HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.918 S Mill St.1982 I V .1 1'121 V 7 _.> TRIN COUNTY CI E R IK R E t..i_ R tiE.::
v i
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 75°09' W 99.18 ft. to the Easterly right of way of South Mill Street;
THENCE S 14°55'27" 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 74°55' E 99.08 ft. along the Northerly line of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain
Subdivision;
THENCE N 15°00' 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. CO
By
Peter H. Cantrup, Pre ' ent
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5Jk day of April, 1995,
by Peter H. Cantrup as President of Mill St. 918 Corp. i
so,Witness my hand and official seal.. _
My commission expires: (/14'11�� °' : ;
Notary Public
RB\072.04265 Address: 6\)•
f ��
A Q N, ( 8 1 -/7
A
Pn Z
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100"Leav
FORM 5O C.F.HOECKEL B.B.&L.CO. r
ORDINANCE NO. 66
( Series of 1982)
AN ORDNANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN
AS 918 SOUTH MILL STREET TO L-2/
R
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
P 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
a FORM'0 C.F.HOECKFL B.B.&L.CO.
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 reason held invalid or
ortion of this ordinance is for any
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
2
yy �
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 L ayes "
)RM 50 C.F.NOECKEL 0.B.8 L.CO.
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 4
A public h 9
L--
hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the c —
�� L �c t/ , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in
day of 15
the City
Council Chambers , Aspen City Hall , Aspen, Colorado ,
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 c '°,-- day of
L7P-2 , 1982.
/4"
Ahigo
Mayor
Herman Edel, or Y
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. "ch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this — day of
, 1982.
vAdr
Mayor
Herman Ede , or Y
ATTEST:
j 1
•
Kathryn S. A ch, City Cler
3
wit:`,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS i
FORM'.O C.F.HOECKEL 8.B.&L.CO. ...i
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss 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 meeting of the City Council of the
City of Aspen on
Ic. Zg , 19 , and published
in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of general circulation .
•
published in the City of Aspen , Colorado , in its issue of
, 19P , and was finally adopted
and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on
19 (Vol , and= sordered published as
Ordinance No.
�_ , lJd Series of 19 � , 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 04(--1 day
of 41 f
19 03 .
i I�
Kathryn , Koch , City Clerk
S E A L
Deputy City Clerk
•
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning
DATE: October 26, 1982
Location: 918 South Mill (Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition) .
Zoning: L-1 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 6,000 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. After 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 tables 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 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.
Alternatives: After reviewing the applicant' s request and making a site
inspection, the Planning Office feels that several different
alternatives could accomplish the desired duplex on the subject
parcel . These methods are discussed below.
1 . Rezone to L-2 and deed restrict the development to a
duplex.
2. Keep the existing zoning and allow a duplex on the L-2
portion of the property.
3. Rezone the entire property to R-15 (PUD(L).
Memo: Valdamar Mark Rezoning
October 26, 1982
Page Two
1 . Rezone to L-2. This is the alternative requested by the
applicant. This cleans 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 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 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.
2. Keep the Existing Zoning. If the applicant' s proposed
duplex is located on the existing L-2 portion of the property,
the duplex will be conforming if the minimum lot requirements
and other area and 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(PUD)(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
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 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 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 request for a rezoning to L-2, if the applicant
agrees to deed restrict the property to a single family or
duplex structure.
The FAR of the structure should also be limited to a size
appropriate for a duplex in this transition area. The following
illustrates the resulting allowable floor areas under the L-2
and R-15 requirements:
Zone Allowable Floor Area
L-2 6,000 sq. ft.
R-15 3,600 sq. ft.
L-2/R-15 (average) 4,800 sq. ft.
The Planning Office feels that an appropriate floor area limi-
tation would be 4,200 square feet - a mid point between the
above 3,600 and 4,800 square foot figures. A 4,800 square
foot structure is somewhat excessive on a 6,000 square foot
lot in this transition 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 foot 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" still be attached to the new L-2 zone so that
the slope reduction 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 should be submitted to the Planning Office for
subsequent review.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that P & Z recommend the approval
of the rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition, to
L-2(PUD) subject to the following conditions:
1 . Any future development must be deed restricted to a single
family or duplex 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 PUD procedures must be followed unless an exemption
is obtained from P & Z.
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM.0 C.F.MOECKFL B.B.&L.CO.
1 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
i day of , 1982, at 5:00 P.M. in
1 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
J .
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 day of
, 1982.
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
•
•
•
{
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office •
RE: V. Mark Rezoning Applfication
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: 164
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 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. cop on first reading."
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C.F.HOECKEL B.B.a L.CO.
ORDINANCE NO. (f t9
{ (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/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
4
1 `•
ti
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM H C.E.KOECKEI B.B.&L.CO.
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:
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
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 9 C.F.ROECKFL B.e.R 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
I -
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 day of
, 1982.
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
•
3
•
■x 1---I B I �t
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 (300 ' )
1. Hans and June Cantrup
P. 0. Box 388
Aspen, Co. 81612
2. Durant Condo Assoc.
H 1 u �; ,,;yid
718 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
3. Fasching Haus East Assoc.
747, S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611 , l" ,)\,■4t
4 . Fasching Haus Condo Assoc. /'=
G >
747 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
5. Fifth Avenue Condo Assoc.
747 S. Galena *ni{�
Aspen, Co. 81611 r/ j r
6. The City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Co. 81611
7. Andrew D. Black
757 Bay St.
San Francisco, Ca. 94109
CITY OF ASPEN 06
MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS
SLktrOVIp
(No 0 uirvi-- Commeit+5
Ac_kccz,
(-5 A- -A otaio'e
i_ol-nct .6, t e no(
Fouiff-5 - ruk
John 66_2,nre--kA - hut LAin3 ower_to
S -zoneA 5-
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.
•
•
•
t
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this ,0 day of 4/c&---;q7AA,A982p a true
and correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding
was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and •
addressed to the following:
,4
IttAahfi
GARFIELD & }IECTIT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303)925-1936
TELECOPIER
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303)925-3008
KATHERINE HENDRICKS CABLE ADDRESS
WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C. August 12 , 1982 "GARHEC"
KIRK B. HOLLEYMAN
Mr. Sunny Vann
Planning Director HAND DELIVERED
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Sunny:
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 Duly yours,
GARFI LD & HECHT
/
/I./-t;? -/
S.,e i F. Schiffe �I
SFS/pg
enclosures
cc: Mr. Valdamar Mark
t
MEMORANDUM
TO:e City Attorney
trisineering ituiltiing Department
FROM: Martha Eichelberger
PLANNER: Alice Davis
•
RE: 'V.`Nark°iceturrtr,g Application
,August •
., gib, 3382
Planner Alive ' idvi5 ira' ~dttathed an application submitted on behalf of Valdamar
Mark requesting rezoning approximately one-half of a piece of property described
in the attacnen TIrorn <t-]5 PUD to L-2, so that the entire parcel conforms to
one zone.
.fs -t B led to go before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on
Tuesday, October b, .i. 32 so please have any referral comments back to us by
- day, Septe bcr 27.
Thank you.
y.
JOHN S. BENNETT
Box 4127
Aspen,Colorado 81612
ePRY 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 Mill 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 fill 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-
ope in the center of the lots for any new construction. If
th3 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,
5. /3 -
ohn S. Bennett
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office
RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning /J
DATE: December 27, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM:� i►-•T.� —
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 cuplex 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
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 1st
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.
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.
, .
, . .
. , .
Mlle
. .
. . , , . ,i', . r• —_ - ' • 11A,11 1111111014 .--
. - , ,'.. .* ''' --. .Siii•iii . rAma IMIFA
. .,
,rags alWo I
r . aims mar
- ..-.. .. , -
. . .
VIM WiNA .
, - -
. . . ,
..
mum wari
. „
0 .ortip amilin, elysi■e... -
, . • ,..,.,•:-.,, _-....,
116 *' ' ' U
- _
. . .._
. ,
..,, .. .. _ . . . .
.
men , n.-',IL:11,E:i . -
1111111rM -k,,`, Kal Mil31 - , , . .-- , ,
N
to ' tis, suallit
' . ,4,.,,,.• :: '' ' ' ' , ' imicrivir31, i.ii,i1F3lini 11,1•31 ,,,Lft .4.A, ,,, : -.ginwaams41.4.1.11.81..1
11E1')131 !AV:, - , '• NIIITIIi'Fill11111111
Pi' . , 6. 'Wsl !.'iu-1,ngl' 'rkri . -:,:ril'4 ,'er' ''''' '. Millralrerminitaali::11'7111111111Mlaurni
i
'Ili°111111111tA", -„.111111114 iiiiiiir:l . :87-: -r : ililinliaeall,allilliiitlF4,11 ,
,''11 1 • . „ -
.. .. . - - ... , - - • - : . ,
, . ... . .
. IMO INN 0 1114 IIIMI ass1s!N 'MESS • - ... /,',, ,. .."- .... .
- ' ' . -., ',,,•-, -„. AMIN 11111/1 inn A - ,,,,, .iar-% 11 , going" . - ,.,
. , - saiii ',ob.' Nit r illin IIIIII., IMIL Oa ‘''' - ,, ars! r, —..XriN
. . .''.0.-,, _ :--...:' maillq3f4 all .-, ;'' ----7. ..xl- naval. ,. ria,4 ' milEs '. ...-1-;.
. - -' - ',.:film iglu 3211 , - laill,-im INN. .- _ . ..-, -,, ,, •,t,$,...,r . ...
' '.' • ' - ' ' arm Arlani mailimil A OM
„ ma um ma -p.../...,19.1.•, , .-,, ;.-i•Al,
/
• - r -r#1 am aallas amimo mai as us mai INLJ• - r , , ., ,.,
Im ----- - , .. ,
. ..
. , .
. ,
1:::::::::111111131111mamm.
' -:. • - 0.1„,... ir1011-:
- . r, , , , S IstOttiAIRCIr"St I”'
''''C 111111 MIMI' 4.. liana MIMI' r -
nnti ilitsP41!i''' ; tabb:- r'''' -
- Elia . MINI i IF7IILI k' 111E111 i' 1/11111111 I ..&.'irif
II 1 ''."---''''-'-• - "I191 :- 11 8 ' '' 11111111vilMi g 111.1■■04- I MINN z MIEN I INN1/11 I t:i..,„.',If .
. Ativ • (4 111111.11111111;41 11-.;111M1 , lilt '
,,,•,til., 7:1 ' ,I.
L A
, ,61 m iL
imir iei. goal 0 1111111111.'!11111111 „PlE!Ill 1 --i4111111111 - ,;r-i I
111111killmai '-' maim mama • ch MINN ' -..*.
11 Ill ri op pi IF..., ,
ilalli ME MN 11.11111 IP. ' • 5 ab .4
._. .
..., .
I • 1 I S MIL Liu"Si. 41,:i
• ' r ...
1 . , ''' '.•T
qi . 1111/111 A , fitliv..A.(
1 .7_,. • 6 (0 co it . . v 1 •• ,
r- =ow l II -
.,.,. .. rural S . 11PrAtio
,..
l• , . . -,......
•‘. . , . till ;,-) IlfAfirei of-Nmilli - 10-iiiiid,:ijiiii,
rffikkviz..0 '.-jimme ,
,.. lanai 1 NINE 3,,c. , limm,
, . ,4,,`...., •••• I rn f
• essiiIMISSNINEA 111111111111 Nana
I i
- S
111:111L 1.... .. - '. .
I 41, . -
: - -_,,.:, .,,, , ; , .,%N. INN mbar '- .7,41111111 MINI r
.--", 1111 =
...,. .,.
ell'. 111d1111 1 MINN bk...711115
•,...
• cr • ' -,,..• - .: kP - 1 7r1111111 MO 47-11011
4Q._11=1 MINN ,=7::11111
• p im•IIII liar! r,
fl I " IP.,441111 --
,
MUNI
I IIIIIIP
Ad M :
Ito
- % i • _ .. •, i
. .,
- ..................aimmid.
. ,
•
. ••• ' 111119 r r ,,4 IIIMIll I !
lair; . .„ 4", .111111111
, . ... -A 14 :A1111 . A ,• IMINI___
-,' ..., ...... ,
., ,
. Ai4„41
ellt
"
.; ..., 611111- ' ' Ark. 41.11111111 'TT.7. 111.11 I
'
'' ' W' ' 'MOP Mir 1 ' 11111111
' *.." -dll
1111111111 I
, immili , pc.)$ . r avetimsaletlall , mum I
, .
• .... ‘ t; I - -
-,A. ' I ' aratIONLIMMillasINIMIN Mb
••-, ,, .1
-1
14111110Pii. co
' 111111 Jill.I
11
,.... ,,
---- -v ' I. CO
.. '.. 11/ ' /- . sMimi 1
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 10°51 ' 30" W 1579. 94 feet; thence S 74°55 ' E 99. 40
feet; thence N 15°00 ' E 59. 50 feet; thence No. 74°55 ' W
99. 49 feet; thence S 15°05 ' 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.
,,- ---7 -
Valdamar Mark
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 with the 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,
4,efrt<4. • rt, 6
Lorna W. Hibberd
Cam-,l4C�--' 6+-► ! et f CAP
6 re-ne4, � .�..
LWH:rlg
574- 1^■,
i
MICROGRAPHICS, INC.
Oczoben 7, 1982
Aspen Planning and Zoning Comm.izzion
and City Coun4eL
130 S. Ga.C.ena S.nee.
Aspen, CoLonado 81611
Dean PLann.ing Committee:
T jeei it wound be a gneat m.i4tafze to allow any
Lange eonAtnuct.ion on the Land between FZi th Avenue and
Ass pen Mountain. The anea .iA aLnead y too Gong ezted, and
any apantment on commene.iaL Lodge would matte thi4 anea
.intotenabLe.
I aL. o 6eeL the tall bu.iLd.ing4 of F.i.ith Avenue
aLneady eompnom.i4e the Land4eape o6 Aspen Mountain.
AddAt-ionaL eonAtnuct.ion towand4 the mountain 6nom
F-i6th Avenue would be de4-nuctive to the aeAthet.ie and
Land4eape L.ine4 o{y the en..%ne Aspen anea.
S,ineeneLy,
WaLteA. M. GLa44
WMG/nmh
cc:LLm
MARINA CITY OFFICE BLDG.
300 N. STATE STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610
(312) 644-4500
M s • +
l _1 11 7 4 1 )
OCT 18 1982 I
,4SPEN / PITKN CO.
PLANNING 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 my 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 my 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