HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Independence Subdivision.1977 Aspen/Pit • y� k ping Office
130 treet
aspen '81611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of tha rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Orrice, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen ,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED - WRONG ADDRESS
Dr. Robert Barnard
P.O. Box II
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pit 2ning Office
130 s � M ; k treet
aspen 1611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FROM - WRONG ADDRESS
Richard and Lorraine Graves
P.O. Box 217
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pit1c •
nk ,krning Office
130 s treet
o • =f � .
aspen k af* . 1611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977; at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. (the northern half of Block
54, Lots A through I) . The Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. has made application
for rezoning the area from its present classification of R-15 to C-1 which
would permit the use of the Aspen Ice Garden as an assembly hall in which
to hold musical concerts. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires
that all private applications for rezoning may be considered only in
October of each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FROM - WRONG ADDRESS
Christopher Smith
1540 North State Parkway
Chicago, Illinois 60022
•
Aspen/Pitk$% ping Office
130 s ��� `` treet
aspen om, at rift. 81611
October 3, 1977
•
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FROM ON OCTOBER 12, 1977
Martin and Suzann Forster
P.O. Box 1983
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pit ning Office
130 s �� � � � r treet
aspen
om 744 1611
, .
October 3, 1977
•
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FROM ON OCTOBER 12, 1977:
Doris Ann Peterson
P.O. Box 3741
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pi• t 4� � ning Office
130 s treet
aspen _ � ` � � �1 1611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission wili
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FROM:
Paul and Pamela Klingeman
P.O. Box 3173
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pit ' ning Office
Tr
130 s ��� , � treet
-.� � � � ���.�{�:°.. 1611
aspen °:A,tx: �
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED OCTOBER 11 , 1977 FROM:
Norman R. and Glannah D. Schilb
2322 Zenith Avenue
North Minneapolis, MN 55401
Aspen/Pit '} XS - ;;-' ning Office
130 s 4 treet
a s p e n "' 1611
� t
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Comnnissiuri will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED OCTOBER 11 , 1977 from:
Merri'!1 Ford
360 Mary Street
Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Re: Rezoning request made by F. Mead Metcalf
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on Ocotber 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall , on the rezoning
request made by F. Mead Metcalf to rezone Lots 4, 5, and 6, located in
Independence Subdivision. Mr. F. Mead Metcalf would like to rezone the
three lots from R-15 to R-6 PUD to provide additional housing for his
employees. Section 24-11 .5 of the Municipal Code requires that all
private applications for rezoning may be considered only in October of
each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall , Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times, Thursday, September 29, 1977.
The CleyEtal Palace
F. MEAD METCALF I' BOX 32 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 it PHONE 303 925-1455
August 12, 1977
City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sirs:
This letter will represent a formal request for rezoning of my
3 lots in East Aspen. These 3 lots are Lot 4, 5, and 6, located
in Independence Subdivision.
I would like very much to rezone these 3 lots from R-15 to R-6,
PUD. The purpose of this rezoning is to provide additional
housing for my employees.
Enclosed with this request, you will find a check in the amount
of $125 to cover the cost of the rezoning fee and publication.
Sincerely,
. Mead Metcalf
Enclosure
jack m. walls architect aspen, colorado
p.o.box 28/zip code 81811/phone 303-825-3218
August 15, 1977
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed you will find a formal letter from Mr. F. Mead
Metcalf requesting rezoning of his lots in East Aspen.
You will also find a copy of the existing improvement
survey, a location map, a list of property owners within
300 feet of the property in question, and a check in the
amount of ? 125 to cover the fees for rezoning and publi-
cation.
The following is pertinent information on the property
proposed for rezoning:
1. Property Description: Lots 4, 5, and 6 in the
Independence Subdivision, located within the
boundary of the City of Aspen.
2. Land Area: 21, 913 square feet.
3. Present Zoning: R-15 .
4. Structures Located On Property: There exist a
duplex, located on lot 5, and a single family
dwelling on lot 4. The duplex contains a 3
bedroom and a 1 bedroom dwelling unit. The
single family house has 2 bedrooms.
5. Use of Existing Structures: The duplex and the
house are rented by Mr. Metcalf to his employees
for employee housing. The rent for each dwelling
unit is 8250 per month.
6 . Adjacent Zoning: Property to the north, east and
south is presently zoned R-6. The property to
the west, between the property in question and
the river, is zoned R-15 PUD. Property west of
the river is zoned RMF.
7. Streets: The property is bounded on three sides
by city streets: to the south by Dale Avenue,
to the east by Park Avenue, and to the north by
Hopkins Avenue.
2.
The purpose of rezoning, as indicated in Mr. Metcalf' s
letter, is to provide additional employee housing for
his staff at the Crystal Palace. The existing dwelling
units on this property have been used for this purpose
for many years. In rezoning the property to R-6 PUD,
we would hope to be able to construct three additional
dwelling units.
R2TIOHALE FOR REZONING:
Due to the fact that Mr. Metcalf' s property is bound on
three sides by R-6 zoning, and since part of this
existing R-6 zoning has a PHD classification attached,
the rezoning of the property in question would seem to
fit within the existing pattern of land use.
By rezoning Metcalf ' s property into R-6 PUD, variations
could be made under the PHD provision in the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit from 4500 square feet to
3000 square feet. Thus based on the lot area of 2.1, 913
square feet this would allow seven (7) dwelling units
on the property. However, Mr. Metcalf intends to have
a total of only six (6) units if the rezoning is approv-
ed.
To realize the six units on the property, the following
procedure is suggested: The duplex would remain as is, and:
The single family structure would have an additional
dwelling unit added, with a new duplex structure ( two
dwelling units ) constructed nearby.
Or
The existing single family structure removed and the
construction of two ( 2) new duplex structures (4
dwelling units) or a fourplex structure on lot 4.
It would seem that if the existing single family
structure is removed, and either two duplexes or
one fourplex is built, we could obtain a better
siting condition for the new structure( s) allowing
better orientation, open space and offstreet parking
without crowding the site.
We would appreciate your prompt consideration in this
application for rezoning and if there is any additional
'nformaton that you might desire, or if you have any
.,uestio. ; please feel free to contact me.
vive
Ja ' ,,...t. ;. m _.
1,
\ \i a V•
I
E r•
' , {( ,
I
It
J f
„5 s 4' .z9 ° c a. ' ,. -. V a : � a y
e 5.
j
e
m
u, .� a -.
t �1
•
.r
•
.�. S t: A 4R . �\ o .�� �\
a
.
+ 4 ,
o
`v
R
•
„ .rte•_ , + • rt •/ v '-.` • ,
�, /
s'
f ®
a
_..... � ',.� \_. j
' � 1 , Jj
J •
(�
•
r°
f
r�� ;_ (_l �� �
,,---,>-,,, . .,, 4 '1'
r
i
---- .
A ,t j.'} r
� t
:~
i
L CAT
.r /, /
� t _� /
1.
PROPERTY OWNERS
Independence Subdivision:
Walter & Herta Mueller
Box 2195 , Aspen, Co. 81611
Elsa R. Mitchell
Box 2492, Aspen, Co. 81611
JUKATI SUBDIVISION:
Kathryn and John J. Snyder
Box 481, Aspen, Co. 81611
EAST :,SPEN TOWNSITE
Dale Eubank
Box 3678, Aspen, Co. 81611
Robin Molny
Box 96, Aspen, Co. 81611
SURYY PARK
Magne Nostdahl &. Arne Marthinsson
Box 1353, Aspen, Co. 81611
PROMONTORY
James T. Moran
Box 1128, Aspen, Co. 81611
Lucille & C. Robert Hurley
175 Breckenwood Way, Sacramento, Ca. 95825
Patrick & Prudence Towle
740 River Drive #17E, St. Paul, Minn. 55116
Arnold David Kamen
Box 231A Owens Rd. Rt. 2, Mundelieri, Iii. 60060
Paul & Pamela Klingeman
Box 3173, Aspen, Co. 81611
Dr. Robert Barnard
Box II, Aspen, Co. 81611
Martin & Suzann Forster
Box 1988, Aspen, Co. 81611
Lois and Richard Brownell
Box 1477, Aspen, Co. 81611
Walter C. & Helen Stroud
Box 627, Aspen, Co. 81611
2.
Margaret Cantrup
Box 852, Aspen, Co. 81611
Geraldine T . Hobgood
Box 836, Aspen, Co. 81611
RIVERVIEW ADDITION:
Riverview Condominiums
1028 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Co. 81611
Individual Owners are :
Christine & Suzanne Elkins
Box 2716, Aspen, Co. 81611
Irving Tushinsky
8150 Vineland, Sun Valley, Ca. 91362
Richard & Allison Meeker
Box 2329, Aspen, Co. 81611
Elizabeth & John Fergus
4746 Riverside Dr. , Columbus, Ohio 43220
Kurt & Sharley Gottschalk
Box 4636, Aspen, Co. 81611
Robert & Maie Schlafly
1330 Boatmen' s Bank Bldg. , St. Louis, Mo. 63102
David Sontag
Box 9096, Aspen, Co. 81611
Lillian C. O ' Brian
939. Co st Blvd, Apt. 18-A
La Jolla, Ca. 92037
Dr. Russell Browning
706 Corlett Dr. , S.E. , Huntsville, Ala. 35802
Alfred & Elizabeth Nicholson
1028 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Co. 81611
Martha Densmore
Box 438, Lebanon, N.H. 03766
Paul & Patricia Schroeder
2 Center Drive, Hickory Hill Estates, Bettendorf, Iowa 52722
Richard Barnett
Northern Trust Co. , 50 S. La Salle St. , Chicago, Ill. 60690
Hans & Utta Buerk
3400 N. Lakeshore Dr. , Chicago, Ill. 60657
Carl Siegesmund
Rm. 2600, Rockefeller Plaza, New York, N.Y.
Morton & June Augenstein
89 Country Village Lane, New Hyde Park, Long Island, N.Y.
Richard & Jane Hopkins
5191 Iron Gate Rd. , Bloomfield Hills , Mien, 48013
3.
Riverview Condominium Owners (Cont. )
David Burnford
Box 8127, Aspen, Co. 81611
Ebrahim Saghatoleslami
Box 693, Aspen, Co. 81611
Irving K. & Shirley E. Weber
1028 E. Hopkins, Aspen Co. 81611
Norma Dolle & Marjorie Babcock
Box 1042, Aspen, Co. 81611
Bernard Pracko
Box 2628, Aibger, N.M. 87125
Diffenbaugh, John & Carolyn
2649 Anna St. , Riverside, Ca. 92506
Peter & Theresa Birrfelder
Box 787, Aspen, Co. 81611
Donald & Linda Helmich
Box 2382, Aspen, Co. 81611
Dan Moody, Trustee
4615 Past Oak Place, Suite 120, Houston, Texas 77027
Michael & Jean Churchman/ Richard Wood
15 Roslyn Rd. , Richman, Va. 23226
RIVERSIDE ADDITION (Cont. )
Joseph M. & Mabel J. Lacy
1120 E. Pinewood Ave. , Littleton, Co. 80120
Rolla B. Hill, Jr.
302 Brockford Rd. , Syracuse, N.Y. 13224
Harold Whitcomb
Box 660, Aspen, Co. 81611
Richard & Julia Lindner
Box 2.191, Aspen, Co. 81611
Charles S. Ela
Box 14, Aspen, Co. 81611
Richard & Lorraine Graves
Box 217, Aspen, Co. 81611
Max & Clara Bote
Box 216, Aspen, Co. 81611
Kenneth Sterling
Box 1366, Aspen, Co. 81611
4.
RIVERSIDE ADDITION (Cont. )
Paul & Delores Johnson
Box 99, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Norman R. & Glannah D. Schilb
232.2 Zenith Ave. , N. Minneapolis, Minn. 55401
Lois Butterbaugh & Donald Rogers
130 S. Galena St. , Aspen, Co. 81611
Patricia Williams Card
Box 44, Aspen, Co. 81611
Park Trust Limited
Box 940, Aspen, Co. 81611
Thomas Marshall
Box 960, Aspen, Co . 81611
Aspen Chateau Condo Rentals
P.O . Box 4949, Aspen, Co. 81611
Stephen & Linda Price
1901 Ave. of Stars Suite 1531, Los Angeles, Ca. 90067
Perry H. Pollock
Box 950, Aspen, Co. 81611
Joyce I . Johnson
102 Cresta Rd. , Colorado Springs, Co. 80906
Doris Ann Peterson
Box 3741, Aspen, Co. 81611
Estate of Mrs. Con Sullivan
c/o AA Grover, 4519 Lone Pine Lane, La Canada, Ca. 91011
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (Utility Easement)
0132 Atlantic Ave . , Aspen, Co. 81611
Chateau Eau Claire
Box 4949, Aspen, Co. 81611
Individual Owners are :
Dr. Roderick F. McPhee
Punahou School, 1601 Punahou St. , Honolulu, Hawaii 9682.2
Robert E. Bond
3530 Central Ave. , Shadyside, Ohio, 43947
Mrs. Claude C. Smith, Jr.
Anderson Clayton & Co. , Caixa Postal 8171, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Genevieve Maday
913 Country Lane, 'it. Prospect, Ill. 60065
5 .
Chateau Eau Claire Condominium owners (Cont. )
Mr. & Mrs. Joe Stark
3417 Maplewood Drive, Minneapolis, Minn. 55418
Eli Soodik
Soodik Printing Co. , 527 South Wells St. , Chicago, Ill 60607
Portia Simon
Apt. 903, 2501 Calvert St. , Washington, D. C. 20008
Heinz Simon
32.13 Salinas Ct. , Irving, Texas 75062
James L. Gerrie
28926 Doverridge Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90274
Tom Harrington, Chemical Bank, 20 Pine Street, New York, NY 10005
Mr. & Mrs Gad Smith
6532 Sagamore Rd. , Shawnee Mission, Ks. 66208
Gerald & Carol Teldon
12 Cedar Crest, Olivette, Mo. 63132
Lawrence Raskin
10847 Rondelay Dr. , Creve Couer, Mo. 63141
Donald R. Ellis
Holland & Hart, 500 Equitable Bldg. , 730 17th St. , Denver, Co . 80202
Dr. Michael Wasserman
Golf Hill Professional Bldg. , suite 295, Niles, Ill . 60648
Dr. A. Winston Puig
1900 N. Oregon, Suite 101A, El Paso, Tx. 79902
Glenn Delf
Atlas Tool & Mfg. Co. , 5151 Natural Bridge, St. Louis, Mo . 63115
Henry B. Alsobrook, Jr.
Adams & Reese, 4500 One Shell Square, New Orleans, La. 70139
Lee Lyon
800 North Atlantic, Kansas City, Mo. 64116
Paul Scheele
American Hospital Supply, 1740 Ridge Avenue, Evanston, Ill. 60204
Harold J. Staal
2633 Hampshire S.E. , Grand Rapids, Mi. 49506
Leham Beardsley
l riles Laboratory, 112.7 Myrtle St. , Elkhart, Ind. 45614
Bill Johnson
The Broaster Co. , Rockton, Ill. 61072
M . Estelle Stone Ellis
5330 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, Mo. 64112
Stefan T. Edlis
Apollo Plastics, 5333 N. Elston, Chicago, Il. 60630
Dr. Ed Ingalls
411 Medical Arts Bldg. , Minneapolis, Minn. 55402
6 .
Chateau Eau Claire Owners (Cont. )
Martin Fine
58 Samana Dr. , Miami, Fla. 33133
Betty S. Byers
Box 1952, Aspen, Co. 81611
Neligh C. Coates
Box 4949, Aspen, Col 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
•
RE: Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval
DATE: May 10, 1979
There are two parts of this application. The first is a followup
of the request for rezoning of Lots 4, 5 and 6 within the
Independence Subdivision on Park Avenue. This matter was before
you at a meeting on November 14 , 1977, in the form of Ordinance 59 ,
Series of 1977. The rezoning request was to change the zoning
from R-15 to R-6, a more dense zone. It was brought by Mead Metcalf
and was for the purpose of providing housing to accommodate his
employees. The second part of this application involves a request
for subdivision approval (given successful adoption of the rezoning) .
Under the subdivision request, Lots 4, 5 and 6 would be consoli-
dated and reconfigured into two lots, Lot 4A and Lot 5A:
The subdivision request is a simpler matter and therefore I will
address it first, remembering, however, that the rezoning should
be approved first. The Planning and Zoning Commission,, at their
meeting on April 17, recommended approval of an exception from the
full subdivision procedure and that a final plat be prepared
incorporating the City Engineer' s concerns and that that plat be
forwarded to Council for final review. We anticipate comment from
the City Engineer who is still reviewing the sufficiency of the final
plat requirements. His preliminary comment has been that he has
worked closely with the applicant and believes that the plat will be
certified ready for approval on Monday.
The rezoning request has a much longer history which I will sum-
marize briefly. On November 14, 1977, the City Council tabled the
ordinance accomplishing the rezoning from R-15 to R-6. As back-
ground, the Planning Office had originally recommendded aaai,nst the
rezoning on the grounds that additional density in the area would
aggravate the deficient circulation pattern in the Midland/Park
Avenue area and that it would motivate ad ' acent ro ert owners,
particularly along the river. It was generally thought that that
area was unsuitable for higher density because of flood potential .
and because of the number of ponds located within that block. The
Planning Office had argued that, although the surrounding zoning
was R-6, that this particular block had been zoned to R-15 because
it had been platted with larger lots and because of the unique
natural characteristics previously mentioned.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, responded to testimony
by the applicant regarding his intent to provide employee housing
and his record of having done so in the past. The P&Z felt that
the impacts that would result on the neighborhood were m when
contrasted with the social_benefit of providing additional iauaalLo
for employees in the high quality tradition as has been character-
istic of Mr. Metcalf' s projects. Therefore, they recommended ap-
proval to the City Council. They also felt that even if the adja-
cent properties were zoned to R-6, that the effect of the floodplain
and land under water provisions of the code would result in there
not being substantial additional density anyway.
Council was also sympathetic to the employee housing aspect of the
program, but felt there was a need to ensure the employee housing
characteristics would remain. gat that tine, the City was first
exploring em ploye housin- rrie and resale restr"ctions but had
not settled on a de i.nitive policy. lnn voting on the motion to
table, the mayor commented that what Council was really trying to .
do was to define a PMH R-6, not a simple R-6.
•
•
.
Aspen City Council
Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval
May 10, 1979
The attached letter, dated February 28, 1979, from Bob Hughes,
along with the draft agreement, is the result of considerable
discussion among the applicant, the City Attorney, and myself.
The agreement proposes restrictions on a new duplex to be built
on Lot 4A. That duplex would involve three bedrooms and three
baths per unit for a total of 1544 square feet of floor area per
unit. Occupancy is limited to persons of Low, Moderate and Middle
Income as defined by the City' s now defined housing income-eligi-
bility guidelines provided that Metcalf' s employees have first
right of refusal to occupy the duplex. A unique proposal is then
made that second right to use is reserved for faculty and/or
students of the Aspen Music School. The rents are limited as well.
They are limited to $270/month/tenancy with the tenancies being
limited in number to six (or one per bedroom) . Therefore, the
maximum rental per unit will be $810 or $1620 for the entire
duplex. This is consistent with the Middle Income Housing price
guidelines. The applicant will also be able to raise the ren s
in accorcTaance with the adopted housing price guidelines .
The duration of time during which these price and occupancy
restrictions shall apply is for a period of no less than ten years
or for as long as the applicant shall own the land,whic ever
is longer. The period of effect, therefore, is longer than that
period of five years for which we have been typically conditioning
approval of condominium conversions .
These provisions have been reviewed and recommended for approval
by the City Attorney. The Planning Office has worked with the
applicant to reduce the size of the duplex from the previous
proposal of four bedrooms and four baths per unit, which we felt
was too dense for the neighborhood and too luxurious for the
ultimate date when the units would become free market units. We
also thought that the rental provisions in the previous proposal
were too high having been proposed at a higher rate per tenancy
with more tenancies allowed. While this .ro.osal does not comply
with the e . - . •• - es _.t would pertain i t is were
a..roved is.- te° n o.ose. 1 - Se in. ov- 4a zone, we do think
that it goes a long way toward meeting the concerns that Council
originally stated in November of 1977 and which the applicant has
been working on since then. While this u:ait will eventually become
a free market unit, it will not do so for the duration of the
Metcalf' s ownership and at a minimum for ten years, regardless
of ownership. We recommend approval.
•
•
KS/ss
•
•
•
r.;/
Aspen / itin fining Office
130 sous ' street •
aspen , co1orac o 81611
April' 6, 1978
Mr. Jack M. Walls •
P.O. Hox 29
Aspen, CO 81611
•
Dear Jack, •
As a result of our meeting on April 3, 1978 , in discussing
the proposed duplex for Mead Metcalf at Park and Hopkins
in the City of Aspen, I believe that an agreement that will
preserve the housing as longterm employee housing will be
necessary before rezoning approval to R-6 by the City Coun-
cil. Such an agreement should include two major elements.
The first would be a provision that -would allow the city
to approve the tenants for the building to ensure that
housing would be preserved over the long run for legitimate
local employees. A second element would include an agree-
ment as to a specific annual limitation on the rent increase
which would bear some reasonable relationship to the cost
for maintenance and operation of the building. This can be
generally worded and the elements that would go into consid-
eration for increasing rent can be enumerated. I believe
that if an agreement were clearly worded and presented to
the Council that your application would be in a position
for approval to rezoning from R-15 to R-6. With respect to
the subdivision exemption that will be necessary to complete .
this, I think it would be appropriate to present this and -
mention to the Council and make it clear to them that they
should anticipate a subdivision exemption to be forthcoming
in order to amend the property lines so as to provide 9 , 000
square feet to cover the minimum lot area needed for the new
duplex.
Sincerely,
4.1&01.‘C./
William G. Kane
Planning Director
WGK/ss
cc: Karen Smith
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Bill Kane, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning Application for Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence
Subdivision
DATE: November 9, 1977
Please find attached a memorandum presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding the rezoning request for Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the
Independence Subdivision, currently owned by Mr. Mead Metcalf. Jack
Walls , representing Mead, is applying for rezoning from R-15 to R-6
with the stated intention of adding one additional unit in the Independence
Subdivision area. As you can see from our original memorandum to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, we recommend against this rezoning due
to deficient circulation , the preservation of the '75 zoning rationale
and generally the fear that this rezoning would precipitate additional
applications in the area and that, in general , the area is unsuitable
for higher density. At the P&Z meeting, Mr. Walls and Bob Hughes made
a detailed presentation on precisely how the land would be used. They
reviewed Mr. Metcalf's track record with respect to providing employee
housing and how the existing units are used for employees of the Crystal
Palace. It was the Board 's judgement that the impacts that would result
on the neighborhood were minimal when contrasted with the social benefit
of providing additional housing for employees in a high quality
tradition as has been characteristic of Mr. Metcalf's projects.
One of our considerations for maintaining the R-15 zoning in the area
was that it would be hard for us to justify rezoning the Metcalf land
without looking at the balance of the Independence Subdivision in and
that the entire subdivision sits as an island of R-15 in a broader area
of R-6 zoning. Again, the Board felt that several factors mitigated
the potential damage to the area. First of all , that on the adjacent
Mueller property, much of the land is subject to either floodplain or
land under water as a result of two ponds being on the site. Even with
R-6 zoning on the balance of the land, it was felt that the development
potential of the adjacent property would be substantially less in and
that the lands under water would have to be subtracted from the balance
of the property in determining density for the area.
Conclusion
In this application you are presented with a balancing of values: 1 ) an
incremental and admittedly somewhat minor impact on the neighborhood vs.
the benefit of providing some additional permanent housing for local
employees; given the fact that only one additional unit would be per-
mitted on Metcalf's land. This change does not represent a major impact
in the neighborhood. Of course, in reviewing any further development
in the area, it would be desirable to secure commitments to long-term
housing; however, of course these cannot be appropriately obtained at
this phase which is simply rezoning. Before an additional unit may be
constructed on the Metcalf property, a request for exemption from PUD
procedures will have to be made and that would be a more appropriate time
to secure commitments to long-term housing, i .e. lease restrictions, etc.
Given the review and detailed consideration by P&Z, we feel that we can
side with their recommendation in this matter and therefore recommend
that the application be approved.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (BK)
RE: Rezoning Application for Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Independence Subdivision
DATE: October 14, 1977
A request is being made for rezoning from R-15 to R-6 for three lots within
the Independence Subdivision. The land is zoned by Mr. Mead Metcalf and
application is being made by Mr. Jack Walls. The land consists of some
21 ,913 square feet and is located south of Hopkins, west of Park Avenue and
north of Dale. Three dwelling units currently exist on the property, two
within a duplex and another single family house. The existing duplex
spans the existing lots 5 and 6 and the single family is on lot 4. Should
the rezoning be granted, then four dwellings in total would be allowed on
the property in that the R-6 zoning district, if done in the P.U.D. , would
permit one dwelling per 4,500 square feet. The application mistakingly
states that under a P.U.D. within the R-6 zoning district one dwelling
would be allowed on 3,000 square feet and this is not the case.
In looking at this application, we have taken a look at the entire Inde-
pendence Subdivision because we feel that it would be an untenable propo-
sition to rezone these three lots without zoning the balance of the
Independence Subdivision which is an area which had been set aside for
R-15 zoning as the result of the 1975 downzoning. A review of the zoning
map points out that this area has been set aside and zoned differently
than the surrounding area. Upon a cursory review and without some digging
into the rationale for the zoning in 1975, the zoning pattern would look
as though this area were selectively zoned for lower density zoning than
the surrouding area. In reviewing this rezoning request, we have sought
to determine: 1 ) What the considerations were in 1975 when the area was
zoned; 2) To report to you on our finding as to the suitability of those
conditions , that is; whether the conditions or rationale for the zoning
which took place in 1975 are still legitiment today. John Stanford, who
was on the planning staff at the time, has pointed out that much discussion
of this property took place during the discussion of the rezoning and felt
that the principle of zoning which underly the entire zoning at the time
was a zone de-use principle. That is , within the residential areas within
the City, zoning was applied so as to make the current residential land use
pattern legal within the City Zoning Code so that modification coul d
be carried out in a legal way with a minimum of Government involvement. But
at the same time, the zoning applied was carefully adjusted to existing
development and existing lot sizes. It is perhaps unfortunate that, as of
April 1975, this property was surrounded by already existing development
on lot sizes ranging anywhere from 3 to 6 thousand square feet. And that
this property, by virtue of having been developed with larger lot sizes,
was retained as R-15 zoning which is the zone district which most closely
approximated the existing development within the area. Aside from the
general zoning principles which were applied in 1975, this area is unique
from several standpoints. Number One is Circulation and from a circulation
standpoint, additional density in the area would be undesirable due to:
1 ) Hopkins Street having been closed as a vehicular through street and
thereby requiring all traffic movement from this property to take place on
Park Avenue. Park Avenue itself is an inadequate street in and that no
right of way exists, it is a prescriptive easement and any improvements
in width or paving surface would have to be accomplished through condemnation
of adjacent property. And given the fact that homes immediately adjoin
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Rezoning Independence Subdivision
Page Two
October 14, 1977
the street, this would be rather expensive and highly unlikely prospect.
2) Much of the land within this block resides within the 100 year floodplain
of the Roaring Fork River. To establish this generally for you, the two
ponds which exist on Walter Mueller's land, constitute roughly the eastern
boundary of the 100 year floodplain. This and the ponds constitute two
additional constraints and unique characteristics of the site. Even if done
in a P.U.D. under R-6 zoning, it is unlikely that substantial density could
be added to the area because of the City's regulation of Section 24-2.6
which prohibits the calculation for density purposes of any land under
water.
Conclusion and Recommendation
We have reviewed the rationale and justification for the R-15 zoning that
was applied to this block and subdivision in 1975 and find the reasoning
and rationale to be still valid today. The block is unique from the
standpoint of:
1 . A deficient circulation pattern within the area due to
already overcrowded street network.
2. Much land within the block are devoted to existing ponds.
3. A substantial portion of the site which resides within
the 100 year floodplain.
4. The large lotting, which took place previous to 1975 for
the area, which is separate and distinct from the surrounding
area.
These considerations, in our mind, make the area suitable for R-15 and we
recommend that the existing zoning stand for the area.
lmk