Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.918 S Mill St.1982,.Mark Rezoning Application ka,Z, Z 380964 B-779 P - 8 JO05/0"/95 �7'_:022P, FAG 1 0 REC fin;, SILVIA DAVIS TKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECOR, 5.00 DEED RESTRICTION This restriction is made and entered into April 25, 1995, by MILL ST. 918 CORP. ("Owner"). WHEREAS, on November 22, 1982, the City Council of the City of Aspen passed Ordinance No. 66, Series of 1982 rezoning the following described property, to -wit: A parcel of land being portions of Lots 3, 4, and 5 within the Little Chief Lode USMS 3850, Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen and a portion of the Big Chief Lode USMS 4327 all situated in the SW1/4 NW1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Capitol Hill Addition; THENCE N 75009' W 99.18 ft. to the Easterly right of way of South Mill Street; THENCE S 14055'27" W 67.63 ft. along the Easterly right of way of South Mill Street to the intersection of the Northerly line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision; THENCE S 74055' E 99.08 ft. along the Northerly line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision; THENCE N 15000' E 68.03 ft. along the line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Lot 12 Anthony Acres Subdivision to the point of beginning containing 6,724 square feet more or less. and WHEREAS, Owner as an inducement to the City to rezone the above -described property did agree as a condition to the rezoning to file a Deed Restriction restricting the use of the above -described property to either a single-family or duplex structure with a floor area not to exceed 4,800 square feet as defined in and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the rezoning provided for in Ordinance No. 66, Series of 1982, it is agreed by the Owner as follows: 1. That only either a single-family or duplex structure be constructed on the above - described property; and 2. That the allowable floor area as defined in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code not exceed 4,800 square feet; and 3. That such structure be subject to zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The provisions of this restriction shall be covenants running with the land, be binding upon the Owner, his heirs, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, executed on the day and year above first written. MILL ST. 9.1$ CO By Peter H. Cantrup, President STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � �' ` day of April, 1995, by Peter H. Cantrup as President of Mill St. 918 Corp. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 6)l�4fjgG RE\072.04265 Notary Public Address: QN1 � 1(0l( • FORM 54 C. F. RECOI ORDINANCE NO. 66 (Series of 1982) AN ORDNANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS 918 SOUTH MILL STREET TO L-2/ WHEREAS, Valdemar Mark, owner of the real property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, did file a private application for a rezoning on August 15, 1982, pursuant to Section 24-12.5(b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the subject property described in Exhibit "A" is currently bisected by a zone district boundary line between the L-2 and R-15/PUD/L zone districts; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has a significant municipal inter- est in seeing that its Zoning District Map is rational and con- sistent and does not contain zone district boundaries bisecting parcels historically in common ownership and uniform in use; and WHEREAS, in the private rezoning application submitted by Valdemar Mark, Mr. Mark did request a rezoning of the subject pro- perty to L-2; and WHEREAS, Valdemar Mark, as an inducement to the City to accept his rezoning request, did amend his rezoning application to include a voluntary deed restriction limiting the use of the sub- ject property described in Exhibit "A" to a single-family or duplex structure; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on November 2, 1982, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did review the requested rezoning and then did recommend to the Aspen City Council the rezoning of the subject property described in Exhibit "A" to L-2/ with the requested deed restriction on the property limit- ing the use of the parcel to a single-family or duplex structure and did further recommend that the following issues be reviewed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM -0 C. F. ROECKEE B. B - during the mandatory PUD process if Council rezones the property L-2/ FAR, setbacks/building envelope, height, slope and sur- rounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the recommenda- tion of the Planning and Zoning Commission and determined that rezoning to L-2 be granted subject to certain below -described con- ditions, which conditions the Applicant, Valdemar Mark, has stipu- lated to be voluntary, reasonable and relating directly to the subject property and valid public policy goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning District Map" is hereby amended by rezoning the Valdemar Mark par- cel, more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, as L-2, conditioned upon a deed restric- tion to be filed by him as owner, or his successors and assigns, restricting the use of said parcel to either a single-family or duplex structure and restricting the allowed floor area of such structure to a maximium 4,800 square feet and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as de- scribed in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended). Section 2 That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend the Zoning District Map consistent with the requirement of the Aspen Municipal Code and as described in Section 1 above. Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent K • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOO Luvei provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4 ,, A pub lic hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the n 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in day of the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12� day o f 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this � day of 1982. Herman Ede , Mayor ATTEST: Z Kathryn S. ch, City Clem 3 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Uav9677 FORM 50 C. F. HOECNEL B. B. Q L. STATE OF COLORADO ) 5s CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was introduced, read in full, and passed on reading at a regular sleeting of the City ouncil of the City of Aspen on �� u-P-► 19 and published in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of 19and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on 19, and ordered published as Ordinance No. Series of 19 lJ� of said City, as provided by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado this day of 19 O ' - Kathryn " Koch, City Clerk S E A L Deputy City Clerk 0 ip TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Location: Zoning: Lot Size: MORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Alice Davis, PlanninglOffice Valdamar Mark Rezonin October 26, 1982 Applicant's Request: Referral Comments: 918 South Mill (Dots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition). L-1 and R-15 (PUO)(L). 6,003 square fee. Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition which have merged pursuant to Section 24-13.6(d) of the Code, are bisected by the zone district line running between the L-2 and R-15(PUD)(L) zone districts. Most all of Lot 3, the northern half of the two parcels, is zoned L-2 while the remaining southern half which contains Lot 4 is zoned R-15(PUD)(L). The applicant wishes to build a conforming duplex on this parcel on a conforming lot and is requesting a rezoning of the southern half of the property from R-1'5(PUD)(L) to L-2 to accomplish this. The applicant submitted this request on August 15, the annual date of rezoning by private applications. The Engineering Department commented that the legal description indicates that the two lots in question are not legal lots in either the L-2 or R-15 zone district in that the lots are slightly less than 60 feet wide and therefore do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of the Code. Engineering also commented that th rezoning would not impact services in the area and would not present any engineering problems. Background: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-15(PUD)(L) to L-2 in order to build a duplex on the 6,000 square foot subject parcel. A duplex is allowed in the R-15 zone district, but only on lots 15,0)0 square feet or greater, therefore, a rezoning to L-2 is request d for the purposes of building a duplex on a conforming lot. After reviewing pity records, the Planning Office can find no reason for the V.Mark parcel being bisected by the two different zone districts. Uter researching the R-15(L) zone district, we find that the (L) overlay is not listed in the Code even though it is found on the zoning map. This will be corrected when the use tabl s are revised in the near future. The R-15 (L) zone was intended to be a transition area between the lodge districts and the "C" - Conservation zone district on Aspen and Shadow Mountains. The R-15(L) district allows lodge uses, but on a less intensi e scale since the R-15 area and bulk requirements must be met. In pssence, the zone allows short term lodge uses in single family Ond duplex structures. Alternatives: After reviewing tie applicant's request and making a site inspection, the Planning Office feels that several different alternatives coulJ accomplish the desired duplex on the subject parcel. These methods are discussed below. 1. Rezone to L- and deed restrict the development to a duplex. 2. Keep the exiting zoning and allow a duplex on the L-2 portion of t e property. 3. Rezone the e0tire property to R-15 (PUD(L). Memo: Valdamar Mark Rezoning October 26, 1982 Page Two 1. Rezone to L- This is the alternative requested by the applicant. This cleans up the zone district line bisecting the parcel, but everal other problems arise. First, an L-2 designation woulc upzone the parcel, allowing a higher density and a higher FAR which the Planning Office feels is inappropriate for the site. If the parcel is deed restricted to a duplex and a reasonable FAR the density and FAR concerns could be eliminated. A second issue involved in an L-2 rezoning is that the R-15 (PUD)(L) transition zone would be reduced. Half of the subject property is deli nated R-15(PUD)(L) in order to provide an area of transitign between intensive lodge uses and the "C" - Conservation zonE district. An upzoning to L-2 eliminates the gradual transition for which the R-15(PUD)(L) was intended. Again, a deed restriction on the FAR and the use of the parcel for a duplex would eliminate these concerns. A third issue arising from an L-2 zoning is that the Planning Office's study o lodge units in Aspen shows that the buildout potential for ne short term units under existing zoning is adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with the new L-3 district. Since lodging needs can be met at existing locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2, especially if it provides further justification for other lands to rezone to lodge uses. As shown on the attached zoning map, the 3,000 square foot parc 1 to be rezoned would not significantly affect or increase the xisting lodge areas, especially when develop- ment on the parc 1 is restricted to a duplex. 2. Keep the Existing Zoning. If the applicant's proposed duplex is locatec on the existing L-2 portion of the property, the duplex will be conforming if the minimum lot requirements and other area a d bulk requirements of the L-2 district are met. An appropriate compromise of the L-2 and R-15 FARs could be made for the project through the PUD process. The major problem with this alternative is that forcing the development to locate on one portion of the property brings greater impacts to the adjacent property owners at Fifth Avenue Condominiums. With a minimum five yard setback, the structure could block the view of Aspen Mountain from Fifth Avenue as well as concentrate the bulk on the structure on the lot nearest these condominiums. 3. Rezone to R-15 PUD L . A rezoning of the entire V. Mark parcel to R-15 P D L will not allow the applicant to build a duplex on the property since 15,000 square feet is required for a duplex in this zone district. PUD procedures cannot decrease the minimum lot requirements below what the Code allows. This however, could be the best method of cleaning up the zone district line problems, if P & Z determines that only a single family structure should be built on the site. An R-15(PUD)(L) rezoning removes the line from the middle of the V. Mark parcel without adding a new area zoned for high density lodge uses and eliminates the difficulty of enforcing a duplex deed restriction on an L-2 parcel. However, a duplex is located between the subject site and the ski mountain, and Fifth Avenue abruptly arises to the north of the parcel. In view of the surrounding land uses, a duplex appears to be a reasonable request for the subject site. If P & Z agrees that a duplex is an appropriate use for the site, this cannot be accomplished through an R-15(PUD)(L) rezoning. Planning Office Review: Ordinance 19, Series of 1982 establishes review criteria for evaluating a rezoning. Since this is a small parcel being rezoned which will create only minor impacts, the only pertinant review criteria involves the compatibility of the rezoning with � i • Memo: V. Mark Rezoning October 26, 1982 Page Three surrounding zone districts and land uses. With the L-2 zone surrounding the parcel on three sides, an L-2 rezoning is compatible with he surrounding zoning. The proposed duplex on the subject p rcel will be located next to a duplex to the south of the proerty and Fifth Avenue Condominiums to the north and east, herefore the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The Planning Office feels that a duplex is a reasonable, compatible use of the subject site, and we recommend that P & Z recommend to Council the approval of the applicant's requ st for a rezoning to L-2, if the applicant agrees to deed r strict the property to a single family or duplex structure. The FAR of the s ructure should also be limited to a size appropriate for duplex in this transition area. The following illustrates the esulting allowable floor areas under the L-2 and R-15 requirements: Zone Allowable Floor Area L-2 1 6,000 sq. ft. R-15 1 3,600 sq. ft. L-2/R-15 (a�erage) 4,800 sq. ft. The Planning Off ce feels that an appropriate floor area limi- tation would be 1,200 square feet - a mid point between the above 3,600 and z,800 square foot figures. A 4,800 square foot structure i somewhat excessive on a 6,000 square foot lot in this tran ition area. Also, a 3,600 square foot structure (1,800 square feet per unit) seems to be too small in light of what is marketable on such a valuable piece of property. A 4,200 square f of structure represents a .7 FAR. The existing R-15 (PUD)(L) parcel has a mandatory PUD designation due to potential slope problems. The Planning Office recommends that the "PUD" sill be attached to the new L-2 zone so that the slope reduct on formula still comes into play. Section 24-8.13 of the Code (Mandatory PUD) allows P & Z to exempt a project from compliance with the four step PUD process if the proposed project meets the objectives of the planned unit development. If the applicant wishes to be exempt from PUD procedures, such a request and sufficient justification for such a request s ould be submitted to the Planning Office for subsequent revie . Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Off�ce recommends that P & Z recommend the approval of the rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition, to L-2(PUD) subjectlto the following conditions: 1. Any future Development must be deed restricted to a single family or d plex structure with such restrictive covenants approved by the Attorney's office; and 2. The floor area of any future structure is limited to a maximum of 4,200 square feet. 3. Mandatory PIED procedures must be followed unless an exemption is obtained from P & Z. V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS a. e.&L. cn. 100 Leaves provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof Section 4 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado; 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the Ci�y of Aspen on the day of , 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: I Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of ff 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: V. Mark Rezoning Appltcation DATE: August 30, 1982 The Planning Office cannot determine why the V. Mark parcel was bisected by two different zone districts. After reviewing City records and questioning Kathryn Koch and Lou Buettner, no reason for the division can be found. The southern portion of the parcel, Lot 4, is zoned R-15/PUD/L. Although not listed in the Code, R-15/PUD/L is found on the zoning map and is a transition zone between the "C" - conservation zone on the mountain and zone districts allowing lodge uses. The R-15/L district allows short term uses under R-15 area and bulk requirements. In essence, the zone allows short term lodge uses in single family and duplex structures. After a very preliminary review, the Planning Office sees the following concerns: 1. The rezoning request is made in order to make the current use of the property (a single family residence) conforming. Both the L-2 and R- 15/PUD/L zone allow single family structures and thus it is not now non -conforming. 2. There is no justification for upzoning half of the parcel to L-2. The R-15 zone district requires the use on the parcel to adhere to the FAR requirements of Ordinance 11, series of 1982. Single family and duplex structures in the L-2 zone district are not covered by Ordinance 11 and multi -family structures have a 1:1 FAR. A rezoning to L-2 would allow multi -family uses and a higher allowed floor area. 3. A rezoning of half the parcel would eliminate the transition between the mountain conservation area and neighboring lodge uses for which the R-15/L was intended. 4. It is assumed that the "PUD" designation was placed on the property due to the necessity for slope consideration. This should not be removed unless sufficient justification proves it should be removed. • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning DATE: November 22, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: G Location: 918 South Mill (Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition . Zoning: L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) Lot Size: 6,003 square feet. Applicant's Request: Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition which have merged pursuant to Section 24-13.6(d) of the Code, are bisected by the zone district line running between the L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) zone districts. Most all of Lot 3, the northern half of the two parcels, is zoned L-2 while the remaining southern half which contains Lot 4 is zoned R-15 (PUD)(L). The applicant wishes to build a conforming duplex on this parcel on a conforming lot and is requesting a rezoning of the southern half of the property from R-15 (PUD)(L) to L-2 to accomplish this. The applicant submitted this request on August 15, the annual date of rezoning by private applications. Referral Comments: The Engineering Department commented that the legal description indicates that the two lots in question are not legal lots in either the L-2 or R-15 zone district in that the lots are slightly less than 60 feet wide .and therefore do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of the Code. Engineering also commented that the rezoning would not impact services in the area and would not present any engineering problems. Background: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R715 (PUD)(L) to L-2 in order to build a duplex on the 6,003 square foot subject parcel. A duplex is allowed in the R-15 zone district, but only on lots 15,000 square feet or greater, therefore, a rezoning to L-2 is requested for the purposes of building a duplex on a conforming lot. After reviewing City records, the Planning Office can find no reason for the V. Mark parcel being bisected by the two different zone districts. The R-15 (L) zone is intended to be a transition area between the lodge districts and the "C" - Conservation zone district on Aspen and Shadow Mountains. The R-15 (L) district allows lodge uses, but on a less intensive scale since the R-15 area and bulk requirements must be met. In essence, the zone allows short term lodge uses in single family and duplex structures. Planning Office Review: The proposed rezoning of the subject property to L-2 would clean up the zone district line bisecting the parcel, but several other problems arise. First, an L-2 designation would upzone the parcel, allowing a higher density and a higher FAR which the Planning Office feels is inappropriate for the site. If the parcel is deed restricted to a duplex and a reasonable FAR, the density and FAR concerns could be eliminated. A second issue involved in an L-2 rezoning is that the R-15 (PUD)(L) transition zone would be reduced. Half of the subject property is designated R-15 (PUD)(L) in order to provide an area of transition between intensive lodge uses and the "C" - Conservation zone district. An upzoning to L-2 eliminates Memo: V. Mark Rezoning November 22, 1982 Page Two the gradual transition for which the R-15 (PUD)(L) was intended. Again, a deed restriction on the FAR and the use of the parcel for a duplex would eliminate these concerns. A third issue arising from an L-2 rezoning is that the Planning Office's study on lodge units in Aspen shows that the buildout potential for new short term units under existing zoning is adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with the new L-3 district. Since lodging needs can be met at existing locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2, especially if it provides further justification for other lands to rezone to lodge uses. As shown on the attached zoning map, the 3,000 square foot parcel to be rezoned would not significantly affect or increase the existing lodge areas, especially when develop- ment on the parcel is restricted to a duplex. Surrounding property owners at Fifth Avenue condominiums have expressed the concern that the five yard setback in the L-2 zone district would permit a structure that would obstruct the views from their units. They have requested a building envelope which provides a sufficient setback from their structure to eliminate this problem. Ordinance 19, Series of 1982 establishes review criteria for evaluating a rezoning. Since this is a small parcel being rezoned which will create only minor impacts, the only pertinant review criteria involves the compatibility of the rezoning with surrounding zone districts and land uses. With the L-2 zone surrounding the parcel on three sides, an L-2 rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning. The proposed duplex on the subject parcel will be located next to a duplex to the south of the property and Fifth Avenue Condominiums to the north and east, therefore the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The Planning Office feels that an L-2 rezoning with a duplex is a reasonable, compatible use of the subject site, if the applicant deed restricts the property to a single family or duplex structure as he has agreed to do. A reasonable restriction on the allowed floor area and a designated building envelope are important issues but are issues which could be more appropriately dealt with through the mandatory PUD process. Since half of the subject property (Lot 4) currently has a PUD designation, the Planning Office feels it is inappropriate to remove this designation without sufficient justification for doing so. Also, if the property is rezoned L-2 (PUD), a reasonable floor area and building envelope can be determined through the PUD process. Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend an L-2 (PUD) rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition as described in the attached property description with the requested deed restriction to a single family or duplex structure placed on the property. Both P & Z and the Planning Office recommend that the following issues be addressed in the mandatory PUD process: FAR, setback/building envelope, height, slope and surrounding land uses. Council Action: "I move to read Ordinance No. "I move to approve Ordinance No. C-40 on first reading." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 11 C. ►. MOECREL E. 0.. L. CO. ORDINANCE NO.� (Series of 1982) AN ORDNANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS 918 SOUTH MILL STREET TO L-2/-PSE WHEREAS, Valdemar Mark, owner of the real property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, did file a private application for a rezoning on August 15, 1982, pursuant to Section 24-12.5(b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the subject property described in Exhibit "A" is currently bisected by a zone district boundary line between the L-2 and R-15/PUD/L zone districts; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has a significant municipal inter- est in seeing that its Zoning District Map is rational and con- sistent and does not contain zone district boundaries bisecting parcels historically in common ownership and uniform in use; and WHEREAS, in the private rezoning application submitted by Valdemar Mark, Mr. Mark did request a rezoning of the subject pro- perty to L-2; and WHEREAS, Valdemar Mark, as an inducement to the City to accept his rezoning request, did amend his rezoning application to include a voluntary deed restriction limiting the use of the sub- ject property described in Exhibit "A" to a single-family or duplex structure; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on November 2, 1982, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did review the requested rezoning and then did recommend to the Aspen City Council the rezoning of the subject property described in Exhibit "A" to L-2/PUD with the requested deed restriction on the property limit- ing the use of the parcel to a single-family or duplex structure and did further recommend that the following issues be reviewed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves tM" C. F. KOECKFL B. !. S L. CJ. 0 during the mandatory PUD process if Council rezones the property L-2/PUD: FAR, setbacks/building envelope, height, slope and sur- rounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the recommenda- tion of the Planning and Zoning Commission and determined that rezoning to L-2 be granted subject to certain below -described con- ditions, which conditions the Applicant, Valdemar Mark, has stipu- lated to be voluntary, reasonable and relating directly to the subject property and valid public policy goals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning District Map" is hereby amended by rezoning the Valdemar Mark par- cel, more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, as L-2, conditioned upon a deed restric- tion to be filed by him as owner, or his successors and assigns, restricting the use of said parcel to either a single-family or duplex structure and restricting the allowed floor area of such structure to a maximium 4,800 square feet and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as de- scribed in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code (as now exists or may hereafter be amended). That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend the Zoning District Map consistent with the requirement of the Aspen Municipal Code and as described in Section 1 above. .,__L___ If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent ti In 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM Y C. F. NOFCKFL B. B. B L. CO. provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk day of 3 D rs . -- MD or". A pp 26)c L,Oc.A 7 C ON v ►O 30 5 P-0 .+. E14MG241\`! OD (EDU EEs SURVEY ORIENTED w/1=0UND MONS, '� FN0 '*S RE -BAR W/CAP AS DI=5CRI(3ED 90 CALLS IN C ) CALL. RECEC�RO FROM COR, NIO. I LITTLE GHII=F AND BIG CHIEF iV1 S. 3850 AN �J 4 2-13 RESPECT I�/ E LY AS DEBCR I gE\-D v, ON THE ANTHONY AGES SUS 3D. PLAT PL AT E3d0K 3 PAGE IS A ICI D BooK Iq 8 PAGE 4c13 AND r= ROM THE PLAT OFTHE ScVvzp- MH LITTLE CHIEF LODE I N PLA-7 BOOK 2, PA,GE �i LN, q23? 5 AND Co EGAL DESCRIPTION RECORED InivSR Sy z IN BOOK, IBG AT PAGE. 4G3 W,AE-' \�o l USED WOOD FENCE ---# WII?E FENCE ROCK R ET4\1 N I NG WALL + FIV O OR SET OP, SPIKE T "T" FENCE POST POWEPk POLE H. JOHN501�1 G1o18 NC�T USED iN THE. PRE PCRATI�t�I C:�F' f-I-{IS SURVEY; ❑ UTILITY BOX SET 5 R.EaAR W CAP I Co 129 AREA SHOWN� GAL-C. 2!,CTWEEN. 1\A0NUMI=NTS, 1' CONTOUR 1 NTF_RVAL . ELEUAi lON DATUM AR15I7RARY - ON T-o. M. l0o4 M L 1 LI `b CL) M \y [T�Y FOR /�/ l /? d-e OF LOT 3 AND 4 CAPITAL 1-41LL. ADIDITION TO CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN CO. COL-O. � THE` I R EASTERLY CX-iENs10(�1 SURVEY ENGR5 INC. pO. F3oXa-5- 0r�o A5pCN crJ. J U LY 1, 1980 1= l F' L.p TQJ=lO A.DDEO /0/a,"/80 .► . -r[3M I UO o 5.�5� 05' 5sC=- ��-- T HOUSE NOT / SHOWN LINE I-q _ITTLE .I AND g1G CHIEF MINING GL Al MS��OB ❑ �- � l-to ONN�01J �lpl8 -• BLANK ALUM � CAp I AREA G003 -.'= Sq. c- ?-. F-IELD r,4-14- R_a,\3„w, GG.22� �n U� W� IL I � JOH N SON gplg 0` I, DAVID W. Mc -BRIDE, CERTIFY THATTHIS PLAT IS PLOTTED FROM PIEL.D NOTEe OF A SURVEY MADE UNDER Iv1Y SUPEFZ- V151ON DUPING JUNE 1960 AND FROM PREVIOUS SURVEY PERFORMED BY (=,( l= r�lc'-.R`�. lmr-------- I)AV1ID W. Mr -BRIDE L,S. ICoI C. _jOB':l- i0158-A �XH IBft �. Names and addresses of all owners of real property within 300 feet of the area of the proposed zoning change. MacDonald property Surrounding property owners (3001) 1. Hans and June Cantrup P. O. Box 388 Aspen, Co. 81612 2. Durant Condo Assoc. 718 S. Galena ✓�� 0� Aspen, Co. 81611 3. Fasching Haus East Assoc. 747 P. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 4. Fasching Haus Condo Assoc. 747 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 5. Fifth Avenue Condo Assoc. 4 747 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 r73q 7 6. The City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 7. Andrew D. Black 757 Bay St. San Francisco, Ca. 94109 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: V. Mark.Rezoning Application NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 19, 1982 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider a rezoning of property located on Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition, Aspen so that the property, half of which is zoned R-15 PUD, the other zoned L-2, may be entirely zoned L-2. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext.. 227. s/Perry Harvey Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on September 23, 1982. City of Aspen account. • i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on this day of; y A 982t a true and correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding v. was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed to the following: RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT SPENCER F. SCHIFFER KATHERINE HENDRICKS WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. KIRK B. HOLLEYMAN Mr. Sunny Vann Planning Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Sunny: GARFIELD & H ECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 August 12, 1982 HAND DELIVERED TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" Enclosed please find an application to amend the zoning district map so as to rezone a portion of the property described therein in accordance with Article XII, Section 24, of the Municipal Code which we are submitting on behalf of our client Valdamar Mark, owner of the property. Submitted together with the application are the following: 1. The names and addresses of the owner of the real property in the area of the proposed change; 2. Names and addresses of all owners of real property within 300' of the area of the proposed change; 3. The signature of the applicant, owner of the property; 4. A check in the amount of $475, which is the requisite fee under Ordinance 82 series of 1981. 5. A survey of property to be rezoned. As the application indicates, the zoning district line bisects the property so that approximately one-half of the area to the north is zoned L2 and the balance to the south is zoned R15 PUD. Although we intend to elaborate further at the time this is presented to the P&Z, our position simply stated is that where a parcel of property such as this is divided by a zoning district line so that a portion of the property would be considered non -conforming, the zoning line should be adjusted so that the current use of the property is deemed to be conforming. It is my understanding that the application will be considered by the P&Z in October. I would appreciate it very much if you would advise me of the Planning Department's position on this application prior to that time. GARFIELD & HECHT Mr. Sunny Vann August 12, 1982 Page 2 If you need any additional information, please don't hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. Very my yours, GARFI LD & HECHT S .e ce F. Schiffe SFS/pg enclosures cc: Mr. Valdamar Mark t MEMORANDUM TO:, City Attorney i 44twL— :ng Department 8uiUing Department FROM: Martha Eichelberger PLANNER: Alice Davis RE: piny Application DAU: ,August 6. 1982 Planner Alice `vis tras'dttacfied an application submitted on behalf of Valdamar Mark requiestim rezoning approximately one-half of a piece of property described -in the azzaMen Tram R-i5 PUD to L-2, so that the entire parcel conforms to one zone. jhe,jtP_mJs,--ri.edvled to go Before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October b, h4ai, so please have any referral comments back to us by Monday, Septer-bcr 27. Thank you. CITE' OF ASPEN MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS 06 P(-C)P� Aukc(ey- vcvne(- C�k+t �_prrla 44i b��► Vj cuo h�- ��,� hig t� co P ao� h i 9 lier- �n s ray :C)hn C3onr�4- b(_6 LA,I pnue-lo(-e S F zones V-- l 5 JOHN S. BENNETT Box 4127 Aspen, Colorado 81612 I"JZARY HARVEY, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Oct. 29, 1982 Tu: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission RE: V. Mark Rezoning I am writing on behalf of several 5th Ave. Condominium owners to request that the Planning & Zoning Commission con- sider rezoning the V. Mark property to R-15 instead of L-2. This possibility is described as Alternative #3 in the 10/26 memorandum to P & Z from Alice Davis. - When one examines the zoning map of the area, it appears quite clear that the planners who drew the map intended the R-15 zone to wrap around and follow the contours of the densely developed condominium area at the top of brill and Galena streets. The R-15 line falls on the south edge of Lots 12 & 13 and should have been drawn to make a small dog- leg to follow the south edge of Lot 11 as well. Had this been done, Lots 3 & 4 would both have been R-15, as was al- most certainly intended. It would seem very doubtful that the planner who drew the map intended to run a zoning line through the middle of the existing house on Lots 3 & 4. It would be logical to assume that the intention was rather to follow the edge of the existing condominiums in the area, since that is exactly what the zoning line does along the rest of its length. The inclusion of Lot 3 in the L-2 area appears to be a simple oversight on the part of someone drawing a map without physically checking the property to make sure that he had his lines in the right place. It is precisely the same kind of oversight on the part of a surveyor that resulted in Lots 3 & 4 having less than 6000 sq. ft. between them. The Planning Dept. has stated that it will treat the property as a frill 6000 sq. ft. be- cause that was the probable intent of the surveyor and because the Dept. doesn't feel a property owner should be penalized for a surveyor's mistake. I fully agree with this • • reasoning; however, I believe it applies equally to an adja- cent property owner being unjustly penalized by the mistake of someone drawing a zoning map. Whether P & Z decides to rezone the property R-15 or L-2, I strongly urge the Commission to designate a building envel- opa in the center of the lots for any new construction. If the owner were allowed to build on the property's north side with only a 5 ft. setback, even a 3600 sq. ft. building would completely cut off the adjacent 5th Ave. condominiums from all of their view and most of their sunshine. Such a building 5 ft. from the property line would amount to a monolithic ba_,rier severing the adjacent property owners from all con- tact with the mountain. In summary, I urge the Planning & Zoning Commission to leave Lots 3 & 4 in their present very appropriate use - a single family dwelling - and that you require any replacement building to be built in a way that will show both respect and sensitivity for its neighbors. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, ohn S. Bennett • • TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Alice Davis, Planning Office Valdamar Mark Rezoning December 27, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Location: 918 South Mill (Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition Zoning: L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) Lot Size: 6,003 square feet. Applicant's Request: Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition which have merged pursuant to Section 24-13.6(d) of the Code, are bisected by the zone district line running between the L-2 and R-15 (PUD)(L) zone districts. Most all of Lot 3, the northern half of the two parcels, is zoned L-2 while the remaining southern half which contains Lot 4 is zoned R-15 (PUD)(L). The applicant wishes to build a conforming duplex on this parcel on a conforming lot and is requesting a rezoning of the southern half of the property from R-15 (PUD)(L) to L-2 to accomplish this. The applicant submitted this request on August 15, the annual date of rezoning by private applications. Referral Comments: The Engineering Department commented that the legal description indicates that the two lots in question are not legal lots in either the L-2 or R-15 zone district in that the lots are slightly less than 60 feet wide and therefore do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of the Code. Engineering also commented that the rezoning would not impact services in the area and would not present any engineering problems. Background: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-15 (PUD)(L) to L-2 in order to build a duplex on the 6,003 square foot subject parcel. A duplex is allowed in the R-15 zone district, but only on lots 15,000 square feet or greater, therefore, a rezoning to L-2 is requested for the purposes of building a &Aplex on a conforming lot. After reviewing City records, the Planning Office can find no reason for the V. Mark parcel being bisected by the two different zone districts. The R-15 (L) zone is intended to be a transition area between the lodge districts and the "C" - Conservation zone district on Aspen and Shadow Mountains. The R-15 (L) district allows lodge uses, but on a less intensive scale since the R-15 area and bulk requirements must be met. In essence, the zone allows short term lodge uses in single family and duplex structures. Planning Office Review: The proposed rezoning of the subject property to L-2 would clean up the zone district line bisecting the parcel, but several other problems arise. First, an L-2 designation would upzone the parcel, allowing a higher density and a higher FAR which the Planning Office feels is inappropriate for the site. If the parcel is deed restricted to a duplex and a reasonable FAR, the density and FAR concerns could be eliminated. A second issue involved in an L-2 rezoning is that the R-15 (PUD)(L) transition zone would be reduced. Half of the subject property is designated R-15 (PUD)(L) in order to provide an area of transition between intensive lodge uses and the "C" - Conservation zone district. An upzoning to L-2 eliminates 0 Memo: V. Mark Rezoning December 27, 1982 Page Two the gradual transition for which the R-15 (PUD)(L) was intended. Again, a deed restriction on the FAR and the use of the parcel for a duplex would eliminate these concerns. A third issue arising from an L-2 rezoning is that the Planning Office's study on lodge units in Aspen shows that the buildout potential for new short term units under existing zoning is adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with the new L-3 district. Since lodging needs can be met at existing locations, there is no need for an upzoning to L-2, especially if it provides further justification for other lands to rezone to lodge uses. As shown on the attached zoning map, the 3,000 square foot parcel to be rezoned would not significantly affect or increase the existing lodge areas, especially when develop- ment on the parcel is restricted to a duplex. Surrounding property owners at Fifth Avenue condominiums have expressed the concern that the five yard setback in the L-2 zone district would permit a structure that would obstruct the views from their units. They have requested a building envelope which provides a sufficient setback from their structure to eliminate this problem. Ordinance 19, Series of 1982 establishes review criteria for evaluating a rezoning. Since this is a small parcel being rezoned which will create only minor impacts, the only pertinant review criteria involves the compatibility of the rezoning with surrounding zone districts and land uses. With the L-2 zone surrounding the parcel on three sides, an L-2 rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning. The proposed duplex on the subject parcel will be located next to a duplex to the south of the property and Fifth Avenue Condominiums to the north and east, therefore the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The Planning Office feels that an L-2 rezoning with a duplex is a reasonable, compatible use of the subject site, if the applicant deed restricts the property to a single family or duplex structure as he has agreed to do. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends an L-2 (PUD) rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition as described in the attached property description with the requested deed restriction to a single family or duplex structure placed on the property. P&Z recommended that the following issues be addressed in the mandatory PUD process: FAR, setback/ building envelope, height, slope and surrounding land uses. Council's lst Reading Actions: At the first reading of this Ordinance, Council indicated that they felt a reasonable FAR for the V. Mark parcel was 4,800 square feet, 1,200 square feet lower than the 6,000 square feet allowed in the L-2 zone district. Council also indicated that a building envelope was not necessary or appropriate since side - yard setbacks provide the legal requirements for distances between structures on adjacent properties. Council agreed that the L-2 rezoning requested by the applicant was appropriate and that a PUD designation was not necessary. Ordinance No. 66 was approved on first reading November 22, 1982 with a 4,800 FAR and no PUD designation. C� Memo: V. Mark Rezoning December 27, 1982 Page Three Council Action: If Council approves of the attached ordinance, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 66 on second reading." MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning DATE: October 19, 1982 The applicant and the Planning Office have mutually agreed that the V. Mark Rezoning should be tabled until the next regular P & Z meeting on November 2, 1982 in order to allow time for a more detailed review. Since this item is scheduled for a public hearing tonight, the hearing should be opened and continued to November 2, 1982. 1r�7 blM 2 Q J 0 N I` V V 40 M ISE a-W' 1cm Y a oea®®e®e®e� Or m i i N 'rA� 117 (or- 0000 °° i D i = m Z Z / m i In t A A,] 6 APPLICATION FOR REZONING This application to amend the zoning district map for the City of Aspen is made by the undersigned applicant, owner of all of the real property hereinafter described, a portion of which is proposed to be rezoned, all in accordance with and pursuant to Article XII, Section 24, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 1. PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: LOTS 3 and 4 in the LITTLE CHIEF LODE SURVEY No. 3850, also known as Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, a plat of which is recorded as Document No. 34744 in Town Plat Book No. 2 at Pages 5 and 6 of the records for Pitkin County; and all the surface rights to the following: A tract of land in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., being that part of the Big Chief Lode Claim, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 4237, lying within the following described boundary: Beginning at the NW corner of Lot 5, Capitol Hill Addition whence the NW corner of said Section 18 bears N 10051'30" W 1579.94 feet; thence S 74°55' E 99.40 feet; thence N 15100' E 59.50 feet; thence No. 74155' W 99.49 feet; thence S 15105' W 59.50 feet to the point of beginning; said tract (described by metes and bounds) contains 3,224 square feet, more or less, together with all improvements situate thereon. 2. PRESENT ZONING: The zoning district line bisects the property along the borderline between lots 3 and 4 and continuing easterly through the adjacent parcel such that approximately one-half of the property to the north is zoned L2 and one-half of the property to the south is zoned R15 PUD. 3. PROPOSED ZONING: L2 4. OWNER OF PROPERTY: Valdamar Mark 2793 Weld County Road No. 17 Brighton, Colorado 80601 5. SURVEY OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: Attached hereto As Exhibit "A". 6. LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET (300') OF THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Attached hereto is Exhibit "B". Submitted this 13th day of August, 1982. Valdamar Mark APPLICATION FOR REZOidING This application to amend the zoning district map for the City of Aspen is made by the undersigned applicant, owner of all of the real property hereinafter described, a portion of which is proposed to be rezoned, all in accordance with and pursuant to Article XII, Section 24, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 1. PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: LOTS 3 and 4 in the LITTLE CHIEF LODE SURVEY No. 3850, also known as Capitol Hill Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, a plat of which is recorded as Document No. 34744 in Town Plat Book No. 2 at Pages 5 and 6 of the records for Pitkin County; and all the surface rights to the following: A tract of land in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., being that part of the Big Chief Lode Claim, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 4237, lying within the following described boundary: Beginning at the NW corner of Lot 5, Capitol Hill Addition whence the NW corner of said Section 18 bears N 10051130" W 1579.94 feet; thence S 74055' E 99.40 feet; thence N 15000' E 59.50 feet; thence No. 74055' 11 99.49 feet; thence S 15*05' W 59.50 feet to the point of beginning; saidtract (described by metes and bounds) contains 3,224 square feet, more or less, together with all improvements situate thereon. 2. PRESENT ZONING: The zoning district line bisects the property along the borderline between lots 3 and 4 and continuing easterly through the adjacent parcel such that approximately one-half of the property to the north is zoned L2 and one-half of the property to the south is zoned R15 PUD. 3. PROPOSED ZONING: L2 4. OWNER OF PROPERTY: Valdamar Mark 2793 Weld County Road No. 17 Brighton, Colorado 80601 5. SURVEY OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: Attached hereto As Exhibit "A". 6. LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET (300') OF THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Attached hereto is Exhibit "B". Submitted this 13th day of August, 1982. Valdamar Hark � � 1 1 a ! 1 ! c �clall, ! ! �m� a ISM �( , o A • _ 00 4 i 4 z `` i�. N j CL QD FA N N O — a- c0in �ri Q 4 c 04 ti . Q v cn N ►" v O Y �X�HONVNOW S--- cam. dsv- 5, r---F-71 cD h Imo© z a J L N ►'rI —i M C1 M _ � pri.— M G.T. APP2ox L.OGAc i t ON O 10 30 5 2.0 E14EEGEEM® Ou1EI(,::B SURVEY ORIENTED \N/7-OUNO MONS 90 FNO =5 RE -BAR W/CAP AS oEe. CR IaED CALLS I N ( CAL C- . RECEC�RO FROM COP,, 0D NO, I LITTLE CHIEF AND BIG CHIEF MS, 3850 AN O 4 2.-13 R E.SPE.CT 1\/ E LY AS DE5CR I BED to ON THE ANTHONY ACRES SUED. Pt_AT PLAT i300K 3 PAGE 1 S AND BooK 1G 8 PAGC qd3 AND r: ROM THE PLAT OFTHE ScWEp- M11 LITTLE CHIEF LODE 1 N PI-/-.T BOOK 2. PA,GI- RIND 923� 5 AND G E.GAL DLSCR1PT10N RECORED INVErLT I IN BCU01% 18q AT PAGE 4C63 WA-_ RIOT USED WOOD FENCE WIDE FENCE ROCK RE.-7,4WNING WALL FND oR SET ROUND - �-IEAD OR SPIKE T" FENCE POST POWER POLE H. JOHN50N gOIB NET USED IN 1 HE. PRF.PER,ATIot�l OF THIS SURVE-; UTILITY BOX, SET '$ 5 RF_aAR vv AP I G i29 AREA SHOWN CAL-C. C3CTWEEl\l IAQNUMENTS, I' CONTOUR I NTF_R\/A'L . F_LE A i"lON O'c', UM AR13I7RARY - 13A.5I`D ON T.B. M, lOOe EPD�3MTRU LT FOR ;/7/'l OF LOT 3 AND 4 CHPITAL 1-41 LL ADDITION, TO CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN CO. GOLD. E THLI R EASTERL-Y CXTENSIOI� SURVEY ENGRS INC. Po.13ox 250(2� ASPEN Cl0. L� L�,II 'W W CC /�n U o a 5.�5- 05' S1"E, 9'::�.:3(Z � y : f✓ O HOUSE NOT SHOWN 07 90 0 J• VGgNC,.' vvk\u' - j UNE, 1-4 �1TTL.E. --AND BIG GH1EF 0 coMININe C1-AIMS .{� BLANK ALUM j GAp ARF-=)L\ Co003 -+ sQ. c- r _p LAC) i" I � � ` J .Q Q I 14 J 0 H N SOtll go18 0` T, DAVID W. McBRIDE, CERTIFY THATTHIS PLAT IS PL.O_T7F_D FROM C=1EL.D NOTEe OF A SURVEY MADE UNDER N1Y SUPER- 0 0 0 0 w 7 Q r In ,a SC� L. "1 1 n n Bra. —a® g°u. r APPRox I..OGATC o N Elm [Z G 191\-\J OD M (DU EE1 ',TD �URV>=Y ORIENTED \N/t=OUNO MONS " PND It RE -BAR W/CAP AS D>=SGR13ED CALLS I N C ) CAL C-. RECEDRO FROM COR, NIO. I LITTLE CHIEF= AND SIG CHIEF" f\/1 S. 3850 /.aN O 4 2-1 3 AS DESCR 1 BE.O ON THE ANTI-IONY ACRES SUED" PL-A-T PLAT KOOK 3 PAGE I S A NI D BooK la 8 PAGE qq3 AND r ROM THE PL/AT OFTHE" LITTLE CHIEF LODE IN PL-/aT BOOK 2. PA.GE. 5 AND (Z) I LEGAL DESCRIPTION RECORED IN BOOK 18q AT PAGE 4Co3 VvAc �o 1 USED WOOD FENCE Y X WINE FENCE GooOocOO ROCK RET4\INING WALL -1- FND OR SET ROUND - }-IE.AD OR SPIKE T T" PENCE POST POWER POLE H. J0HNSON c1018 N(')T USED IN T HE - PRE PCRA7)C) � OT= TH I5 SURV E`; ❑ UTtLIT`( 130X 0 SET `z .5 W/CAP 1 CoI29 AREA SHOWN• CAI--C. 6ETWEEN MONUMENTS, 1' CONTOUR" I NTI=RVAL " ELEVA l 1C)N DATUM AR©17RARY - 3A.5I-0 ON T.i3. M, looe Ll U � 3 M T LI v Ll 1._l FOR OF LOT 3 AND 4 CAPITAL HILL. ADDITION, TO CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN CO. GOI—O. e THEIR EASTERL-Y GXTENS101�1 SURVEY ENGT-�S INC. P o. Box a-V5,O(2> ASpEN Co. J U LY 1, 19 80 (=) P-L,D TOPO AINDDE%J /0�2�f�80 a y S�wea M}-1 RINI 9232 I N v F rig- 10 W �-In c Nl o ZQ � 111� TC6M 100 0 s 90 / �9 J' -' UNE 1-4 _ITTLE. —ANO BIG CHIEF Co MINING CL.AMA 8 BLANK ALUM I C4P N'PAT10 H t-e, H kc)vv� — Z:> --�, �- _N_►u_ �=4 \v\l, co co. C-C:� CEE U97170I°11CZU11®1N 1, DAVID W. M�C3R.IOE, CERTIFY THATTHIS PLAT 15 PL-OTTED FP�OM FIEl-D N07Ee OF A SURVEY MADE UNDER M -( SUPER` V15ION DURING JUNE. 1980 AND FROM PREVIOUS SURVEY PERFORMED BY SURVEY E " GR51 1 f - S5,,-�3 44!it �-2 &p. /)plo OAV I D W. NIc.BRIDE L_.S. 1Co12,q J••�FG%st 16129 joBl= i0156-A 0 0 z U W Q In • MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer DATE: October 13, 1982 RE: V. Mark Rezoning -------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application for rezoning and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. According to the description submitted withthe application, the parcel proposed for rezoining would be nonconforming in either zone. 2. Rezoning would not significantly impact services in the area and therefore is of little concern to this department. JH/co MRS . F. H. HIBBERD PINE ISLAND • RYE, N. Y. 10580 October 7, 1982 Ms. Alice Davis City Planning Office Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application of V. MARK I am opposed to the application of V. MARK requesting the zoning of Lots #3 and #4, Capital Hill Addition, to be rezoned to an L-2 district. Please try to leave central Aspen as it is now - It will change the attractiveness of Aspen and lower property values if it is changed. Sincerely, Lorna W. Hibberd C9""5 0 ":-, I, 1. , t,r A.,,- J�F i FI 14v'Q LWH:rlg MICROGRAPHICS, INC. Octobe,% 7, 1982 Aspen Ptanning and Zoning Commission and City Counz et 130 S. Gatena Street Aspen, Cotonado 81611 Dean Ptanning Committee: I feet it would be a gtceat mistake to attow any ta&ge consttcuction on the .land between Fifth Avenue and Aspen Mountain. The atcea is attceady too congested, and any apat tment on commetcciat .dodge would maize this atcea into.f' etcabt e. I atzo Seet the xatt buitdingz o6 Fi jth Avenue a.etceady compnomize the 2andzcape og Aspen Mountain. Additionat consttcuction towa&dz the mountain itcom Fi6th Avenue would be duttuctive to the aesthetic and tandscape tines of the entitce Aspen area. WMG /tcm h cc: Um Sincenet y, W aZt en M . Gta.s z MARINA CITY OFFICE BLDG. 300 N. STATE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610 (312) 644-45W 71 0 CT 18 1DA9 JU J._ ASPEN / PITKMI CO. PANNING OFFICE Nine Steep Hill Road Weston, CT 06883 October 13, 1982 Planning & Zoning Commission City Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Friends: It has come to nV attention that a petition has been filed to amend the zoning to permit construction that would unduly increase the population density and negatively affect the aesthetics in an area adjoining the Fifth Avenue Condominiums at the foot of Aspen Mountain. As a property owner of long standing at Fifth Avenue, please consider this as a firm and forceful objection to the proposal. I see no offsetting benefits in any way commensurate to the detrimental effects that would arise from this new development. It is rV sincere request that in the event the matter is pursued, the Planning and Zoning Commission reject the proposal as its lack of merit is clearly obvious. Your judicious handling is requested. Very truly yours, William A. Powers, Owner 105 Fifth Avenue Condominiums WAP:sm • ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE • 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 • 47331 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 47332 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63723 47333 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 47341 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL 63725 47342 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 47343 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 47350 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 47350 52100 REZONING 63729 47360 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB -TOTAL County 00113 63711 47331 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 47332 52200 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63713 47333 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL _ 63715 47342 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 47343 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 47350 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 47350 52200 REZONING 63719 47360 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB -TOTAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09100 52200 COUNTY CODE 63063 09100 52200 ALMANAC 63062 09100 52300 GMP 63066 09100 52300 COPY FEES 63069 09100 OTHER Name: _ Address SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: Check No. Date: Additional Billinq: No. of Hours: