Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Neighborhood Commercial.1977 'i i - -- ' I C _ • I r �j i Y _y PUKANT AL- DURANT ORIGINAL BLDG JM JACK MILLER, AIA ' IG INAL STRTS , ASPEN, COLO architecture / I I ------------- i K`—* I � ' I 4 : . _ I , - - - - -- -- s , 1 4-1 �\ 4 1 4 I _ l- R I,..A N Pr s� �-r- Mj KST FLT ?LAN 3c� � FT �G:ON D JRANT ORIGINAL BLDG im a I N A L STS ASPEN, COLD LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8, JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN,COLORADO 61611 RONALD D.AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,JR. April 20 , 1977 WILLIAM R.JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 BARRY D. EDWARDS City of Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Hal Clark Reference: Bayard Y. Hovdesven Lots R and S Block 19 Dear Hal: You will please find enclosed an application for variance which I have filed on this date, together with copies of the supporting exhibits . I would ask that you review the application and comment. I have discussed this matter with Bill Kane and it is my understanding that Nick McGrath has had discussions with him as well. Please give him the opportunity to review the enclosed material. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, OATES, AUSTIN, McGrath & JO A By 4 - Leonard M. Oa s LMO:mt Enclosures LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 RONALD D.AUSTIN April 19, 1977 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH,JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W- HUGHES TELEPHONE 92S-2600 BARRY D. EDWARDS City of Aspen Board of Adjustment c/o City of Aspen Building Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Reference: Lots R and S in Block 19 DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD: You will please find enclosed the application of Bayard Y. Hovdesven requesting a variance for the above-de- scribed property, together with a check in the amount of $10.00, inasmuch as this is a request for a variance other than a use variance. I would advise that the adjoining properties are as follows for purposes of notice: The Durant Mall c/o The Durant Mall Association 702 East Durant Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: John C. Ginn Chateau Chaumont Condominiums and Chateau Dumont Condominiums c/o The Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association and Chateau Dumont Condominium Association both 731 East Durant Strut Aspen, Colorado 81611 Le Clair Vaux Condominiums c/o The Le Clair Vaux Condominium Association P. 0. Box 4055 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Frank Simpson OATES, AUSTIN 8, McGRATH City of Aspen -2- April 19 , 1977 Der Mittendorf Condominiums c/o Der Mittendorf Condominium Association Address Unknown City Market, Inc. One and Colorado Avenue Grand Junction, Colorado We would ask that this matter be placed upon your agenda for hearing at the earliest possible available date. Very truly yours, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By Leonard M. U es-� " LMO:mt Enclosures h C1-ill! 0 i A S April 18, 1977 L CASE NO .77— A 1 T BAYARD Y. HOVDES'VaN 830 East Hopkins , Aspen, CO 81611 - __ ------- Same P I 10 925-6642 L,0'1',PC11_ ION OF PROPEp,-1-y Lots R and S in Block 119, City and Townsite of Aspen (Street t —N Of Sulbdivision B! k Lot No P,uilding Periiiit APPlic-ai- ion and [taints or ny th - r Pertinent i"Ust acCO;M an.\ tiiis arq-,l ication , and vii ) ] be Ijiade part of 0 THE BOARD WILL RETURIN THIS APPLICATI01',1 IF 11 DOES 1`110T CONITAIN ALL THE FACTS INI QMTION . DE_SC, 11 PT I M,-11 OF NZOPOSED EXCEPTION SH014, -1 NIG JUST I F I CAT INNS : Appellant requests variance from the FAR as recommended by the Resolution of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, dated April 2, 1977, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" . That Resolution suggests in Section ld. , that the existing FAR of 1 : 1 be reduced to 0 . 5 : 1 "to insure t'-tat the neighborhood commercial developments are of a scale that is com- patible with the residential areas they are designed to service" . Although the said Resolution has not been acted upon by the City Council of the City of Aspen, it (the Resolution) does have the eff'ect of an interim change of the zoning requirements to the proposed change by virtue of Section 24-11. 7 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. The appellant desires to construct improvements on the property which is the subject of this request. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a preliminary sketch and layout of "The Durant - Original Bldg" proposed for the property. As shown, the proposal l;'ill yr)- be F(-"D Ll rCS�MtCl 1) COM sel ? Yes x No (over) Bayard Y . Hovdesven SIGNED :By Appellant Leonard M. Oates Attorney-- P r)V1 ,S,, I0i!!S OF THE ZO[,If '�! OD DP'A[,!( RFUIRING TH1- r,U11LDP,'G Ii SP--CTOR T 0 T i-; E B" Wd,,D 0 1 API!, -i- : It is anticipated that the Planning Department will comment on this request. t Resolution of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, dated April 2, 1977 EXHIBIT "A" To Appeal to Board of Zoning Adjustment City of Aspen RESOLUTION OP THE' A Pl;il PJ.P.?WING AND i Ot1I:I1C CO° ,'1��SIOiJ F21C0;?iiL:^iI:)Tt`IC, VARIOUS CUANGES TO THF; ASI'I':N ZO;`ITNG CODE AND DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS , the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has been presented with recommended changes to the Aspen .Zoning Code and Zone District N.'ap, constitutincl Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and a public hearing on such changes has been properly noticed and conducted on February 17, 1976, and WHEREAS , the Commission is required by virtue of Section 24-11. 3 (d) of the Aspen Municipal Code, :subsequent to such public hearing, to repot and recommend to the City Council on the proposed changes, and WHEREAS, Section 24-11 . 7 provides that if the Commission shall affirmatively recommend changes to the map or code , and do so by resolution, such recommendations shall have an interim effect, all as further described in said section, and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to make known its recommenda- tions with respect to every change proposed, and formalize its report in resolution form such as to enjoy the effects of Section 24-11. 7, 'NOW, THEREFORE, sE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNIIN.G AND ZOiQI NG CO 21ISSION OF THE CI`1'Y OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Recommendations with respect to the Area and Faulk Reguire- ments Chart of Section 24-3 . 4 . P_ Cor�irnercial Core (CC) . The Commission recom:aends that xithin this district the present external Floor Area Ratio of 42 : 1 be Maintained but that there be established a new internal FAR as follows: ?et Commercial FAR by Right 1. 5 : 1 Bonus FAR by Special Review Residontial. 0. 3 : 1. Addilk-ioni,.1 0. Gros". I'i'i",i mul'i F;M, % 2 . 0 : 1 ( 1 ) wi ] 1, C) _ ,1i`:!';l I c` a C l`. .li )I71 f_' loi of ll:.;C_ 1 " t-ho commercial core, (ii) commercial uses will be available to subsidize residential uses within the saine structure, and (iii.) for most areas within the commercial core, commercial uses beyond the second floor are not practical and the third and fourth floors are more amenable to residential uses. b. Commercial One (C-1) . "'he Commission recommends that within this district the external FAR should be reduced from 1. 5 : 1 to 1: 1 , inasmuch as this will reduce building massing within the C-1 dis- trict. Ijowever, the Commission further recommends that there be giver a density bonus of . 5 for residential uses, the Commission being of the opinion that the mix of commercial and residential uses is as appropriate in the C-1 as the CC district. c. Commercial Lodge (CL) . The Conunission recommends a 'wJ� reduction of the external FAR in tl-szone from 2 :1 to 1 . 5 :1 , inasmuch , ,�,• � as the existing FAR would permit a building bulk and mass that could constitute an unacceptable barrier between the City and its mountain surroundings. d. Neighborhood Commercial PUD (NC-PUD) . The Commission recommends the reduction of the existing external FAR from 1 : 1 to 0. 5: 1 to insure that the Neighborhood Commercial developments are of a scale that is compatible with the residential areas they are designed to service. e. Servicc;'CoiiL�ilercial/Industrial (S/C/I) . The Commission recommends the reduction of the existing external FAR in the S/C/I districts from 2 : 1 to 1: 1 because the existing FAR would permit buildings of a size and mass incompatible with the areas in which the S/C/I zone has been designated (the periphery of the City as opposed to the commercial core) . f. Office (0) . The Commission recommends the proposed J amendment to the external FAR in the O district from 1: 1 to 0. 75 , by right, with an additional . 25 allowed for residential uses , by SPOci ,11. Review. However. t:lte C'omtni :;-lion further_ recommends M that thr_ reclui.rctnent: t1WIt residcnt.icl_l bonus bc, permittcd only whc_tt S ' coordinated with the llousing Authority be dropped rind such r.ccluire- mc_nts be again considered only when the Authority has presented and thorc has been adopted a housing plan for the community, and (ii) that it be made clear that the residential density bonus does not preclude use of 0 district lands entirely (or at a ratio greater than . 25) for residential uses which are specifically permitted. g. Commercial. One (Cl)- The Commission recommends that the height limitation in this district be reduced from 40 feet to 32 feet, with a right to construct to the full 40 feet being given only on Special Review. The recommendation is made because the desired density reduction in this district can be achieved by the change in FAR recorvtimended above and in some instances 40 foot buildings may be desirable to encourage variations in building heights within this district both to eliminate the now monotonous skyline and provide view planes around structures. h. Commercial Lodge (CL) . The Commission recommends that the height limitation in this district be reduced from 40 feet to 28 feet, with a right to construct to the full 40 feet being given only on Special 'Review. The reasons and rational for this recommenda- tion are the same as those given in. Paragraph g. 1 - Section 2. ".ecommended Change to the Permitted Conditional Uscs VChart of Section 24-3 . 2 r� f �`- tt-` The Commission recommends the proposed amendment to the Office One (01) and Office Two (02) zone categories to create one office district (0) with the following elements : INTENT - To provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of formerly residential areas that now are adjacent to commcr- ci_al and business areas and along Again Street and other high volume thoroughfares. P) RMT'1".[' ?D USES - Single family, duplex and mu3ti.--family res_Ld-'nues; pi ofessional and bI1S1IlCC a Off 1CeS. CONDITIONAL U S1-:�; - Art, dance or mur::i c studios; muse-um : mort.u.'11:.ic-s; l ibrkiry; day care cont.er :; fraternal lod laid social cl.uhs ; rind/oi: boarding houses if located in a structure which has received an I1, Histor.ic Designation and adequate parking is provided on site with access from an alley. AREA AND BULK REQUIREMEiITS - Same as R-6 District. The recommendation is premised on the fact that- all existent office districts are in areas predominantly residentially developed and the adoption of R-6 area and bulk requirements for offices uses will provide a better integration of the new office with the existing residential structures. Section 3. Changes to the Square Footage Limitations of Section 24-3 . 62 52 ` a. Section 24-3 . 6) . Food Store. The Commission recommends the reduction from 20, 000 square feet to 12 , 000 square feet net for food products only, and an additional 3 , 000 square feet for additional grocery accessory products and storage (gross total 15, 000 square feet) because it will preclude the construction of massive groceries, and force the development of smaller localized food service areas which (i) are both more compatible with the scale of the Aspen area , and (ii) will generate less cross-town traffic. b. Section 24-3 . 6 . Major Appliance. The Commission recommends .� �./r the reduction from 12 , 000 square feet to 9 , 000 square feet as the square footage limitation for major appliance stores, as 9 , 000 square feet is adequate for this use and will insure construction of such stores at a scale compatible with the Aspen Area. Section 4 . rl'he Amendment of Section 24-3. 7 (3) (2) . The Commission, on review of the recommended change of Section 24-3. 70) (2) to read: For purposes of calculating external floor area ratio, there !;hall. be included basement and subsurface conuner- clal stora(le, areas but excluded subbasomerits, and storage areas vhlch are accessory to t1lo pr.lnciple use. Provided, hC)[JC'Vi'1- , the r;Uh-hZ1!',0Wont and accessor%, st-oracle areas shal 1- rt1way:; lac i nclucied in the CC' and Cl di :strict. Any ba;;clrtt`nt of r;111,:;1-lrf act aria dc 'Iot(:d to off-_st:1-ect earl;i.ncl :.;lu11. 3 llc c::c .11ldt`tl in c'a1c'Ul ,1ti1111 cxtcMn1-11- floor �tr(`a ratio, t- it).in CC "I11(1 C'.1 di :;ll .ict.s , whore it :;11:111 bo i.nrllulk'd , ( c'(>I111111c"I dfl t-.]'(' C'llallcit' to i nc-1 i1tlC 1111)-1 :1;;(`tlll'nt an:l acc(':;:;o1'y itC)1";1cJC• ho rc 1;11(3 cal (I 1 ' 1 t i''t .`1 1!t t',!tlr:t` t i l .'. ('ll.?lltii.' :II �i1111 ll,lt.'t` Hit` J _. effect of reducing the tendency of landowners to construct areas which are ostensibly basements and later convert them to cornmercial uses, but recommends against the inclusion of basement or subsurface areas (in calculating external FAR) devoted to off-street part:i.ng in the CC and C1 districts inasmuch as (i.) in these commercial districts underground parking areas will accommodate employer/employee parking needs to reduce the use .of public rights-of-;gay for this purpose , and (ii.) if the City wishes to encourage residential uses in these dis- tricts, some parking must be available for residents of these areas. / Section 5 . Rezoning of Lots D, E , P, r, 11 and I of Block 78 from Neighborhood Commercial (11C) to the Office (O_)_ District. The Commission recommends against the rezoning of Lots D, E, F, G, 11 and I of Block .78 from Neighborhood Commercial/Specially Planned Area (NC/SPA) to the new Office (0) district inasmuch as there has been no demonstration that the present zoning is inappropriate and the office designation has rec-ivod no support at all.. Section 6. Various Other. Changes to the Zoning District *yap. The Commission recommends and rejects various recommended zone district changes , the areas of which are more particularly defined on the map attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. fi a. ;fixed Residential (West) . The Commission recommends the f iy \ change of the zoning of this area from R-6 to P,-15 inasmuch as the area (i) provides a transition area with adjacent county zone dis- tricts , (ii) is limited in its development by the potential acquisition and utilization (for public transit) of the Midland . Right-of- ?ay, and (iii) will provide a gracious residential neighborhood for the community. +/ b. Mixed Residential (East) . The Commission recommends _ against the rezoning of this area from R/MF to R-6 inasmuch as development of the area to date is predominantly multi-family and re- zoning would effect a limited number of landowners in an unfair manner. C. Oklahoma l_lats. The Commis;ion recommends the rezone i ncg of this area from t;-15 PLII? try R-30 PUD because the area has. 1 .im i_c-d aCICCIf,!; rind other dcvc,] opuicnt: coo tra.ir►l---s that preclude intell.icic'zit. dovclop:'.Ic�nt: at IZ-1 S T d: IIol Cros,; Pr.a crty. `1'l,e commission recc>minoncts the rezollilig of this tract from R-15 PAD to R-30 PUD as such zolle, (1) will be compatible with adjacent-- zone districts , and (ii ) recognizes the reduced development of the area anticipated in the Aspen 11rc!a Y Gr-eenway Plan . e. Aspen One . The Commission: recommends the rezoning of this property from R-G PUD to R-15 PUD =or the same reasons described in this section, paragraph d. r. t;iversirle Property. �'he Commission recommends the rezoning of this area from R--G PUD to R-15 P_D because (i) it is shaded by high bluffs resulting in a sunless area, not suitable for intense residential development, and (ii) the area has very steep terrain . ` g. S rin and Main NE Bloc}: � p g _ ( ) . The Commission recommends against the rezoning of this area from R/ •iF to R- 5 PUD inasmuch as it is the opinion of the Commission that the present zoning is correct as the area offers an apprc:Driate site for multi-family development. h. Lakeview Subdivision . The Commission is satisfied that , because of limited access, the area is comparable to Oklahoma Flats in its development potential-, and t'-'at, consequently, reduction in allowable density is appropriate. The Commission would recommend , ho,,�--- . ever, that the area be rezoned from R-S to R-30 PUD but realize that, because this change was not advertised, the Commission is (at this time) limited to a reccrinende-d change to r-15 PUD i. ':-15 Lodge (PUD) . The Co7�,omission recommends against the rezoning of R-15L PUD districts to �-30L PUD inasmuch as retention of the R--151. PUD should encourage t:le construction of additional. lodging units at the base of the mountain. Dated: , /- _A?2r -1_2,_19- -6 Chai�_man ,