Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Hotel Jerome.1969-1973 ffit s/ AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this // day of April, 1973, by and between JOHN F. GILMORE, whose address is P. 0. Box J, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereinafter referred to as "Gilmore") , and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation whose address is P. 0. Box V, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (herinafter referred to as "City") ; WITNESSETH WHEREAS , Gilmore is the owner of Lots A, B, C and D, Block 79, City of Aspen, Colorado, and has filed an application with City requesting that said Lots be rezoned from R-6 Residential to AR-1 Accommodations Recreation- Urban; and WHEREAS, Gilmore has also submitted to the Aspen Plan- ning and Zoning Commission a proposal describing the proposed development of said Lots and of Gilmore's adjoining property lying within said Block 79, which proposal includes the remo- deling of the existing Hotel Jerome structure; and WHEREAS , following a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved and recommended the rezoning of said Lots in accordance with Gilmore' s application, subject to compliance by Gilmore with certain requirements as set forth in the Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission dated October 26, 1972 ; and WHEREAS , following a careful review of the matter, the Aspen City Council has determined that the rezoning of said Lots in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion's recommendations will be in the best interest of the Aspen community and will serve to promote the health, safety and general welfare thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereby agree as follows, to wit : 1. City agrees to take all actions necessary to rezone Lots A, B, C, and D, Block 79, City of Aspen, Colorado, from R-6 Residential to AR-1 Accommodations Recreation- Urban, and to amend the Aspen Zoning District Map accordingly, upon compliance by Gilmore with the following requirements : (a) The approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City -, Council of a preliminary site plan covering said Lots as well as Gilmore's adjoining property lying within said Block 79, showing the density, location, and exterior design of all proposed buildings and of the Hotel Jerome remodeling, access thereto, and providing for adequate landscaping and adequate on site or leased parking, which preliminary site plan shall generally be in accord with the recommendations of 7. the Planning and Zoning Commission set forth in its Resolu- tion of October 26, 1972, and the approval by the Aspen Plan- ning and Zoning Commission of a final site plan substantially in accordance with the preliminary site plan which final site plan shall recite that the matters shown thereon shall bind the owner of such property, his successors and assigns, and shall run with the title to such property. (b) The recording of the approved site plan in the real property records of Pitkin County; (c) The issuance of a building permit by the City Building Inspector for the entire project covered by the approved site plan; and (d) The amendment of the Zoning District Map of the City of Aspen by the designation of the Hotel Jerome building as an H, Historic Overlay District pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.1 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, and shall not be assignable by Gilmore, except assignment to a corporation or limited partnership or entity in which Gilmore has control, without the prior written consent of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. JOHN F. GI MORE T CITY OF ASPEN ATTEST: / .0 By 4 CITY CLERK MA OR ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO,u nSSION RESOLUTION CONCERNING TEE HOTEL JES O E REZONING REQUEST situated as a portion Location: Lots A,R ,C & I7 :in Block 79 P of the Hotel Jerome properties on the southeast corner of Monarch and Blacker Streets in the City of Aspen, Colorado. From: R-6 Residential To: AR-1 Accommodations Recreation--Urban Purpose: Residential development (condominiums) and related uses WHEREAS , JOHN F. GILMORE has filed an application to rezone Lots A,B,C & D situated in Block 79 within the City of Aspen , Colorado from R-6 Residential to AR-1 Accommodations Recreation--- Urban; and WHEREAS , a public hearing was scheduled for, advertised for • and held on September 21, 1972 before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS , based on the evidence, testimony, letters and exhibits submitted and a study of the 1966 Aspen Area General. F.ia:=n the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows : 1. The proposed change in zoning, without an increase in the density allowed under existing zoning, conforms with the intent and purpose of the Aspen City Zoning Code as outlined in Section 24-1 (a) 2. "To lessen congestion in the streets ; to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers ; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate adequate prov1S7_oa of transportation, water, sewerage , schools , paH:.s ti 24-1 ( 1 "to and other �:�Uf7.tl,.(� i_"i.'.{iliirE'"Illt'_i7t:S . Section 24^'.L (a) 1. promote he.ilt11 , safety and general welfare of the cormeu3it:, and Cer,'.t: on 74.-1. (a) 3 . , "To conserve the value of hu!.l::i l ;�' o f iiitti E'Sif''�1.1`� �:;f'' �!:.'. 11,C_>f" �":.(?�)!'°(:)�)'i Z?t:t' i1��t� l,aIld t.hi_C)1.:,:,hC'll -2- the municipality, " are advanced by the proposed zone change, without increase in density, because it would allow a more appropriate use of the land and a site plan that insures the preservation of a building that contrib- utes character and prestige to the entire community. 2. The preservation and protection of the established residential area north of Bleeker Street and west of Monarch Street is of utmost importance and through this rezoning said streets can be established as a buffer between residential land use and development of a higher intensity by requiring site planning that relates the development to the Hotel Jerome and not toward Monarch and Bleeker Streets . Testimony from many area residents voiced the concern that this request, if granted, would establish a precedent for additional high density encroachment. The use of anothers ' property fora residential buffer zone is not correct and a street used to form a buffer is the best possible alterna- tive. The architectural design of the buildings constructed on the applicant' s property on Bleeker and Monarch Streets is critical to the protection of the forementioned resi..denti_al. area. Block 79 is at present, and should continue to be, oriented toward Main and Mill Streets . However, this cannot be assured by the present zoning. 3. Significant changes in the condition of the area have occurred that warrant the proposed zoning alteration. Commercial floor space, off -street parking and activity in general in the area have substantially increased since April of 1967 when the R°6 Residential zoning classification was placed on the pro ',r•ty. Relocation of the City ' s public sp al1'illi.ng fa.. -i_1 _ OW .) 1rem tLe pr pe1: ty C(10 -ti•-tU1 e -a - - -3- significant change in condition. The zoning code has been amended to include an H-Historic Overlay District which provides for the preservation and continued existence of historic sites and structures . 4. Site development approval by the public sector is essential if the public safety, interest and general welfare are to be advanced. Planning and development of the property as a total entity (under appropriate zoning) is the best possible way to ensure compliance with the intent of the General Plan and create development that is aesthetical?_- pleasing and economically viable. Duplex development (4 units) as allowed under the existing zoning, would not be compatible with other uses in Block 79 and because site plan approval is not required traffic could be generated directly onto Bleeker and Monarch Streets with development under the existing zoning. This would not create the buffer desired as practically as would development oriented toward Mill and Main Streets . • S. The remainder of. the applicant' s property is zoned C-1 Commercial (as is the rest of Block 79) and the densities and uses allowed are as listed in the zoning code. The density recommended for the property in question by the General Plan is four (4) dwelling units (duplexes) . The density contributed by these 4 lots toward th total project should remain in compliance with that recommendation (4 dwelling units) to keep the density at a level that will create a density transition between the higher intensity uses in Block 79 and the established residential area to the nortL. and west. As mentioned above, this development concept is more":' suitable for the property than duplex dev€i opulent. -4- 6. The preservation and restoration of the Hotel Jerome, in keeping with the City ' s H-Historic Overlay Zone District, is an important consideration for the protection of Aspen' s historic--cultural resources and general welfare. 7. A development plan encompassing just the applicant' s property now zoned C-1 would be more economically feasible • if the Hotel Jerome were replaced. 8. A previous petition for rezoning (to C-1 Commercial) was denied because it was felt it would set a precedent for additional rezonings along Bleeker Street and it was suggested that the applicant approach the Board of Adjustment for a use variance. The proposed rezoning before us now would seem to satisfy our interpretation of that decision in that it would a) establish a legally sound buffer (Monarch and Bleeker. Streets) between existing commercial and planned accommodations uses and the established residential area b) would not increase density, and c) would allow the applicant land use site planning flexibility. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission does hereby recommend to the Aspen City Council that John F. Gilmore' s application to rezone. Lots A,B ,C & D in Block 79 from R-6 Residential to AR-1 Accommodations Recreation.- Urban be granted subject to the following conditions : 1. Density contributed to the total project from Lots A,B,C & D be four (4) dwelling units as recommended by the 1966 Aspen. Area General Plan. 2. The applicant shall agree to allow II-Historic Overlay District designation of the Hotel Jerome building and the patio area which. exists between the hotel and the Aspen. Times bui_ld.ing. 3. Development- of the total property owned by the appii. au,. shall be by a site plan approved by the Planning and Zoni_niT. -5- Commission and the City Council and shall encompass the following: a. Architectural review of the Monarch and Bleeker Street building frontages ; b. Review of pedestrian and vehicular access from all streets; • • c. Landscaping plans for Bleeker and Monarch Street property lines ; d. Complimentary design to the Hotel Jerome and compatibility with the character of the surrounding residences on Monarch and Bleeker Streets ; e. Limit Lots A,B ,C & D to accommodations, residential and related open space and recreational uses; f. Underground parking. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the applicant for the zoning change enter into an agreement with the City placing such conditions as are recommended herein as covenants affecting and running with said property. James Breasted, Vice Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Approved this s , ip day of C t fir,y 1972. r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 73-19 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25 , 1962, as amend- ed, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoaing Resolution, Title XI, Official Code of . Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections . If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious con- sideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. . The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: June 28 , 1973, City Council Chambers Time: 3: 00 p.m. i Name and Address of Applicant for Variance : Name: John Gilmore, Hotel Jerome Address : Box J, Aspen, Colorac o-* Location or description of property: Location: 330 E. Main St. Description: Aspen, Colorado Variance requested: See Attached. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY ` /^--u-,-J :a4/ (:;;;T Chairman by Leg • APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN ",Y 29-73 227n:a ** .. .. • Date 1 -,Agy '2 1979 Case No. - /7 Appe llant lt-1i/1,O1 Address F3' .J • Owner 5 ■•t•. Address `IN4,1 Location of Property , e r -'LAct4.3 S(fQ , (Street & Number of Subdivision Block & Lot No. • Building Permit application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of Case No. The Board will return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Description of proposed exception showing justification: • • Signed r Appellant Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting permit. Application is made for a building permit to remodel the existing Hotel Jerome and to build additional units and commerical space. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS AND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO. REQUIRED - OFF STREET PARKING CANNOT BE PROVIDED ON THE LOT AND. IT IS REQUESTED THAT PARKING SPACES BE LEASED OR ACQUIRED FROM THE ,c TY OF ASP AS IT PERMITTE. IN THE C-C-DISTRICT.STATU�uilding inspector Permit rejected date Decision t �a e ' j Application filed Date of Hearing Mailed Secretary OUTLINE PI-ZOG R! :1 REMODEL OF AND ADDITION TO THE HOTEL _E R OiHE • Pertinent data: Total square footage of lot 47, 712. 24 Lot area covered by hotel_ (excluding annex) 12,210.23 Remaining square footage of lot area not covered by hotel 35,502.01 Non-conforming aspects of existing building: Exceeds allowable height Does not conform to setback regulations Does not have sufficient parking spaces Objectives of project and necessity to obtain variances: The appellant desires to remodel the existing Hotel Jerome and to build additional units and commercial spaces. He will provide _parking but desires to enter into an agreement with the City to lease a portion of the total number of parking spaces which will be required by the new construction. The appellant has agreed to historical zoning for the existing hotel and seeks to exclude the existing rooms and existing floor area from the lot area requirements and floor area ratio requirements of the remaining lot area not covered by the hotel. Variances are sought as follows: 1. Permission to remodel a nonconforming building. 2. Permission to lease parking spaces from the City. 3. Permission to grant a variance to the total allowable number of units.and to the total allowable__floor area ratio of the portion to be zoned historic. The request is that all of the above be granted to the appellant subject to the approval of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council. The appellant feels the request to be valid and grantable for the following reasons, "That special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity aid zone, " (Section 2.22 (7)(d)(2), Chapter 24, Aspen Municipal Code; and because, "The Planning Office 9 has considered three objectives to be of primary importance: (1) The preservation of the Hotel Jerome building as an it±placable historic structure; . . . In order to accomplish the I:ir;t �:bJectl'ie mentioned, it is necessary that the applicant be able to his property according to an economically viable plan. " (Cit v County ueconomically Planner's report to As yen Planning 8, zonin ; • Application for the Hotel. Jerome, Septcn∎heI! 21, 1972. ) , I - .2 e 7 I •I T („- c' 0 ob er 2, 1)69 ?1/t., .--- e.: ers of the 0anoin and.. Zoning Commission, .h • __., ./ 6-7- T regret that plans madeTa , to a() ago prevent me frOP u attending the hearing on the rekuest to rezone the hotel Jerone property. I wovad like tkis sto,tmle.nt be be mso a part of the record of this hearing. 1 firnly believe that it would he a mistake to consider rezoning the subject property at this time. Granting such a request might apen the door for such roquestsfor rezoning the half blocks all. tho ..:suy to Seventh Street. Several sunh requests have already been made. Fo :tat ng the adeption of the spen General Plan, the business district was substantiolly increased in size. There is ample vacant business property wdthout a further increase. The Commission has studied a::.en spaCe requirements for the business district, and. has a request before it from the City Council for regulations providing for ?.5% open s-pace in the C-C and C-1 Districts. To grant a rezoning before solving the open apace problem Tmad be another mistake. I am concerned over the effect of sucthronaning on the residential probortios across 'Sleeker 3treet, as C-1 uses would be facing these residential proerties. There also appears to be consijerablo undeveloped Commercial property included in the Hotel Jerome broperby, no real need ':le,s beenshown for the rezoning of the balance of the property. I believe that the Coanission should recommend no action. at this time, and 0:1- tinue its :=.1tudies of open space, ans.. the bossibility of =ending Title XI to include plannc d. unit development in the Commercial Districts, Yours truly, Francis ' hi taker ::..egardiso; the loci.an of Parking lots or oructures, my first choices would be the preherty adjoining the 'Jheeler Opera House, as recommended in the aster Plan, and the Thomas half block on Durant Avenue. I am against 1...,he use of the Firehouse Pori: for oar in ; unless another Foxk in the daan- ta':1.n area is dedicated as a substitute. It is too easy to take over Parks for other uses. -Ti. 325 South Forest Street Denver, Colorado 60222 October 1, 1969 City of Aspen Planning. and Zoning Commission Aspen, Gblorado 61611 Gentlemen: In regard to the matter of the Petition of John Gilmore , d/b/a The Hotel Jerome, I am in favor of the Hotel Jerome doing business as it has durin the past twenty (20) years. I have heard , however, that if this property is rezoned, that the owner is planning on building where the swimming pool is a condominium on the property/and I am not in favor of this. I believe that it should be kept as it has during the past twenty years. I believe that Bleeker Street should be kept residential as much as possible. Yours truly, J John Crosby Owner of property at 227 E. Blacker i 8400 Biome Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45243 October 14, 1969 Mr. George Heneghen, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission P. O. Box 350 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Heneghen: On October 3, 1969 we sent the following telegram (addressed c/o City Hall, or tel 925-2755) : "Re Rezoning petition of Hotel Jerome. We as property owners diagonally opposite and part time residents strongly oppose regoning of Block 79 lots A through D to Commercial C-1 (signed) F. duPont and Adele Cornelius" We note in the Aspen Times that the requested rezoning was denied. While our opposition was not noted in the newspaper we hope it was received and noted by the Commission. We most certainly do not want any changes in zoning whicn would open the door to commercializm on Bleeker Street. Our property is at 232 East Bleeker Street. Sincerely, F. duPont Cornelius Via Air Mail Adele H. Cornelius . v,.(1,,,,, I I November 17, 1969 Mayor and Members of the City Council Aspen Colorado Your Honor and Gentlemen: At the Council meeting of November 24, 1969 you will vote on the referral from the Planning Commission regarding a request for a change in zoning for a part • of the ot lel Jerome property As the ow sof property located within one- half a block oY the land proposed to be rezoned,;we take this opportunity to inform you of our strong objection to any such rezoning. Were we not bound by previous • committments to be in Boulder, we would be before you in person to express our opinions. Our objections to the proposed rezoning are as follows: 1. The Planning Commission voted four to one to refuse the request to rezone. 2. No property owner outside the hotel block was in favor of the rezoning at the Planning Commission's public hearing. 3. Good zoning always requires a buffer zone between business and • residential zones. • 4. The present R-6 zoning of the five lots in question will allow duplexes -- a logical buffer zoning. 5. A relaxing of zoning at this time will be giving official blessing to . future expansion of business zoning into one of the last, strictly single family areas of Aspen. We therefore respectfully plead that you honor the decision of the Planning • Commission as well as the wishes of all the homeowners in the area and deny the proposed rezoning of the five lots on the Hotel Jerome property. • Very truly yours, • � , • Wiliam C. Light', Joan E. Light ' // • (.219 North Monarch plg WILLIAM G. BRUMDER 743 NORTH WATER STREET ' / VG MILWAUKEE, ISCO ISSIN 53201 y November 18, 1969 To the Aspen City Council Pitkin County Aspen, Colorado Attn: Mr. John Benninghoff Gentlemen: We understand that you_a_r..e_-having_a hearing on November 24th with regard toy ezoning the Hotel Jerom%property for additions. Our residence is located next to the Community Church at 214 East Bleeker Street, diagonal across and half a block west of the Jerome property. Bleeker Street is one of the few in Aspen where the zoning restrictions have not been broken down or changed. For the benefit of the entire community it seems important that commercial use of property be limited and restricted. We realize that the Hotel Jerome is an important asset to Aspen, and we are in favor of its expansion into a profitable economic unit. We, however, feel that there is sizeable space behind (or north of the Jerome Hotel) and also on Main Street, west of the Jerome, for expansion. To construct a four or five story building at the north- west corner of East Bleeker and Monarch Street would give a commercial note to our area and begin the break-down of Aspen's last residential area -- that between Main Street and the Music Tent. We, therefore, recommend leaving the Jerome pool where it is and having the Jerome Hotel expand on the north-east corner of their lot and on the south-west end of their property on Main Street. We feel that expansion at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker would be very damaging to the value of the properties on Monarch, Bleeker and Hallan Streets. 41.41V.4644e4:1114160. W Y • western union telegram 1130A CDT OCT 3 69 Kc154 CTA215 CT LLH94 DT POF 2 EXTRA CINCINNATI OHIO 3 1155A EDT GEORGE HENEGHAN,925-2755, CHAIRMAN ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CARE OF CITYHALL ASPEN COLOo X c RE REZONEING PETITION OF HOTEL JEROME WE AS PROPERTY OWNERS DIAGONALLY OPPOSITE AND PART TIME RESIDENTS STRONGLY OPPOSE PROPOSED REZONEING OF BLOCK 79 LOTS A-D TO COMMERCIAL C1 F DUPONT AND ADELE CORNEILUS (1220) . /6--) 42z72/-) SF-1201 (R5-69) M E M O • • • • • 0 : City Council FROM: Planning & Zoning Commission SUBJECT : hotel Jerome Re-zoning Request • The Planning and Zoning Commission would like t recommend the City Council deny this request. At the public hearing on the above, before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the following points were made: 1. This would set a precedent in this area where other requests '. have been made for changes in zonings and been denied. 2. Feel a buffer zone should be maintained between coumiercial • • and residential and also within such a short distance from the grade schools . • 3. Feel prior to granting of re-zoning, studies should be made • as relates to open space and the possibility of amending Title XI to include planned unit development in the commercial zones . • 4. This project would tend to over-crowd. • S. There is still land available in the C-1 that has not been exercised for C-1 use. • • �rJ ,-1tie, cf�v<< • Lorraine Graves Secretary • • • • • • • • V•_`,•-.,�, ,, each application the format is basically the same: the property is described; the existing zoning and land use \�.� 1�r.✓ pattern in the surrounding area is briefly mentioned; • • v the proposed use (if known) is identified; past zoning • decisions that might affect the case under discussion are mentioned; a recommendation to approve or deny the request •• r A Newsletter of the American Society of Planning Officials - is made, and several general reasons for the staff ►ecom- 1313 East Sixtieth Street Chicago Illinois 60637 mendation are given. is • • i. iP�.r��'r�r"3'•C\� The written staff report with recommendations is a good • Lew IIiJ i. J practice; many other planning agencies make only a brief , • , oral presentation to the commission. However, the staff • should present specific facts to show what impact, • . . if any, the proposed zoning will have on the neighborhood, A publication of the American Society of Planning Officials. Issued the area, and the community at large. As most reports 11 times a year. Permission to reproduce items is granted, provided are now prepared, the reasons for recommending approval credit is given to Planning and the American Society of Plannmg or denial are too general. They are stated, for example, as: Officials. EDITOR Virginia Curtis. there is no demonstrated need for the new zoning; the • ASPO is a nonprofit, professional organization, founded in 1934, whose concern is fostering the best techniques and decisions for new zoning will have a detrimental effect on the sur- . the planned development of communities and regions. Activities rounding area; the present zoning affords reasonable use include research, conferences, and publ"cat,ons; the ASPO Planning of the land; the new zoning is in keeping with what is Advisory Service, and Land Use Controls. happening to the area. Statements of such generality raise PRESIDENT: T. J. Kent, Jr., Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, U. of California, Berkeley. VICE-PRESIDENT: questions. When and how do you demonstrate need for Richard F. Babcock, Vice President, Northeastern Illinois Planning new zoning? How do you prove an effect is detrimental? Commission, Chicago. IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Philip Hammer, What is a reasonable use of land? If the staff report • Economic Consultant and Chairman, National Capital Planning on rezoning applications could be more complete and more Commission, Washington, D.C. TREASURER: Jack Meltzer, Director, specific, commission and council members would be better . • Center for Urban Studies, U. of Chicago. BOARD OF DIRECTORS: •• Frederick T. Aschman, Consultant,Washington, D.C. Edmund N. counseled and more inclined to follow the staff's advice. . i Bacon, Executive Director, Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The following are eicamples�bf`speClfTC?JUesticrrrrth8t Stratman Cooke, Member, Toledo Planning Commission. Patrick ' should be answered, where they are applicable: J. Cusick, Jr., Vice.President and General Marfager, Utchf eld Park I 1, What additional load will the proposed change impose Properties, Litchfield Park, Arizona. Porter Homer, County Manager, Metropolitan Dade County, Miami, Florida. Robert M. Leary, Assistant on public school, street, or public utility capacity in the area? General Manager, National Capital Commission, Ottawa, Canada. 1 If it will create an overload, can sufficient facilities be built I . Frank Lloyd,Member, Marion County Metropolitan Planning ' or expanded to serve the needs of additional residences Commission.William E. McIntyre, Planning Director, Charlotte- I likely to be constructed as a result of such changes? • Mecklenburg Planning Commission. Harvey S. Perloff, Dean, School ! 2. Is the change in accord with existing or proposed area, of Architecture and Urban Planning, U. of California, Los Angeles. " nei hborhood, street, sewer, or water plans? ' John D. Spaeth, Director of Planning, Seattle Department of 9 • Community Development. Roger Starr, Executive Director, 3. How does the change fit into (or not fit into) formal or ••I : ,Citizens' Housing and Planning Council of New York. Paul Ylvisaker, ' informal zoning policies? Specifically, what is the relation of Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. the change to each applicable policy? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Israel Stollman. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR: t 4. What is the amount of vacant land currently zoned for Marione S. Berger. ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH:Jerome L. 3 • Kaufman. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION: June the proposed use in the vicinity? If there is an excess, are. • . Baudoux. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLICATIONS: Q there any special circumstances that make part of such ■ . Virginia Curtis. ss} land unavailable for development? ∎ Second-class posts a paid at Chicago, Illinois. (' 9 9 t 5. At what rate is land being developed for the proposed • use or other uses in the vicinity? ; .._____`� 6. If the change is approved, what will be the probable - r .Rezoning applications . t effect on stimulating similar zoning requests in the vicinity?• v What effect will this then have on public facility capacities? e • In the last few years, ASPO has undertaken studies of i 7. Is the boundary of the proposed change the most • , the program and operations of a number of planning suitable permanent zone boundary? agencies. Despite the fact that the reports reflect the t By stressing the effect the rezoning will have on public . 3 •' individual problems and character of particular agencies service costs and capacities, by viewing it in the context j studied, we believe that they contain material of general of present market activity, and by looking at it in the • applicability to other planning agencies. !n coming issues light of existing policies and plans, the staff will make the • of Planning we will be reproducing portions of these • l report more useful and pertinent. The added benefit reports that deal with specific problems and issues of to the commission and council is obvious. • • a technical nature confronting many planning agencies. . . i • • . ' The following deals with rezoning applications.—Ed. , • The planning staff prepares a written report on rezoning , • applications for each planning commission meeting. For • 126 September 1969 . , I Alt • LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given the AspenPlanning & Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on October 3, 1969 , 5 :00 p.m. , City Council Chambers to consider the re-zoning request submitted to the Commission • for Block 79, Lots A,B,C,D from R-6 to C-1 zoning. Proposal is on file in the office of the City Clerk and may be examined by any interested person or persons during business hours. /s/ George Heneghan Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times September 18, 1969 IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE COUNTY OF PITKIN AND THE STATE OF COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF THE ) PETITION OF JOHN GILMORE, ) PETITION FOR RE-ZONING d/b/a THE HOTEL JEROME ) TO: Messrs. George Heneghan, Francis Whitaker, Robin Molny, Dale Mars, Norm Clasen, J.G. Benninghoff, and the Honorable Robert Barnard Petitioner, by his attorney, Michael J. Fitzgerald, pursuant to Title XI of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, respectfully represents to the Planning and Zoning Commission that: 1 . The real property, which is the subject matter of this petition is described as follows, to-wit: Lots A , B , C and D in Block Seventy-nine (79) in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, as more fully described on the plat annexed hereto as Exhibit A. For convenience, the above described real property will hereafter be referred to as "the premises." 2. The premises are presently zoned R-6 Residential. 3. The premises are presently occupied by the Hotel Jerome swimming pool, and have been for twenty (20) years, last past. 4. The use to wri ch the premises have been put has been principally of a commercial nature for twenty (20) years, last past. 5. All other lots in Block Seventy-nine (79) in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado are presently zoned C-1 Commercial. 6. The owner of the premises is your petitioner. WHEREFORE Petitioner prays that the premises be re-zoned C-1 Commercial to allow utilization of the premises for the construction of uses permitted under C-1 Commercial zoning districts, which use will: a. encourage the most appropriate and suitable use of the premises, b. promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community, and c. promote continued economic growth of the city. Respectfully submitted, Michael J. Fitzgerald Attorney for the Hotel Jerome Address of Petitioner: P. 0. Box J Aspen, Colorado 81611 • it: t '; u tit "ok,, t v , , fink. A pt'n Minn! .g1 w,as called ro order by the Chairman at ': : 1 �....;,e: s present : t ha i r.-man George HenegIian Robin Mc my Francis Whitaker Dale Mars Absent: Mayor Robert Barnard Councilman John Benninghoff Norman Clasen Motion was made by Whitaker, seconded by Mt..,1,; , approve the minutes of June 24th and July Minutes prepared and mailed by the Secretary. All in t , . motion carried. Re-zoning request - Attorney Oates was present tt►rfa° ing Paul Saurel and Max Marolt and request the fttc ls ,' Sleeker St. of the Commission of initiating re-zoning of t,les#0-6 Re-zoning side of Bleeker from Mill to 6th from R-6 to AR- 11414 would allow higher density and lesson the non-cooftimmi uses in that area. Mr. Oates stated it seemed slat logical to have a break in the zoning by a s t rc c t Aa,t than the alley. City Engineer Mahnke suggest chaning the zoning t,7Rnf Mr. Whitaker stated he would be reluctant to set precedent of initiating zoning under these ciraw and also would be against the zoning as outlines: 4 /4 Master Plan. Commission agreed not to initiate this change in straw) Legal Opinions - Chairman Heneghan stated to th Attorney that the Commission is concerned in that MA Legal Opinions ,1. are not getting theii legal opinions which have ben Irequested. City Attorney Kern stated he did not submit a wrist- : legal opinion on service yards as the definition of Service Yards already existed in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Whit.9'. stated the building inspector is still not that cis ::' on how to interpret the definition such as trash containers . Attorney Kern to discuss this with ftt: building inspector. Street plans for subdivisions outside City limit:; t „ Subdivision-County within the 3 mile radius . Commission questioned w3. a' can the City do if a street plan does not exist . Attorney Kern stated although the County did not ad ',: the major street plan in the Master Plan, the City. zE A ther_ef cm., the City Planning and Zoning does have i, 45 • ,..�: called to order by the Chairman at 5 : 20 p, .c rs present : c ba i:man George Heneghan Molny ; rant is Whitaker Norm Clasen Absent : Mayor Robert Barnard Councilman John Benninghoff Dale Mars Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of the last Minutes Planning and Zoning meeting held on August 12 , Po) , as prepared and mailed by the Secretary. Seconde : by Clasen. All in favor, motion carried. A_request for a public hearing on re-zoning of B10/ 1, x`79) Lots A, B, C and D was reviewed by the Conunisr e , Re-zoning Discussed plalned unit development for this area. Request Whitaker to check out and see if planned unit dev- elopment is allowed in commercial zones. Heneghan moved to schedule a public hearing on 0ctohet 28th on proposed re-zoning request of Block 79 , Iot ., A, B, C and D . Seconded by Whitaker. All in favor , motion carried. Schedule public hearings - Lot 22 Annexation, Alpine Public Hearings Lodge Annexation and capital improvements. Scheduled Molny moved to schedule public hearings at a special meeting to be held on September 30th 5 :00 p.m. on Lot 22 Annexation zoning, Alpine Lodge zoning and capi t =_ { improvements program. Seconded by Clasen. All in favor, motion carried. Planning Assistance - Discussed retaining Trafton Ben Planner to look into the location of Highway 82 as relates to approach to the City. Letter addressed to Mr. Whitaker from the State Highway Department was read by Mr. Molny. Commission agreed the intent of the letter is that the door is still open as to suggestions and recommendations. Molny moved that the Commission retain Trafton Bean Trafton Bean for consulting purposes relative to the location of Highway 82 in Aspen and those services not to exceed $500 which shall include one study session with the Commission. Seconded by Heneghan. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Whitaker related to the Commission there is a committee headed by John McBride called the Urban • * 3 . • fit_ (:t)t't) f)if^ati4`, P & Z, reg. , 9/9/69 , continued , Capital Improvements - Administrator Wurl to r,-view the program as follows : Water Map of future plans was shown and r° t t I. Mr. Wu'rl. Program provides for studies in 1 ,, 1971 and 1972 for preliminary work on atorao• Castle and Maroon Creek. Proposed additional : 11 , , plant near the Art Pfister property. Schedule ' ,, , to be altered in order to protect the City' s w:►t Wurl outlined on the map the area which can be with the dams and filter plant. Plan also inc lug'., { transmission lines and conversion in the commercial districts to water meters . Wurl explained that Council had approved calling; fut a bond issue to run a 12" main down from the filter plant and storage tank for more volume to serve the higher locations. Period covered by this program up to 1996. Commission request if Mr. Wurl would mind if another 4 item on the agenda was taken care of before continuing. ti Attorney Michael. Fitzgerald was present and request the Commission move the re-zoning hearing date up on Re-zoning Hotel the calendar for the Hotel Jerome property. Mr. Fitzgerald stated there are no reasons outlined in the code relating to the granting or denying of a re-zoning request. Stated perhaps the same reasons as listed for a variance could be used. Molny moved to re-schedule the public hearing on re-zoni of Lots A,B,C and D, Block 79 to October 3rd at 5 :00 p .m Seconded by Clasen. Roll call vote - Barnard aye ; Clasen aye; Heneghan aye; Whitaker aye ; Molny aye. Commission request the applicant submit the list of property owners within 300' to the Secretary. Capital Improvements - Underground electric - Wuri Underground explained this is scheduled for 1973 through 1982. Mr. Electric Wurl stated he had just received a report from Merrick and Company on a study for the City relating to when this could be done and how in the downtown area. More esthetic lighting in 1970. Electric Acquisition - This is keyed to the north side annexation and will as soon as possible acquire all the electric in the City. Parking Structure - 1971 - Wurl request the P & Z study locations and present firm locations , sites easL,vest, Parking Structure north and south. Wurl explained the advantages of the one site recoicuaended by the Commission across from the City Hall. City presently owns 4 lots , could start witl on surface parking and proceed as money is available 1 ,y " 0 if . lit COW.) (Jr PROCEEDINGS 1 a Y S t , As •en Plannin: & Zonin:j � tc� �. Oc tcyR � q --� .._ ____ ��,-5 t ink, was called to order by Chairman George Heneghan at 5 : 10 p,�,;, . .,,,!,in >1olny, Dale Mars and Norm Clasen. Chairman Heneghan opened the public hearing on a re-;. ,a; request submitted by the Hotel Jerome, Block 79, Lot:, `� � Hotel Jerome C, D & E from R-6 to C-1 zoning. 4 Rezoning Mr. Jack Walls , Architect, was present representing the Hotel Jerome owners and showed tothe Commission a colors d sketch of a preliminary site plan. Pool and bath house will be relocated in a different position. Will keep as much open space as possible. Extend the front across , lc;w4 than the present building with the same architecture, with an arcade included in the extension. Would like to develop apartment units on the back of the lot split up with open space in between, 10 units in each comprised of 2 and 3 bedrooms . 13,260 sq. ft. in each building. Owners feel to improve the economi base will have to develop and use '` more of the property. With a better economic base, will help to keep the Hotel Jerome. Do not feel that this chang( will make a drastic change in the area. The units will be condominiums and rented to hotel guests . Will be under the density allowed. Commission questioned Mr. Walls on why they did not apply for a variance rather than re-zoning. Mr. Walls replied that this block is split, now talking about 4 lots which are almost surrounded by commercial. Chairman Heneghan request Mr. Walls explain the parking. Mr. Walls stated at this time the parking is shown as being on surface parking. The parking is still in question and would have to justify the expense if underground parking were installed , There is a possibility of going 2 decks underground, presently with on surface parking have 20 spaces . Chairman Heneghan reported a telegram had been received, name unknown lost in transit, but they were opposed to the re-zoning. Mr. Light was present and stated he was opposed to the re- zoning. Gentlemen from Boulder who is the Director of Public Works and owns property in Aspen stated he did not feel it was good zoning to put commercial next to residentiL should have a buffer zone. Suggested the owners apply for a variance so plans could be nailed down, when zoning is changed cannot say what the owners might do . Mr. Carl Bergman was present and stated he felt to keep the hotel, they would have to expand and agree with the re- 1 zoning. i Mary Hayes stated there should be a stop gap, this would open the gate to go on down the street. Concerned about th, • tEL OF 1'ltUllf_i_CI1Ntiti P & Z, 10/3/692 continued. school which is only 2 block away. Schools are ots Hotel Jerome residential zones so that the children can walk d Rezoning would create more traffic. ' i Mr. Dunaway stated he did not object becasue he felt they do have enough commercial lots that they could do development without going into more area. It is better• when your going to develope to do a better job and not have to crowd it all on their present commercial land. Should encourage better design. There being no further comments Chairman Heneghan closed the public hearing. Dale Mars stated he would rather see the owners go for a use variance, concerned about the school being so close . ' Robin Molny stated to apply for a variance, hardship must he shown and when you buy property with zoning this does not constitute a hardship because that is the way the owners purchased the property. Mr. Molny read the criteria for re-zoning requests. Further 4 stated a request has already been made to re-zone 1/2 block on Bleeker and granting of this request would reinforce other applications in the same area. Also there is a lot of other land that is C-1 that has not been exercised as such. This project will tend to overcrowd. Agree there shuld be a buffer zone between residential and C-1. Mr. Clasen stated that a great deal of tnought went into the Master Plan and would hate to tamper with the plan and leave the City wide open to spread without prior planning. Mr. Walls stated the development of this in leaving open space would not change the character, would still be a residential area. Feel this would still be a buffer zone, between purely commercial and R-6. Down the block there f is a duplex, so there are more than single family dwellings in this area. Attorney Michael Fitzgerald stated to the Commission to re- quest a variance would require the drafting of further plans which would make the request prohibitive. With the new addition would be below the density, there is space for parking, and this is a unique situation since only 4 lots in the block still remain residential. The only non-commercial in the blocks surrounding are north on Bleeker, west on Monarch, only one house to the north of the pool area, only piece that is not being used for commercial use. Same situation does not exist to the west on Bleeker. Also consider the swimming pool use on the premises since hotel was bought, has been commercial for the last 20 years . Chairman Heneghan stated the Commission would tak a 10 l minute recess . 1 4 ¢,jF, T'pWE gr'yN "_'an ?.°rfyr!Pi""`'r..r ,. w b 4 . i 1 iti ( ()(.1) O rilOC[LDINGS Q kr 4 x;i p & :, 1U/3/69, continued. Letter from Mr. Whitaker as follows was read t,; ,. Molny:. I firmly believe that it would be a mistake to eon.A i Jerome rezoning the subject property at this time. Grant i Mini, such a request might open the door for such requests, rezoning the half blocks all the way to seventh street . a Several such requests have already been made. 1 Following the adoption of the Aspen General Plan, the business district was substantially increased in size. 1 There is ample vacant business property without a furthe. increase. The Commission has studied open space requirements for t! business district, and has a request before it from the City Council for regulations providing for 25% open space in the C-C and C-1 Districts . To grant a rezoning before solving the open space problem would be another mistake . I am concerned over the effect of such rezoning ori' the residential properties acrcss Bleeker Street, as C-1 use: would be facing these residential properties. There also appears to be considerable undeveloped Commerc property incthded in the Hotel Jerome property, no real nm has been shown for the rezoning of the balance of the property. I believe that the Commission should .recoiivaend no action at this Time, and should continue its studies of open space, and the possibility of amending Title XI to incluc. planned unit development in the commercial districts . . 1 /s/ Francis Whitaker Molny made a motion to recommend to the City Council the deny the request for rezoning of the subject property. Seconded by Mars . Roll call vote - Clasen aye; Mars aye Molny aye; Heneghan nay. Motion carried. 1 Subdivision Red Mountain Ranch Block #4 - Molny reported Subdivision-County due to the snow he and Mr. Mars were unable to visit the site . Also outlined the requirements by the City which lacking on the plans as submitted : location and principt dimensions for all existing or recorded easements , water course, public utilities and other important features wit in and adjacent to the tract to be subdivised are not shown; no proposed streets , alleys , easements lot lines and areas to be reserved for public use are shown; total accrage is musing; acmes and addresses of property owuet not shown; rights-of-way not shown and location of propos bridges , culverts, surface or sub-surface drainage ways, utilities , public buildings , pumping stations or Iappurtenances not shah. 1 Mr. Molny also stated the final plat should indicate how the City water ditch is to be located. EXCERPTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 24, 1969 Hotel Jerome Re-zoning - Mayor Barnard opened the public hearing on a re- quest for rezoning of the Hotel Jerome Property from R-6 zoning to C-1 zoning. Recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of denying this request was submitted to Council. Attorney Michael Fitzgerald and Jack Walls, Architect were present to represent the Hotel Jerome. Mr. Fitzgerald related to the Council the reason for appearing today is to convince Council the Planning and Zoning Commission is wrong. First of all in looking at the land and the zoning map it was an over-site or mistake on the part of the one who prepared the zoning map and two the uses the owner wishes to put the prop- erty to, Mr. Gilmore will make a statement on why the rezoning is neces- sary and Mr. Walls will show what the present zoning allows on this prop- erty. Mr . Jack Walls reviewed with Council a plot plan showing what is being proposed. Proposal calls for two buildings including a total of 20 units, shop and office space with arcade and relocation of the swimming pool. Under the present R-6 zoning, two duplexes could be build containing 50 bedrooms , can also take the open space and construct 28 condominiums units there . Could get a total of 78 units in working with the present zoning ordinance . Proposing to try and pull the four lots into the C-1 district leaving 32,000 sq. ft . of open space in which would be allowed 44 units but only proposing to put 20. Planning and Zoning stated we would be overcrowding but will not be . Mayor Barnard and Attorney Kern stated a duplex is a two family dwelling and the number of bedrooms stated would not be allowed under the present zoning ordinance . Section of the code relating to duplexes definition was read by Jack Walls . Mr . Sterling, Architect stated the only reasonable use of this land would be to sell it or something like has been proposed today to obtain the greatest possible return. Councilman Benninghoff questioned why it should be up to the City to pro- vide everyone with a profit . Mr. Sterling replied that Mr. Gilmore has invested a great deal of money in the hotel. Mr . Gilmore has two alternatives , either take full advantage of the zoning or tear down the hotel and rebuild. Councilman Benninghoff suggest the applicant take a poll of his neighbors . At the Planning and Zoning hearing the people voiced their opinion they were opposed . Mayor Barnardrequest the City Clerk make a part of the record a letter had been received by the Mayor from Fred Glidden who is opposed to the re-zoning. The following letter was read by Mayor Barnard: Gentlemen: We understand that you are having a hearing on November 24th with regard to rezoning the Hotel Jerome property for additions . Our residence is located next to the Community Church at 214 East Bleeker Street, diagonal across and half a block west of the Jerome property. Bleeker Street is one of the few in Aspen where the zoning restrictions have not been broken down or changed. For the benefit of the entire community, it seems important that co«uuercial use of prop- erty be limited and restricted . We realize that the Hotel Jerome is an important asset to Aspen and we are in favor of the expansion into a profitable economic unit . We, how- ever, feel that there is a sizable space behind (or north of the Jerme Hotel) II . and also on Main Street, west of the Jerome for expansion. To construct a four or five story building at thenorthwest corner of East Bleeker and Monarch Street would give a commercial note to our area and begin the breakdown of Aspen's last residential area -- that between Main Street and the Music Tent . We , therefore, recommend leaving the Jerome Pool where it is and having the Jerome Hotel ezpand on the north-east corner of their lot and on the south-west end of their property on Main Street. We feel that expansion at the corner of Monarch and Bleeker would be very damaging to the value of the properites on Monarch, Bleeker and Hallam Streets . /s/ William Brumder Mary Hayes present at the meeting stated she lives across from the Brumders and the neighbors are upset and the Council should think of the future . This land is prime residential land and should be kept as a buffer zone between residential and commercial. To rezone would destroy what people have come to Aspen to find . In other communities historical structures have been saved for future generations to see . Mr. Lou Wille request to speak on behalf of Ward II of the CCA. They would like to see the hotel prosper but Bleeker is going down the drain. Bleeker is residentail and there should not be any changes in zoning on Bleeker . Two dozen people came to this conclusion. Mayor Barnard asked who the people were who came to this conclusion. Mr . Wille to supply a list of names . Mr . Fitzgerald outlined to the Council the surrounding uses of the Hotel Jerome. He further stated the two streets are the buffer zones, it does not seem masidantxaixtmxsss reasonable to use the land (Hotel Jeanie Property) as a buffer zone . The zoning exempts these four lots in a block that is C-1. Mayor Barnard stated when the Master Plan and zoning map were drafted and adopted, Jerry Brown, used the most conser- vative zoning. Councilman Benninghoff stated also at that time there was due consideration given to this property and it was felt that some- time in the future something would be done to the four lots in question. Attorney Kern stated this property could be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment for a specific use. Mr. Fitzgerald stated to Council, this proposal was not made on the basis of a threat. Mr. Fitzgerald also outlined on the plan that there would be surface parking for the present and perhaps in the future would go under- ground for parking. 1r. Gilmore presented his case by saying that in reviewing the file and letters in relation to purchase of the hotel, one comment made was they all felt basically they needed a lot more room. After the hotel was purchased, there were investors who wanted to add on rooms on the hotel. Mr. Gilmore stated he felt this would not help to preserve the City. Also a group from Denver who were interested in purchasing the hotel butthey wanted to teat it down. Mr. Golmore stated he felt he woujd like to be a trustee for this property, feel he has been so far. Feel by adding on 20 units , question if they will be condominiums and also wonder if this proposal would be destroying the neighborhood , hotel or image of Aspen. There is no way the hotel can pay for itself and a person cannot keep putting money in each month. Stated as long as he is the owner of the hotel, if it can't be done right, then know can' t do it the wrong way. If you want to pre- serve the hotel for Aspen for a long long time, then the building has to stand on its own two feet. Mr . James Salter residing at third street was present and stated he agreed with Mr. Gilmore but felt a variance should be granted rather than down- zone the land. III . Mary Hayes stated the zoning was broken down when the telephone company constructed their offices in the area. They provided parking and then built on their parking and now park on the streets . Mayor Barnard closed the public hearing, there being no further comments . Councilman Bergman stated the hotel does have historical value and people want the hotel open, residents and visitors alike . If this proposal does not go through, something else could happen in the future . Councilman Bergman made a motion to approve rezoning of this property from R-6 to C-1 . Motion died for lack of second. Councilman Benninghoff made a motion to deny this request for rezoning of this particular property on Bleeker and suggest the property owner take the matter -up with the Board of Zoning Adjustment . Seconded by Councilman Clymer. Councilman Clymer stated he felt to allow rezoning of this property would open the door for other requests on Bleeker, feel this should go to the Board of Adjustment for a specific use . Mayor Barnard stated once it is rezoning, they would be permitted to put any use which is allowed in C-1 on this property. Roll call vote - Councilmen Benninghoff aye ; Bergman nay; Clymer aye . Motion carried.