bulk
requirements. Council is proceeding to adopt this amendment
into the zoning code.
- Riverside (Buchanan) Property
Council recommended retaining the R-6/PUD designation
for the Riverside property (located along the river below
the bus station) which P & Z recommended for R-15/PUD.
- Aspen One Property
Council also recommended retaining the R-6/PUD designation
for the Aspen One property. P & Z's recommendation was for
R-15/PUD.
These alterations from P & Z recommendations can proceed to
the first and second readings and public hearing by Council.
More Restrictive Positions by Council
These positions will require rehearing by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
- Commercial One - C-1
Council requests a lower FAR than P & Z's recommendation
(1:1 plus a bonus of 0.5:1 in moderate income housing by
special review) . Council's request is for a FAR of 0.75:1
by right plus a bonus of 0.5:1 in moderate income housing
by special review. Council agreed with P & Z's recommended
32 foot height limit plus the special review provision to
permit heights of up to 40 feet when deemed appropriate
-with public benefits of open space and creation of scenic
vistas. Subgrade levels are to be included in FAR calculations.
i
- Square Footage Limitations
Council requested a further reduction in square footage
for applicance stores from P & Z's recommendation of 9,000
square feet to 6,000 square feet.
• - Spring and Main Street Property (Northeast corner)
Council disagreed with P & Z's recommendation to maintain
the R-MF on the Spring and Main Street property and
recommends the zoning be changed to R-6 PUD.
- New Residential Zone - PMH
Council requested the Planning Office to develop a zone
district similar to the County's Public Moderate Housing
Zone (PMH) which is designed to stimulate housing develop-
ments that are offered to local citizens at reasonable
prices through rent and resale contracts.
• - CC & C-1 Floor Area Ratio Calculations
By resolution Council rejected the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation to include subgrade space in
in CC and C-1 district FAR calculations. Subsequently
Council reversed .its position in support of P & Z's
recommendation, however, the recommendation will require
rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the
following:
9G G In calculating the FAR in the CC and C-1 districts all basements
G .w` CL and sub-basements shall be included in FAR regardless of use
rAAL. L,�LG't except that space dedicated to off-street parking. In all
other districts basement storage accessory to primary uses
and sub-grade parking shall not be included in FAR calculations.
�
Position Agreements by Council
Council agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendations on the following:
- Commercial Core - CC
FAR 1.5:1 by right
0.5:1 when 0.3 is devoted to moderate cost housing
with the remaining 0.2 for commercial
2.0:1 Maximum TOTAL FAR
- Neighborhood Commercial - PUD
FAR 0.5:1 (formerly 1:1)
- Service Commercial/Industrial .
FAR 1:1 (formerly 2:1)
- Office-0
Combined 0-1 and 0-2 into one Office Zone with revised area
and bulk requirements, uses and conditional uses.
• FAR 0.75:1 by right
0.25:1 additional FAR when developed as moderate cost
housing as approved by the Housing Authority
1.0:1 Maximum TOTAL FAR
The 0-Office amendment has been adopted by Council.
-2-
- Square Footage Limitations
Food Store - 12,000 sq.ft. net for food products
3,000 sq.ft. accessory products and storage
15,000 sq.ft. TOTAL
- Mixed Residential (West)
• R-15 (formerly R-6)
- Oklahoma Flats
R-30 P.U.D. (formerly R-15 PUD)
- Holy Cross Property
R-30 P,U.D. (formerly R-15 PUD)
- Lakeview Subdivision
R-15 P.U.D. (formerly R-6 PUD)
' - R-15 Lodge P.U.D. Areas
Maintain R-15 Lodge PUD
r
-3-
zs�
n'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
DATED: September 3 , 1974
RE: PRELIMINTARY REPORT ON PROPOSED REZONING
By your motion of July 8, 1974 , you directed that the
Planning & Zoning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed
rezoning as recommended by the Planning Department and submit
recommendations to you on or before September 1, 1974. Pursuant
to that directive, a public hearing was held on August 8, 1974,
and was continued to August 15 , 1974. Written comments were
accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 20 , 1974. During
the period from July through August, 1974, the Planning & Zoning
Commission has met in several intensive study sessions relative
to the proposed rezoning. As a result of these study sessions ,
the Planning & Zoning Commission finds that the proposed zoning
map and zoning code are in large part unacceptable, primarily
for the following reasons : .
1. The concept of "zoning to use" together with the
designation of numerous non-cumulative zoning districts, is
arbitrary , discriminatory, and an undesirable method of accomplishing
the objectives of the 1973 Land Use Plan,
2 . The proposed map and code fail to effectively accomplish
what the P & Z perceives to be objectives of paramount importance
with respect to new zoning, to wit: restricting the increase in
development and construction of tourist accommodations to a
designated area or areas within the City while permitting and
encouraging an increase in the number of housing units constructed
for permanent employees.
The recommendations of the Planning Department were not finalized
and presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission in comprehensive
form until the first week in July . Each member was given the
proposed maps and code to study and study sessions were planned
prior to setting a public hearing. Although we felt that the public
hearing was therefor set and held prematurely , we proceeded
according to your directive. It was not until after the public
hearing that we were able, as a body, to study and discuss the
proposed maps and code in detail.
Over -the -past- several weeks we have made a. very intensive effort
to revise the proposed maps and code so that the sariie could be
presented to Council within the prescribed deadline; however,
a task of this magnitude cannot be accomplished with any degree
of success in such a short period of I time . Nevertheless, we have
been able to make several positive and concrete recommendations
to the Planning Department . The Planning Department has
commenced work on the implementation of those recommendations;
however, it is the concensus of both the P & Z and the Planning
Department that it will take at least several more weeks of
intensive work by both groups to arrive at a workable proposal.
Given sufficient time and an adequate opportunity to work out
the details with the Planning Department , we feel we can present
a plan which will be much more effective in accomplishing those
objectives than the present plan.
In conclusion, rather than making limited substantive recommendations
and presenting you with an unfinished, work product , the Planning
& Zoning Commission wishes to recommend and respectfully requests
that you remove any deadlines and allow us the time necessary to
do the job properly .
•
•
- 2 -
LAW OFFICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH &. JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET
LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN,COLORADO 61611
RONALD D.AUSTIN
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,JR.
WILLIAM R.JORDAN III
AREA CODE 303
ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600
BARRY D. EDWARDS June 17, 1977
The City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Ordinance No. 30 (Series of 1977) - Reduction of
External Floor Area Ratio in Neighborhood Commer-
cial Zone
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
We represent Bayard Y. Hovdesven who is the owner of
Lots R and S, Block 106, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lots R and
S are situate on the northwest corner of Durant and Original
streets, within the block that currently accommodates the Durant
Mall (to the west) , City Market (to the north) , and the Viking
Commercial Building. Across Durant Street to the south are the
Chateaux Chaumont and Dumont Condominiums; across Original Street
to the east are Der Mittendorf Condominiums. The property is
zoned Neighborhood-Commercial (NC) , contains a building site of
6, 000 square feet, and Mr. Hovdesven wishes to construct a commer-
cial building thereon of this approximate size.
Mr. Hovdesven' s development plans are, of course, pre-
cluded by the pendancy of Ordinance 30 (specifically Section 1 (b)
thereof) , which as the Commission doubtless is aware is the re-
sult of its resolution dated April 2, 1976 that recommended to the
City Counsel, inter alia, a reduction in the external floor area
ratio (FAR) for the NC zone from 1:1 to 0. 5: 1 in order:
" . . to insure that the Neighborhood
Commercial developments are of a scale
that is compatible with the residential
areas they are designed to service. "
Ordinance No. 30 came before the Council for second
reading at its last meeting June 13, 1976. At that time we, along
with the Planning Department, sought an amendment to the ordinance
to delete therefrom the reduction in the FAR in the NC zone. As a
result, the second reading of the ordinance was tabled pending the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8 JORDAN
The City of Aspen
June 17, 1977
Page Two
Against this background, we would hereby request that
the Commission resolve and recommend to the Council the deletion
of Section 1 (b) of Ordinance No. 30 . This would permit Mr.
Hovdesven to develop his property at a FAR of 1: 1. We believe
sound reasons support this request.
First, Lots R and S, Block 106 , are the only remaining
undeveloped lots in the NC zone and, hence, for all practical in-
tents and purposes at this juncture are the only properties affected
by the proposed reduction of the FAR in the NC zone. This rather
fortuitous result apparently was unintended. Indeed, the Planning
Office has represented to the Council that, in their estimation, the
inclusion of Lots R and S within Ordinance No. 30 was virtually un-
witting--it being the intent of the ordinance to reach larger commer-
cial projects, such as the Truman Project, and not one such as that
proposed by Mr. Hovdesven. Apparently, the undeveloped state of
Lots R and S and that they are the only properties currently directly
affected by the reduced FAR was overlooked during consideration of
the change in the first instance. Furthermore, we have, as well been
given to understand that, at this time, the Planning Office' s princip-
al concern with the stricter FAR in the NC zone is referrable to a
future point in time in connection with anticipated rezoning to NC
in the west end of town. Needless to say, we appreciate the Planning
Office' s candor and frankness in this regard and would commend to
you that, quite simply, there really is no need to change the FAR in
the NC zone at this time.
Second, we also submit that to impose the reduced FAR at
this time, when only Lots R and S are to be affected, would thwart
the very purposes of the proposed change which briefly stated are to
insure scale compatability with uses in the vicinity. Given the
clear commercial orientation of Block 106 itself, and the rather
large-scale condominium projects in the area, we believe a project
scaled at a FAR of 1 :1 would plainly be more consonant therewith
than would a project of one-half that size.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Very 4uly yours
By i �
(r, 44''
` �x�,
'obert W. Hughe .
/ljh