The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.RZ.918 S Mill St.37-82 No. J7-8" L CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET • City of Aspen 1 . DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE: • 2. APPLICANT: V1Jd(l7yYz(4. /a • 3. REPRESENTATIVE: `%"c,�a.., x�j.� �/ (�. X /q3 Vf 4. PROJECT NAME: jila/t6,k 5. LOCATION: 617 8 Scudh /1I f r l-CTf 3 3+ 4, pI-�a ( I AddL-Ion) 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 4 Step: GMP ( ) PUD ( ). • Subdivision 2 Step: Subdivision Exception ( ) GMP Exception (r) ) P+7__ royiliwvAcd Rezoning ( / Pi/5 t0 L vZ ). ck re_71.-)n I -(D SPA L 2_ (put)) U 1-fh 1 Step: Use Determination C- dad resit-1'6'0n Conditional Use (; CZ duFLe_X . Special Review ( ) HPC No. of Steps: Other: 7. REFERRALS ✓ Attorney Sanitation District School District ,./tngineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks State Highway Dept. Water Holy Cross Electric _fire Chief City Electric moire Marshal/Building Dept. Other 8. DISPOSITION P & Z v/ Approved I Denied Date 9(±, 'c1 2_-fabled re.ccmmenriel by P-Z- (VOki. 2, I e2_ - ac �io►t • • 1`e:Z_D n i n3 appro v a I A Sa_ ±h 1 4t 1P E rrt i ry - parr e u,x,ct Id hP zen r1 L-2 Out)) , -The c ppJ i( 0- am@- eA his c ppl►cmtiu\ -10 inc.lu4 ' ck requ 5jL • -(or L-L1 ck_:i-th a man da--for / Pu.D °Lerlq.y and a deed re rrc n +D q duo/eV va ' , P4- Z • • _Sfcit2d a 3trrAy: (On(Er.(\ -(cr -(0(11 i b d c u •0' -t : • 1P:. tee T- 1-6 1-0\h -fhro�� Jr f)( )t) rO0-53- F itm' it a_ bc_ri ldini 6f i1CpU #c. minirni v_ = }a ':u.r--nr P CZ5.; • (over-) • • / 1 �22-1 g 15+ rgldrrt9 Council V Approved ...// Denied Date I a- / 7 '$2,- and' reaatiry r-- P. H . C._cuurt c. ( cPprO( fit to re 0(,x%s� rt°."r r)ri c.0 1 ioc f 0. P(.l V �5!!��1� t h s1. ?h e° 9,b' Ci- f> rr 15•o^be i(Y:1 -' ir-- _* d.uptek or 5i n (p F X11` � u r� t�� 44\ ..fe (ivc.ue �r'► t*pa +r, Lt- C( { -. itt nrF' (�; r ztj►1c�d * 1-1)61') 0'•i.: r '�: r^c1 l — rr•}.! ,O13..PER NO . 54 73 8573272 0 PIE 1ORANDUM OF OW) ERSHI P A C C OMMO DAT ION-NO L TAB I L I TY For t h e sole. u s e P1 e a s e d i r e c t c o r r e s p o n d ari c e o f : VALDEMAR MARK t o : PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DESCRIPTION : 925-1766 LOTS 3 AND 4, as represented on the Map of Surface Ground of r LITTLE CHIEF LODE, also described as LOTS 3 and 4 on CAPITAL HILL ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, also described as 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. G rant e e i n the last i n s t r omen t a p p a r en t l y trans f err i n g ownership : VALDAMAR MARK Trust_ deed s a rz d mortgages apparently- 1_1n released : SEE EXHIBIT "A" L i ens and j u d gmen i s ( a g a inst. l a s t g r an t e e ) Apparently- unreleased : NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS RECORDED APRIL 24, 1984 IN BOOK 465 AT PAGE 168, IN THE AMOUNT OF $53.51. This information is for your sole use and b en e f it. and i s fur n i s h e d a s an a c c omm o d a t i on - Th e information h a s been t.a k en from our t r act i n d ices , wit h o u t ref e r e n c e t o , o r examination o f , i n s t rumen i s which p u M-13 o r t t C) a f f e c t t h e r ea.l property The in formation i s Ti e i t h e r g ua r an t e e d nor c e r t i f i e d , and is riot an Abstract o f Title , Opinion of Title , Ti o r a Guaranty of Title , and our liability i s limited to the amount of the fees - Date : AUGUST 13 , 1985 , at 8 : 00 A . M . PITKIN COUNTY TITLE , INC - 'Olesij BY Aut r t� zed signature SEP 2 31� MEMORANDUM Date: September 20, 1985 TO: Steve Bernstein, Planning FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement "-4(9 SUBJECT: Valdemar Mark Rezoning 1) Does this survey count the GAP as lot area. is not part of this lot is appears to reduce the lot If the 6000 sq. ft. needed for four (4) one-bedroom units . 2) Applicant should be aware that any demolition of the e structure and a reconstruction should meet the area & bulk requirements for the L-2 existing zone. 3) What were the conditions of the 1982 rezoning? cc: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official Jim Wilson, Building Official BD/ar EXHIBIT "A" 1. DEED OF TRUST FROM : E. ROBERT GORDON, WALTER H. BIRK, ROSEMARIE D. BIRK AND DENNIS L. WENGER TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN FOR THE USE OF : ALICE WINSLOW MCDONALD TO SECURE : $150,000.00 DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 1979 RECORDED : AUGUST 31, 1979 IN BOOK 375 AT PAGE 214. 2. DEED OF TRUST FROM : VALDAMAR MARK TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN FOR THE USE OF : GUIDO MEYER TO SECURE : $18,000.00 DATED : MARCH 1, 1984 RECORDED : MARCH 31, 1984 IN BOOK 462 AT PAGE 892. u Department of the Treasury °Marnai Revenue Sonnet, 668f Y) Notice of Federal Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws P;str, t ,,uAe n. ei«,,,a•w em+sa w rtilr) 1 '. As provided by sections 6321,6322, and 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code. notice Is given that taxes (including interest and penalties) have been assessed against the following-named taxpayer Demand for payment of et this liability has been made, t^ut d remains unpaid. Therefore, there is a lien . A ., In favor of the United States vii all property and rights to property belonging i to this taxpayer for the amount of these taxes, and additional penalties. -> interest,and costs that may accrue 3 Narne of T t pa,l•r r' r ' Festdence 1g: r"e, t Mb AKe s' , i IMPQRTANTRELEASF inir oHma 1e N s.ee ;- rotor,*or lien 1s rehled by tt„"dad + r -, . •A, ,, le, Such date"operate as a e r mile,ate' e',,. ■ 1°•, ar a , ...,, Tao Period Date of Last Oily for Unpaid Balance '> Kind of Tax Ended Identifying Number Assessment Refihng of Assessment :fij ar r., Ao 411, k,. 1 tea, is , 4 , r et xYV I 1 M {6• k " ■ Tot ,; -.t $ t v ;r. 1 e t d' , was prepared and signed at ___ ____-_.__--_r____ .on this, t s - ° die______.._ day of 19 Signature ,q!0!14 . y „ma . IfiIOTE l art t ratr en ueh ee gut n-e ,. ew. . .e.r u�nrwwel r e'e m.y et a>,e,e,u r,.,r ry.d ,•,t r4,a ee or re0ar�, Tar hea # Nov. Nu, /14bo, 1e4/1 .^ l 40'41 ;a4N t Form 618(Y) )2 831 ..,i TO i-'c' i rC:'n i i)' J t . . f ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 3 AND 4, CAPITOL HILL ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF ADJACENT LAND OWNERS AS OBTAINED FROM THE MOST CURRENT TAX ASSESSORS ROLL FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ANDREWS D. BLACK Box 7226 Santa Fe, NM 87501 FRED EDWARD PEARCE P. 0. Box 531 Aspen, CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 CHRISTOPHER B. HEMMETER Hemmeter Center 2424 Kalakaua Avenue Honolulu, HI 98615 ASPEN MOUNTAIN JOINT VENTURE c/o Holland & Hart Attorneys at Law 600 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 VALDEMAR MARK 515 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 DURANT CONDOMINIUMS Unit 101A, Building A PHILIP R. & KATHLEEN MOORE 350 Franklin St. Denver, CO 80218 Unit 102A, Building A IRVING GERMANOW 13 Tobey Woods Pittsford, NY 14534 Unit 103A, Building A LARRY A. ULRICH 3621 E. Geddes Place Littleton, CO 80122 Unit 201A, Building A E. W. J. WADDELL 7350 Riverside Drive Windsor, Ontario, Canada N8S1C6 Unit 202A, Building A Ticondergo Co. 3108 Covington Lake Drive Fort Wayne, IN 46804 Unit 203A, Building A BILLYE B. HOWELL 4544 Belfort Dallas, TX 75205 Unit 301A, Building A WAYNE G. WICKMAN, TRUSTEE 3645 Del Monte Drive, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77027 Unit 302A, Building A and Unit 4-C, Building C ROBERT M. & PATRICIA A. TOBEY #25 The Greens 2777 So. Elmira Dr. Denver, CO 80231 Unit 101B, Building B L. GLADE & SUSAN SANFORD ANDERSON 1584 Locust Avenue Provo, UT 84605 -2- Unit 102B, Building B FERN P. RATHE BEVERLY J. MADDRELL 2819-17 St. Place Moline, IL 61265 Unit 201B, Building B JOHN CLAYTON YOST 2001 Kirby #811 Houston, TX 77019 Unit 202B, Building B ROBERT D. & ERNEST D. EDMUNDSON 106 Adonis Lafayette, LA 70506 Unit 301B, Building B HENRY B. & DIANA LEARMONT MITCHELL 4522 Banning Drive Houston, TX 77027 Unit 302B, Building B JOSEPH E. , JR. & DIANN E. BRENNAN 300 Croyden Road Cheltenham, PA 19012 Unit 01, Building C and Unit 02, Building D DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION P. 0. Box 2108 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 1-C, Building C LARRY J. CANO MARVIN WHITE 2141 Mesa Drive Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 -3- Unit 2-C, Building C PATRICIA A. WATKINS 2960 15th Avenue Moline, IL 61265 Unit 3-C, Building C KENNETH R. & JEANETTE CHIATE 20815 Big Rock Drive Malibu, CA 90265 Unit 5-C, Building C DICK J. & CAROLYN L. RANDALL TRUST 22348 Regnort Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Unit 6-C, Building C FRANK E. PETERS, JR. 756 North Larrabee Chicago, IL 60614 Unit 10-C, Building C KARL & BARBARA FRIEDMAN 5132 E. Princeton Englewood, CO 80110 Unit 12-C, Building C SUNSHINE PARTNERS A Partnership P. 0. Box 3104 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 1-D, Building D DAVID C. TALLICHET, JR. , TRUSTEE CECILIA A. TALLICHET UND. 1/2 INT 2977 Redondo Avenue Long Beach, CA 90806 -4- Unit 2-D, Building D LEONARD B. SAX American Buff International Inc. 624 W. Adams St. Chicago, IL 60606 Unit 3-D, Building D VICTOR A. LOWNES c/o Lee Miller Condominium Rental Management Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 4-D, Building D STOLTZ, WAGNER AND BROWN A Texas Partnership 1220 Midland National Bank Tower P. 0. Box 1714 Midland, TX 79702 Unit 5-D, Building D JACK P. HUNT Box 5728 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33310 Unit 6-D, Building D GORDON E. DICKIE P. 0. Box 998 Pebble Beach, CA 93953 Unit 10-D, Building D GHADIM HOSSERI 1757 Merrick Avenue Merrick, Long Island, NY 11566 FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS Unit 1-A, Building A J. BARRY CLAYCOMB AND GEORGE T. GRIGSBY, JR. 3157 D. Pinehurst Drive Las Vegas, NV 89109 -5- Unit 1, Building A BARBARA MATHEWSON P. 0. Box 90662 San Diego, CA 92109 Unit 2, Building A DANILE O'KEEFE 5862 East Berneil Lane Paradise Valley, AZ 85253 Unit 3, Building A CONSTANCE P. COLE 1613 E. Lake Drive Littleton, CO 80121 Unit 4, Building A G. G. SHAW, INC. A Colorado Corporation 111 South Kalamath St. Denver, CO 80223 Unit 5, Building A WALTER M. GLASS 1555 N. Astor Chicago, IL 60610 Unit 6, Building A DAVID B. III & FAY G. PECK 334 Circle Lane Lake Forest, IL 60045 Unit 7-B, Building B BEN LIN 4232 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Unit 7, Building B THE LORNA W. HIBBERD FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. Pine Island Rye, NY 10580 -6- Unit 8, Building B GOERGE S. UMBREIT 101 Continental Blvd. , Suite 800 El Segundo, CA 90245 Unit 9, Building B JOHN A. BITTER, JR. 405 N. St. Mary's, Suite 810 San Antonio, TX 78205 Unit 10, Building B ELLIOT R. GOLDSTEIN 9017 Marseille Dr. Potomac, MD 20854 Unit 11, Building B JOHN M. BENNETT 1/4 INT. 2114 National Bank of Commerce Building San Antonio, TX78205 and JOHN S. BENNETT 125 East Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 12, Building B ALFONSO CHISCANO Suite 350, Methodist Plaza 4499 Medical Drive San Antonio, TX 78229 Unit 13-B, Building B EUGENE F. REARDON 425 S. Cherry Street, Suite 760 Denver, CO 80222 Unit 14-B, Building B and Units 305 and 305-A, Building D EVELYN CHILDS 4 Rue de l'Universite 75007 Paris, France -7- Unit 101, Building C ASPEN 5TH AVENUE, LTD. GARY S. HOLMES 680 Kasota Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55414 Unit 102, Building C ANNE A. MURCHISON P. 0. Box 8968 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 103, Building C L.P.F. CORPORATION 4611 W. Jefferson 100. N Kokomo, IN 46901 Unit 201, Building C EDWARD A. WHITE 5780 Echo Canyon Circle Phoenix, AZ 85018 Unit 202, Building C ROBERT L. & ROSEMARY DIECKHAUS 1/2 INT. FRED H. & THELMA MARSHALL 1/2 INT. 747 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Unit 203, Building C ROBERT G. EDGAR AND ROBERT P. SCHERER, JR. 114 Kercheval Avenue Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236 Unit 204, Building C DONGARY INVESTMENTS, LTD. P. 0. Box 7240 Denver, CO 80207 Unit 301, Building C MICHAEL BENDE 180 Autum Street Passaic, NJ 07055 -8- Unit 302, Building C DALE C. BULLOUGH AND SAM JACK McGLASSON 14110 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75240 Unit 303, Building C CHARLES N. ANDERSON UND. 1/2 INT. 1410 No. State Parkway, 26-B Chicago, IL 60610 Unit 104, Building D JAMES & SYBILLE SPOLYAR 8 Soundview Road Glen Cove, NY 11542 Unit 105, Building D WILLIAM A. & MARVEL A. POWERS 1566 Golfside Village Road Apopka, FL 32703 Unit 106, Building D THOMAS RHOLEN P. 0. Box 1341 Ross, CA 94957 Unit 107, Building D ELIZABETH & HARRY A. SCHULTZ 900 Curlew Court Roswell, GA 30076 Unit 205, Building D HEMMETER INV. CO. A Hawaiian Gen. Partnership 2424 Kalakaua Avenue Honolulu, HI 96815 Unit 206, Building D FREDERICK L. & JANE CLEMENT 1/2 LOIS 0. STILWELL 1/2 502 Bronson Medical Center Kalamazoo, MI 49006 -9- Unit 207, Building D WILLIAM H. WEEKS 104 Old South Road Southport, CT 06496 Unit 304, Building D F. J. LASHLEY, JR. 223 South Broadway Walters, OK 73572 Unit 306, Building D SCOTT VAN DE MARK Box V3 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 307, Building D JACQUELINE A. LOVELACE c/o Fifth Avenue Condominium Association 747 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 FASCHING HAUS CONOMINIUMS Unit 1A SILVER STATE SAVINGS Unit 1, Building A R. M. HAMPTON 1701 N. Hobart Pampa, TX 79065 Unit 2 RONALD KASPERZAK 28627 Stonecroft Dr. Perrysburg, OH 53551 Unit 3 DONALD M. MORRISON 10730 Pacific Street, Suite 225 Omaha, NE 68114 -10- Unit 4 EDWARD D. & JULIE ROSE 5957 Maple Avenue Berkley, IL 60163 Unit 4-A FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC. 747 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 UUnit 5 ROBERT E. & BETTY L. SHALLCROSS 551 Dover Center Bay Village, OH 44140 Unit 6 THOMAS T. GRIMMETT RONALD E. SOLOMON 1/2 INT. 4141 N.W. 5th St. Plantation, FL 33314 Unit 7 JAMES THOMPSON JEN NYGARD 87 Inglewood Long Lake, MN 55356 Unit 8 ARTHUR A. & AMELIA FINKLE 5007 S.W. 87th Avenue Miami, FL 33165 Unit 9 BRUNO A. PASQUINELLI 3964 Edward Drive Crete, IL 60417 Unit 10 BRUNO A. & SALLIE S. PASQUINELLI 3694 Edward Drive Crete, IL 60417 -11- Unit 11 ROBERT L. & JOAN S. SCHOPPERT 2605 South Lake Sioux Falls, SD 57105 Unit 12 NORVIN A. KNUTSON 9330 West Lincoln Avenue West Allis, WI 53227 Unit 13 WAYNE A. & SUSAN B. HANDWERK 7040 North Arroyo Run Roxborough Park Littleton, CO 80125 FASCHING HAUS EAST CONDOMINIUMS Units 110, 111, 140, 150, 190, 290, 310 and 380 LELAND A. MILLER 747 S. Galena P. 0. Box 1483 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 170 WILLIAM A. CASTELLANO 200 51st Street Western Springs, IL 60558 Unit 180 GODFREY M. LONG, JR. ROBERT W. THURBON, JR. 5400 Drake Road Cincinnati, OH 45243 Unit DAVID & RICHARD DOUD 900 Franklin Blvd. Normal, IL 61761 -12- Units 230 and 330 HARRY MODELL 27815 Lake Hills Drive Franklin, MI 48025 Unit 250 MORTON & CAROLE TAVEL 1139 Fredrick Drive South Indianapolis, IN 46260 Unit 260 WILLIAM FALKENSTEIN UND 1/3 RICHARD D. & BETTY SULLIVAN UND 190 Sunnyside Elmhurst, IL 60126 Unit 270 JERROLD D. & JOYCE L. MONKARSH, TRUSTEES 33-1/3% 9061 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90069 Unit 2.80 JERROLD D. & JOYCE L. MONKARSH, AS TRUSTEES OF MONKARSH TRUST 2292 Betty Lane Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Unit 303 (430) DR. GEORGE S. EVSEEFF, M.D. , TRUSTEE 3535 W. Thirteen Mile Road Royal Oak, MI 48072 Unit 340 HARRY A. LERNER TRUSTEE, LERNER TRUST 221 N. Kenilworth Oak Park, IL 60302 Unit 350 DARRELL L. & SHIRLEY M. HAVENER 5070 Sunset Drive Kansas City, MO 64112 -13- • Unit 390 MARGUERITE B. BAKER 428 South Main St. Greenville, PA 16125 Unit 410 ESTER BUETTNER 61 West Roma Drive Tucson, AZ 85704 ASPEN INN CONDOMINIUM Units 1-A, 1-B, 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D, and 3-D BOB J. SCARBOROUGH 116 Leisure World Mesa, AZ 85206 Unit 1-C HANS B. & JUNE CANTRUP P. 0. Box 388 Aspen, CO 81612 Units 3-A and 3-C ROBERT PRENTIS MORRIS Box 9069 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 3-B DAVID G. ELMORE 10001 East Evans #69C Denver, CO 80231 700 MONARCH CONOMINIUM Unit 101 JOHN R. & EVE MARIA HEATON MOLYNEAUX 11 Holbrook Aveknue Kirribilli, N.S.W. , Australia 0 -14- Unit 102 MICHAEL S. & JANIE K. MAURER UND 1/2 INT 2 East 106th Street Indianapolis, IN 46280 Units 103 and 202 HERBERT MICHAELIS KALLMAN 190 East 72nd Street, Apt. 22A New York City, NY 10028 Unit 104 THOMAS & LYNNE MILSTEIN FROST c/o P. 0. Box 3207 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 105 LAWRENCE A. ROSENFIELD LARRY MYLES SALITERMAN 2240 Lee Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 Unit 106 HARLO L. DONELSON 102 East Madison Memphis, MO 63555 Unit 107 ELTON S. STEVENS, TRUSTEE 4475 Poinciana St. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Unit 108 MICHAEL S. & JANIE K. MAURER 2 East 106th St. Indianapolis, IN 46280 Unit 201 LELAND W. & MARILYN J. HENRY 4480 Ravine Drive Westerville, OH 43080 -15- Unit 203 GLENN L. & AYLEENE J. FELNER 840 Sheridan Road Glencoe, IL 60022 Unit 204 ROBERT T. CAMPBELL 587A Old Barn Road Barrington, IL 60010 Unit 205 CLAIRE L. & BETTY LOU ERICKSON 1231 Industrial Road Hudson, WI 54016 Unit 206 NANCY F. STILES WELLS T. LOVETT 2829 Eastern Parkway Onwesboro, KY 42301 Unit 207 BRUCE J. ANDERSON P. 0. Box 3672 Aspen, CO 81612 Unit 208 ALLAN D. CHLOWITZ 5901 Venice Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90034 Units 301 and 302 GEORGE MEAD HEMMETER, M.D. 4587 Coachman Circle Las Vegas, NV 89109 Unit 305 NICK D. & ROSA DEL CARMEN FERNAND PETROVICH Inter Capital, S.A. Reforma 300-17, 06660 Mexico, D. F. -16- Unit 306 DONALD H. WITT 1412 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P. K. MASSENDER DATED THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1985. 02/VACA2/8. 15.85 -17- CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM D 14:01 ATE: August 27 , 1985 TO: Steve Burstein FROM: City Attorney RE: Valdemar Mark Rezoning As you know, we have provided our comments in the course of office conferences. Please call if you have addi- tional questions beyond what has already been discussed . PJT/mc o . Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 22, 1982 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROJECT - Aspen Downtown Storage IColette Penne, planning office, reminded Council the applicant requested on November 8 that this project tabled. Council allocated GMP allotment to project in the commercial I I core. This is in the S/C/I zone. The application as submitted and scored through GMP II was a request for 24,750 square feet of commercial space in the form of three - two-level 11 buildings to be developed on lot 3 of the Trueman center. This parcel does have an 11 R SPA designation, it will require an amendment to the SPA. The parcel is 1.47 acre. An office for the manager and a living unit will be in Historic Koch lumber company building There are two 700 square foot employe units proposed near the river. The quota established by Ordinance 26, 1982, for development in the NC and S/C/I zones was 7,000 square feet. , This is the only project competing in the S/C/I zone. Ms. Penne told Council the project met all required thresholds. P & Z felt that the coverage of the parcel by the project was rather intence. The project impacted the Rio II Grande trail in a negative way and would possible have negative impacts on the adjacent If I wildlife sanctuary of A.C.E.S. P & Z's resolution was drafted to convey some of the `I ; discontent with the project as the scoring of the project did not adequately reflect this. �I P & Z recommended that Council allocate only one year's quota with enough bonus to , construct the first of the three buildings. Ms. Penne told Council the applicant requested tabling two weeks ago as they were reconsidering the project. The applicant has submitted a second plan, which addresses many of the conditions of P & Z. Gideon Kaufman said, technically, this plan cannot be amended in front of Council but has to go through P & Z. Kaufman wanted to show what was approved, what the concerns were, and what the new project is. Kaufman said in 1977 this parcel went through subdiv- ision into four lots zoned S/C/I with an SPA overlay. This project is to be located on '! lot 3. Kaufman showed the original plan. S/C/I is the lowest commercial uses; this !j 1 proposal takes the lowest impact of the S/C/I, mini-warehouses, for this parcel. Kaufman :: . reiterated P & Z's recommendation for one building. The applicant has come up with a new II , plan they feel is sensitive to P & Z's concerns and A.C.E.S. concerns. Kaufman said he II felt this design was beneficial. Kaufman said he would like Council to examine the j' situation and see if they feel it is a better plan. Kaufman said they would like to 1 complete the project at one time, rather than in phases. Kaufman said the original plan was for 24,000 square feet; the new plan is 21,000 square I feet of which 4,000 square feet of that is not rentable space. Under the new FAR this space has to count. This project will have 17,000 square feet of rentable space out of ' a total that could be built on the parcel of 49,000 square feet. Tom Wells, designer of the project, pointed out at storage facilities, there is just a trickle of cars during then day. The unique feature of this project is that there are no openings; the siding is barnwood. Wells showed the circulation for the project. There will be extensive landscap1 r") ing. Wells discussed the trees and the trails possibilities. Kaufman said the applicant i1 is asking for a feel from Council on the new plan; they are willing to go back to P & Z 1 1 forrescoring. !I j Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S. told Council they appreciate the consideration of the developer. However, the A.C.E.S Board of Trustees formal position remains opposed to the project and n still requests the Council consider purchasing this lot as open space. Regarding the new project, Cardamone said, as a biologist, 120 feet is too close to the river. Kaufman f said the building is 200 feet away from the river. Mayor Edel said with a lot of land- j scaping, trees, etc. , would A.C.E.S. still object. Cardamone said if the project goes I through with a lot of trees, it would help. Mayor Edel said the priorities of the Open I Space Advisory Board go elsewhere. IMark Freidberg told Council he is strongly against this project. There will be frequency I of use by both residents and visitors. Freidberg said visitors and residents experience I the trail at the Rio Grande, and this piece of open space is the most valuable the city can look at. It is being used as a pedestrian use. Freidberg said the Council should i I think carefully before not buying this parcel. Freidburg said that with all the easements); . Ion this property, the Council never entertained the thought that this would be developed I commercially. Kaufman said this project will provide a nice vista. Also, this project 1' will fulfill an important community needs. The storage facilities in Basalt and at the it Airport Business Center are full. People in town need storage. Kaufman pointed out that :! land is being given for open space. Mayor Edel said the applicant is asking for a commit-0 ment he cannot give. Taddune said this should not be taken as any commitment by the I I applicant. Mayor Edel said in a general sense, Council likes the second plan better than ii the first. II Councilman Collins moved to extend the period of time in which a development allotment II ' can be made for the 1983 growth management commercial competition in the SCI/NC zone, at h the request of the applicant, until such time as the proposed amendment has been considered i by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a recommendation for quota based on the amended h plans has been forwarded to Council; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion II . :, carried. II ORDINANCE #66, SERIES OF 1982 - Valdamar Mark Rezoning lI Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request by Valdamar Mark to rezone property at the end of South Mill street. This is a 6,000 square foot lot; it is two lots; ie, Imerged under one ownership. Ms. Davis explained the north half of the property is zoned L-2; the other half is zoned R-15/PUD/L, which is a transition zone. The applicant is 0 requesting the entire parcel by zoned L-2 and would like to build a duplex on the property, II Ms. Davis said rezoning to L-2 cleans up the lines but it also upzones the property and II 11 allows a higher FAR. The applicant has agreed to deed restrict to a duplex and to negotiate an FAR below that allowed. This could be done through PUD procedure. Ms. Davis' q said the applicant is not requesting PUD but one-half the lot has a PUD designation on i 11 it, and the planning office sees no justification to remove that. Ms. Davis said the i1 II surrounding land owners are afraid the structure will obstruct their viewplane. They have!: II requested some additional setbacks beyond those in the code be established. Ms. Davis I II said the planning office feels this is more appropriate through the PUD procedures, not through rezoning. 0 I. . H 3- Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 22, 1982 Ms. Davis said of the rezoning criteria, the only pertinent criteria is to be compatible with surrounding land uses. This property is surrounded by condominiums, L-2nand duplex. This is a transition area and is important to keep it as such. The rest.rictiQn_ t a ;; duplex and the FAR below the 1:1 allowed is important. The planning office feels a duplex -ts--a'reasonable request but should be limited further-to-PUD- P & Z recommended ` ' approval of L-2 zoning with the addition of PUD. The P & Z felt the following items have to be dealt with in the PUD process; restriction of the FAR, building envelope and setbacks, :-' slope, height and surrounding land uses. An ordinance rezoning the land with these items 21 has been presented. 1! Spencer Schiffer told Council the person drawing the zoning line probably did not know li it was in one ownership. Also, Schiffer said in his research, when a property is bisected as this, the whole parcel should be rezoned to the least restrictive zoning compatible h with the surrounding uses. Schiffer pointed out this property is surrounded by L-2. Schiffer said that this was not zoned L-2 was probably an oversight. Schiffer said in L-2, lodges or multi-family can be built and the FAR is 1:1. Schiffer said his client is willing to compromise because all he wants to build is a duplex. Schiffer said he felt 1, mandatory PUD is too severe. A Ms. Davis said she felt this area is important for a transition zone from high density on to duplexes. Taddune said placing a PUD on this will allow the developer to build a duplex, which is the result the developer wants. Schiffer said he did not think PUD is appropriate on this small parcel. Ms. Davis pointed out that half the parcel already has a PUD designation on it. Council discussed why having a PUD designation, and decided they were in favor of L-2, deed restricted to a duplex and restricted to 4800 square feet. 'II II Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #66, Series of 1982, as amended; seconded by 1� Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. I ORDINANCE #66 (Series of 1982) 1 I AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS 918 SOUTH MILL i STREET TO L-2 was read by the city clerk h Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #66, Series of 1982, as amended; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Parry, aye;• Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ;! ORDINANCE #67, SERIES OF 1982 - Land Use Application Fees 11 ri II Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this ordinance establishes the land use fees for 1983. The only change between this and 1982 fee ordinances is that the planning office is going from a 50 per cent subsidy of code administration to 100 per cent wash, which is consistent with Council's recommendation in 1982. Vann told Council the code adminis- tration function is the processing of land use applications, routine public inquiry and minor code amendments. These fees cover the cost of staff and a portion of the overhead. In 1982, Council did not want to raise the fees wo cover the whole costs and chose to spread it over a two year period; this is the second half of the increase. Vann told Council the fee is set on the typical amount of time it takes to process a typical applica- tion. Council is going to review the special review and some planning processes to see if they can simplify the processes. li it Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #67, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman JJ Collins. All in favor, motion carried. h ORDINANCE #67 + (Series of 1982) II AN-ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82, SERIES OF 1981, SO AS TO REESTABLISH THE LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CHARGED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE i1 was read by the city clerk I I Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #67, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded , by Councilman Collins. I Councilwoman Michael requested a review in six months on the smaller projects, how much they are costing, and how much time is spent on them. Vann told Council they have tried to keep this concept as simple as possible so that it does not become a nightmare to 11 administer. . If Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. 111 Motion carried. HI ORDINANCE #68, SERIES OF 1982 - L-3 Rezoning ' Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #68, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman , Collins. All in favor, motion carried. l ,-) ORDINANCE #68 I1 1 (Series of 1982) UAN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN EXISTING LODGES TO L-3 LODGE PRESERVATION was read by the city clerk Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council when Ordinance #38, Series of 1982, was I' passed, Council suggested the planning office do the L-3 rezoning as a class action. The planning office took care of all the steps and the lodge owners did not have to pay fees. Richman told Council virtually all the lodge owners were unanimous to be rezoned !' i'. 11 1 ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1985) AN ORDINANCE 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, and on , 1985, 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 bordered on the south by Aspen Mountain Lodge property zoned R-15/PUD/L, and on the north by the Aspen Mountain Lodge property zoned L-2 ; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has a significant municipal interest in seeing that its Zoning District Map is rational and consistent and does not result in inconsistent and incompatible uses; and WHEREAS, in the private rezoning application submitted by Valdemar Mark, Mr. Mark did request a rezoning of the subject property 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 subject property described in Exhibit "A" to a single-family or duplex structure; and WHEREAS, no structure has been built pursuant to Ordinance No. 66, Series of 1982 and no deed restriction limiting the use of the subject property has been filed; 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 limiting the use of the parcel to a single-family or duplex structure and did further recommend that the following issues be reviewed during the mandatory PUD process if Council rezones the property L-2: FAR, setbacks/building envelope, height, slope and surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council did duly consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and determined that rezoning to L-2 be granted subject to certain conditions, which conditions the Applicant, Valdemar Mark, did at the time stipulate to be voluntary, reasonable and relating directly to the subject property and valid public policy goals at that time; and WHEREAS, since the passage of Ordinance No. 66, Series of 1982, the character of the surrounding property has changed with the final plat approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge development. 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 parcel, more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein, as L-2 and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code (as it 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 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 , 1985, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing -2- a 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 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 03/MISC2/7. 1.85 -3- ,< MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney Patsy Newbury, Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE : Valdemar Mark Rezoning DATE : August 20, 1985 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Doug Allen on behalf of his client Valdemar Mark. Mr. Mark ownes two adjacent lots, Lots 3 and 4 of the Capitol Hill Addition. These lots were rezoned in 1982 to L-2 with conditions . Mr . Mark is now requesting the same rezoning in order to relieve himself of certain conditions which were placed on the property back in 1982 when the original rezoning request was granted. This application is scheduled to be heard by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 1st. Please return your comments to this office no later than September 17, 1985. Should you have any questions with respect to this application, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. 5,90£&'£ 6949) 925-609d9OD 9 , 69099 9.25-.99994 August 12, 1985 Mr. Steve Burstein Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 918 South Mill Street/Valdemar Mark Dear Steve: I am merely submitting the enclosed Appliction for Rezoning as a formality in order to meet the August 15, 1985 deadline and preserve my client's rights to a rezoning hearing in October of 1985 if it should become necessary. I am sure that you will recall the recent history of this property and my meetings with both yourself and with Paul Taddune relative to the existing situation. To briefly recap, for reasons unknown, although Mr. Mark owned both Lots 3 and 4 of Capitol Hill Addition, the zone line between L-2 and R-15/PUD/L bisected his lots. At his request, in 1982 the property was rezoned L-2 but in the process he stated his intention was to construct either a new single-family or duplex structure on the lot and somehow in the ordinance the type and size of structure was limited beyond that of the L-2 zone. It was in fact, at that time, his intention to build a very large duplex/rooming house type structure with approximately 12 bedrooms on both sides. Since that time, the character of the neighborhood has significantly changed and he feels that such type of building would neither be developmentally appropriate or sensitive to the changed and changing character of the neighborhood. . Mr. Steve Burstein Re: 918 South Mill Street/Valdemar Mark August 12, 1985 Page Two I realize that Alan Richman feels that it might not be necessary to go through a rezoning but that it might be able to be handled as a plat amendment, (which he is not necessarily committing to support) . Thus I would like you to temporarily hold this application without processing it until we are able to determine which route is most expedient to accomplish my client's desires then process it as a private rezoning request, only if necessary. If not necessary to process I presume the processing fee of $1,490.00 submitted with this letter will be refunded. -ry tr ly yours, / idougl.s P. Allen Attorney/n-Fact for Valdemar Mark 85-207 DPA/pkm Enclosure Ci iY OF ASPEs 130 south galena street aspen , colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM DATE SUBMITTED 8-14-85 FEES • NAME VALDEMAR MARK ADDRESS 2793 Weld County Road, Brighton, CO 80601 PHONE No phone -NAME OF PROJECT "•V-Mark fourplex L-2/R-15/PUD/L as rezoned to L-2 by Ord. 66-1982 (prior rezoning PRESENT ZONING shown on Exhibit "A".) 674 square feet as shown on attached survey by Survey Engineers, Inc. LOT SIZE dated 5-22-85. LOCATION 918 South Mill Street - Lots 3 and 4, Capitol Hill Addition (indicate street address, lot and block number. May require legal description. A vicinity map is very useful. ) CURPtiNT BUILD-OUT Approximately 1000 sq. ft. one units PROP ED BUILD-OUT • • • 6,000 . sq. ft. four one-bedroom .. units DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING USES Single family residence • • DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL Reconstruction of the existing structure with a deluxe 4-unit apartment building. • TYPE OF APPLICATION . Rezoning APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S) 24-12.5 PLAT AMENDMENT REQUIRED x88 Unknown xx DATE PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE COMPLETED ATTACHMENTS: 1. All applicants must supply Proof of Ownership in the form of a title insurance commitme.,;: or statement from an attorney indicating that he/she has research.. ci the title and verifies that the applicant is the owner of the prop( rty (free of liens and eucumbrances. ) 2. If the process requires a. public hearing, a Property Owner's List must be supplied which gives all owners within 300 feet in all directions in some cases and adjacent owners in some cases. 3. Number of copies requirE (by code and/or in pre-application conference. ) 4. Plat by Registered Survc ,r X Yes No • I I l I 4 LAWN ST, -„ 5 - 4 I 2 6 E 7 5 iii ® i 8 Ifi r i 9 3 3 1 , 10 6 16 LT ST.91111 1 I3 4 4 JUNIATA ST, IS 5 9 s 14 Oil 15 I :C1 IO 10 6 16 it 17 SNARK Sr H /, if ST `•. - ill ,79. 4 , 1 1 W 18 12 8 7 '14 f$ $,. ,,..,, . / 0 • . 3 20 /• r ST. ` k !9 I I 12 13 / /$,' • Amen 18 / if Ilri jillir mmlbsimp••Thw . / i • ..._ \ AFAII :56 , Er , . of , , „., - ....., 0,,,„, ... ta,413011,""'• ...1 5 ..., ... diltry i. ,_. =' - ( PUO ) 4 2s sr> at, IF alandry 40 34 s 1,ix_ , „ , =iffy vb. Alllitilv9r .....A, 4 . . 1 , ri.- IIIIIIIIIgallzr Y It S PE. N oITY . t Exhibit "A" - Valdemar Mark ' ; • t� 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORDINANCE NO. 66 (Series of 1982) AN ORDNANCE REZONING CERTAIN READ 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 Auglrst 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-- 1 5a/PUD/I. zone districts ; and W?IEREP ; , the City of Asperi has a significant municipal inter- est in seeing that its 'Zoning District Map is rational and con- c 3 dees contain zone district boundaries bisecting parcels historically in common ownership an uniform in use; and WHEREAS , in the private rezoning application submitted by Valdemar Mark, Mr . i'1ark did request a rezoi ir.g of the subject pro- perty to L-2 ; and WHEREAS , \raidemar Mark, s an inducement to the City to accept this rezoning f ecsu;:st , did amen' hin :rezoning applir=_tf_on to. include a vo] cintary deed restriction limitxing the use of the sub- . pert proper t4 described in Exhibit "A" to a single-f amily or :cai�?ex ntructere ; and NH REAS , at a public hearing held on November" 2 , 1982 , the Anpe'n Planning and ZCin in=i Commission did review the requested rezoning and then 1Id ..ecommend to the Aspen City Council the rc .i)i1).nc) of '-i 1111 j(:e:'t peep r:ty de eribecl in Exhibit "A" to with thf• i eq .ae..t ed ciee ' restriction en the property limit- Ir j the nee n ' t i'r, p.par. eel to a single-family or duplex structure. c3 flvr! r . .•e-:ont . ,a,; that the f.ollo,,�ing issues he reviewed • kk rir ` ) •�J 1 7 • 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves during the mandatory PUD process if Council rezones the property t,-2/ : FAR, setbacks/building envelope, height. , slope and nur-- 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 That Section 24--2. 2 of. the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning Di strict Map" is hereby amended by rezoning the Valdemar Mark par- col , more specifically described in Exhibit "A" , attached hereto and incorporated herein, as L--2, conditioned upon a deed rest:.ic.-- 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 r+ aximiel;r 4 , 000 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 C'i ey Engineer be and hereby is dircrcted to amend the Zoning 1ri::;i:r- ict Map consistent wi::h the requirement of the Aspen Muniei ':ll ...ede end e._ describee in Sect!On 1 above. eet i nri If e.,y •t < t 1 on f;entence clause , ' hraee or portion ;)l Lbis ordinance in for any reason held invalid or unconGti .it. ional by any court of competent jurisdiction , such portion shelf b deee'd a se`l. aratc , dist.inct and independent • 2 (. ) it*/ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 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 theisame 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 ,PI___ day of (7.7„. , 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor --- ATTEST: )1j Kathryn S. lOch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted , passed and approved this day of , 1982. Herman Edel, Mayor'-- ATTEST: , / r .t!. 2 - ' Li J L Kathryn S . City Clerk • • 3 • I' , . - cPI [ ,.; [ ; , C f ' / 4, .:1 r I I - A' • •„ ■•• A,C-; , • ,I I I.-. : I I ; e 16 August 1996 — Alan Richman, AICP Alan Richman Planning Services Box 3613 • Aspen, CO 81612 ASPEN • PITKIN Re: 918 S. Mill Street (F/Y</A V. Mark Property) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Alan: • I have reviewed your recent letter requesting confirmation of an assigned FAR for the above-referenced property through Ordinance 66, Series of 1982. Referring to Section 1 of that ordinance, I find that Council granted a rezoning to the then-existing L-2 district as follows: "conditioned upon a deed restriction to be filed by him as owner, or his successors and assigns, restricting the use of said parcel to either single-family or duplex structure and restricting the allowed floor area of such structure to a maximum of 4,800 square feet and subject to those zoning regulations applicable to the L-2 zone district as described in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal code as now exists or may hereafter be amended)." The L-2 zone district has been superceded by the L/TR district and there has been as subsequent downzoning of that district as well. While Council indicates that the maximum floor area may be 4,800 square feet, I see nothing which assigns that floor area or vests the owner in that amount. Rather, the ordinance clearly states that future amendments to the zone district would apply to the parcel. The currently permitted floor area for a lot size of 6003 square feet would be 3,240 for a single family home or 3,600 for a duplex. I believe that this is the currently applicable floor area maximum for this parcel. You refer in your letter to the 4,800 square feet of floor area as being"contractual in nature." I do not believe that a contact, as you put it, was established to guarantee this floor area in spite of any future zoning changes. In fact, the ordinance specifically makes the agreement subject to any future zoning changes for that district. While I am sure this is not the response you sought, I believe it is fair and consistent with the degree of development available to a comparable site within the district at this time. Moreover, it is consistent with the intervening council goal of downzoning properties to reduce the impacts of development. Please let me know if I may provide any additional information or assistance. Very truly y s, Stan lauson; AICP, ASLA Community Development Director CITY OF ASPEN • cc: John Worcester, City Attorney Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 • PHONE 970.920.5090 FAy 070.920.5439 Printed on Recycled Paper Sax 3613 )441e4c, ealmraalm 51612 Pka ce/ax (970 40 17,ftibir AP 1: Vol!0 0 01 July 19, 1996 4r Mr. John Worcester, City Attorney o`e�l X40 City of Aspen a91aSZti 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 918 SOUTH MILL STREET (F/K/A V. MARK PROPERTY) Dear John, My client, Michael Teschner, recently purchased a parcel of land at 918 South Mill Street, formally described as portions of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Capitol Hill Addition to the City of Aspen. Mr. Teschner intends to develop the property as a duplex, as permitted in the underlying zone district, which is Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR). The property was made subject to special zoning restrictions pursuant to Ordinance 66, Series of 1982. Due to this fact, the proposed construction lender for this project has asked for written confirmation from the City of Aspen that Ordinance 66 allows a total of 4,800 square feet of floor area for both sides of the duplex. By way of background information, Ordinance 66 rezoned the subject property to correct the zoning error which caused this single parcel to be bisected by the zone district boundary, resulting in part of it being zoned L-2 and the remainder being zoned R-15 (L) (PUD). The City Council corrected this error by rezoning this parcel to a single zone only, based upon the owner's agreement to restrict the property to a single-family or duplex dwelling containing no more than 4,800 square feet of floor area, subject to the other regulations of the L-2 zone district, as then existed or might be amended. Please furnish us with a letter confirming that the property is allowed to be developed with a duplex building containing not more than 4,800 square feet of floor area. This size limitation was agreed to by the then owner in exchange for clearing up the zoning problem. The benefit to the City was a reduction in allowable floor area to 4,800 square feet, from the more than 6,000 square feet allowed by L-2 zoning. This solution also avoided the potential for problems that had occurred previously in similar situations where the applicant was found to be entitled to a larger building as a result of bisected zoning. Thus, the owner's agreement to reduce the maximum allowable floor area to 4,800 square feet was a concession at the time and, being contractual in nature for this specific property, is not one that was affected by the subsequent change to the floor area ratio in the zone district. Mr. John Worcester July 19, 1996 Page Two Our investigation has also determined that the original Planning Office file in the City clerk's Office contains all of the memos that the staff submitted to both the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council to resolve this error in 1982. This file is extremely clear in explaining the City's rationale in resolving this problem in this manner. Therefore, I am attaching five documents to assist you in confirming our findings. The first document is Ordinance 66, Series of 1982, rezoning the subject property to L-2. The second document is a staff memo, dated October 26, 1982, written to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. On page 3, the FAR that would have been allowed for the parcel in the L-2 and the R-15 zone districts is calculated. The staff then identifies the average of these two sizes, this being 4,800 square feet. The staff then goes on to recommend an FAR of 4,200 square feet. The third document is a staff memo, dated November 22, 1982, written to the Aspen City Council. It is provided to ensure that you have all of the relevant materials in your hands. The fourth document is a staff memo, dated December 27, 1982, written to the Aspen City Council. At the bottom of page 2 of the memo, it describes Council's first reading actions. It explains that "Council indicated 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". The fifth document is the deed restriction placed on the property by its former owner. It clearly states that the property's allowable floor area shall not exceed 4,800 square feet. We would appreciate your providing us written confirmation that the allowable floor area of this property is 4,800 square feet. Of course, we recognize and agree that the property is also subject to all of the other regulations of the L-2 (now L/TR) zone district and that it can only be developed for a single-family or duplex use. If you desire, you may document our acknowledgement of this by attaching this letter to your confirmation. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES At‘ 4206:j Alan Richman, AICP 6 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 y 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning DATE: November 22, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 14 ' u4,(41 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 I 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 EF 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 1 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 new short term units under existing zoning is adequate enough to provide for future growth, especially with the new L-3 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. j Council , Action: "I move to read Ordinance No. l . " "I move to approve Ordinance No. 4 on first reading. " • 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Valdamar Mark Rezoning DATE: December 27, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /e.D�� 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 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 lthey 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.