Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Neighborhood Commercial.19771g11 w- • ti\ AM om NEIdHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL If Z • LEONARD M.OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN IQ ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 April 20, 1977 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: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 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 -JC By ffj Leonard M. Oa s LMO:mt Enclosures M LEONARD M. OATES RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN M ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 816II April 19, 1977 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: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 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 Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Le Clair Vaux Condominiums c/o The Le Clair Vaux Condominium Association P• O. Box 4055 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Frank Simpson OATES, AUSTIN & 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 n/1 LMO:mt Enclosures 1 0 TO 1MA„D OF- N I NG AD:1US-I1`,f=;;T C'ATE April 18, 1977 • E' i' E- L A i I E BAYARD Y. HOVDESVEN S ame _ CITY OF 11SI'EN CASE NO.77- ADDI;ESS 830 East Hopkins, Aspen, CO 81611 PHO}IE 925-6642 ADDRESS LOC'ATIO-N OF PROPERLY Lots R and S in Block 119, City and Townsite of Aspen street & rJumbcr o(= Subdivision B1k. & 1_ot (!o.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data r,iust acco,i1pany t--his application, and 011 be irrade part of ­Al)r N0. THE BOARD (•DILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESC;`;IFTIOf',! OF PIROPOSED EXCEPTION S1101,11NIG JUSTIFICATIOIIS: 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 that 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 effect 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 ;i 11 you be represented by coui�sei ? Yes x fdo (over) i Bayard Y. Hovdesven SIGNED:By_. Appel1allt Leonard M. Oates' --- --�-- ----- -- --- —�_—� ----- --_------------His PP OVISIO"S OF THE ZONING ORDIE;ANCE REQUIRING THE GUII_DI G INSPECTOR T ' ;: _' ._ARD 11:1S PPLTCAT1011 TO THE E,U(�ItD OF AEiJ:1S f; EF;T ;. ;D k ,�;,�; GRANTING:It is anticipated that the Planning Department will comment on this request. �� ion(_J of 6,000 square feet of building for 6,000 square feet of land(that is the actual. size of the property) is consistent within FAR of 1:1. Appli- cant submits that the proposed change is not philosophically intended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be applicable to a small project, such as the one proposed by him but rather is directed at the larger self- contained NC(PUD) projects such as "The Truman Property". It is to be noted that the NC,Zoning District is a mandatory PUD. The appellant has requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission exempt this project from the requirements of PUD because of its size. It is the appellant's understanding that the Planning Department urges such an exemption. The subject property is the last undeveloped real property in Block 11, the remainder of the Block is developed by The Viking Com- mercial Building, The City Market Building and the.Durant Mall Commercial Building. Appellant maintains that an FAR of less then 1:1 would (1) deny to him a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which could be denied him because of the special condition and extraordinary circumstances, (2) that special or extra- ordinary circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity and zoning classification, (3) that the special conditions do not result from the actions of the appel- lant, and (4) that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. Tt is urged that because of the scale of surrounding properties, i.e., The Durant Mall, City Market Building and Residential Condominium Properties such as Chateaux Chaumont and Dumont that the proposed improvement would not be out of scale and therefore the stated purpose of the Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission in the FAR reduction should not be applied to the subject property. It is pointed out that FAR calculations do not include basement or sub -basement areas. Do not include basements or sub -basements under the Code. 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 i RESOLUTION OP THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZOINIIIG CO11I1T SSIOiJ DING VARIOUS CHANGES TO THL ASPEN ZONING CODE AND DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and -Zoning Commission has been presented with recommended changes to the Asnen.Zoning Code and Zone District Map, constituting Chapter 2.4 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 24-11.30) of the Aspen Municipal Code, subsequent to such public hearing, to report 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, ail as further described in said section, and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to make kno%•dn 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, _IOTA, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COII1UIISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Recommendations with respect to the Area and Faulk Renuire- ments Chart of Section 24-3.4. z. Conrlercial Core (CC) . The Commission recommends that within this district the present external.Floor Area Ratio of 2:1 be a-� %1 maintained but that there be established a new internal FAR as follows: --let Commercial FAR by Right 1.5:1 Bonus FAR by Special Review Residential 0.3:1. Add.i.t.i orlt;a Comm(., 0. Gross ,1,1x i 1i um PrOX! 2. 0 : 1. �)L:l`illif t.' ( .i) i l l . • ('halit:e \ti.1 1 1. r(t.11103-1-0 0 a C o!; i.r able mix of 1"Scs it, i.?21' 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. l. b. Commercial One (C -1). 'Ihe Commission recommends that within this district the external FAR should be reduced from 1-5:1 to 1:1, inasmuch as this will reduce auilding massing within the C-1 dis- trict. however, the Commission further recommends that there be given 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 Commission recommends a -.y._ reduction of the external FAR in th`s zone from 2:1 to 1.5:1 inasmuch ,'J "j 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 g external FAR from l:.l 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. Service;'Cor.Lniercial/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). fr "f f. Office (0) . The Commission recommends the proposed =/ amendment to the external FAR in the 0 district from 1:1 to 0.75, by right, with an additional .25 allowed for residential uses, by Speei:.11. Review. Ilowovcr, the Commission further recommends (i) that t-ho requi.remont th�lt residential bonus I:Ke permitted only when -2- y coordinated with the Housing Authority be dropped and such r.cyuire- ments be again considered only when the Authority has presented and there 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 O 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 recorimended 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. Section 2. ".ecommendcd Change to the Permitted Conditional Uses ��✓ GChart of Section 24-3.2. �tv The Commission recommends the proposed amendment to the Office One (01) and Office Two (02) zone categories to create one office district (0) %•pith 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 - cial and business areas and along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. PERMITTED USES - Single family, duplex and multi -family residences; professional and business offices. CONDITIONAh USES - Art, dance or music studios; museumC mortuaries; library; day care center::; fraternal ,incl soci:ll clubs; restaurant and/or ..3- • �. 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 REQUIREMENTS - 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 24-3.6. a. Section 24-3.6. Food Store. The Commission recommends �s�G ac 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 (i.i) will generate less cross-town traffic. ;7 b. Section 24-3.6. Major Appliance. The Commission recommends --/r- he 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. c1, Section 4. The Amendment of Section 24-3.7(3)(2). The Commission, on review of the recommended change of Section 24-3. 7 (3) (2) to read: For purposes of calculating external floor area ratio, there !;hall be included basement and sub:;urface commer- cial storacle areas but excluded subbasements and storage areas which are accessory to tho. pl'.111C1`)I(? use. I'rOV.lCled, 110weVOl-, thC? and accessory st-orage areas s11i11.1 illway:; I)LI i ncl udod in the CC and Cl d.i str. ict. Any b,►s:cmwnt or icto off-:;.ect pirkilcc "lia .1 he excludod in calc•ulatinq exter.nal f.lc.Ior area ratio, "xCept in CC ;iiid Cl di.'A '!C7t:,, whor.o it. ;hall bo inc .111dc:d, ?-ccoiilmenda the chaligo to illc'ludc_ Sub-lwil:;f•I11Cnt and accos sory store-,(I)r` i ►1 t 110 ('(' .ilirl ('1 d i :� 1 .•t n }�a ►,,l�l::c? t i i chancic )u Id 11.1 t:he r effect of reducing the tendency of landowners to construct areas which are ostensibly basements and .later convert them to commercial uses, but recommends against the inclusion of basement or subsurface areas (in calculating external FAR) devoted to off-street parking in the CC and Cl 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, B, P, r, 11 Dnd I of Block 78 from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to the Office (0) District. The Commission recommends against the rezoning of Lots D, E, F, G, ii and I of Block,78 from Neighborhood Commercial/Speciall.y 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 received no support at all. Section 6. Various Other. Changes to the Zoning District Map. 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. a. :fixed Residential (West) . The Commission recommends the change of the zoning of this area from R-6 to R-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/14F 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. OKIahoma Flats. The Commission recommends the rezoning of this: area from 111-15 PUD to R-30 PUD because the area has limit'-d acco s and other dcrvc,lopuu!nt: constraints that preclude intelligi.-nt dovc•lojmc�nt: at It-1 5 1, l d: II01. Cross Pro 0rty. The Commission recommends the rezoning of this tract from R-15 PUD to R-30 PUD as such zone (1) will be compatible with adjacent zone districts, and (ii) recognizes the reduced development of the area anticipated ill the Aspen Area Greenway Plan. e. Aspen One. The Commission recommends the rezoning of this property from R-G PUD to R-15 PUD for the same reasons described in this section, paragraph d. r ?:iversirle Property. ilie Commission recommends the rezoning of this area from R-G PUD to R-15 PUD because W 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. Spring and Main (NE Block). The Commission recommends against the rezoning of this area from R/MF to R-5 PUD inasmuch as it is the opinion of the Commission that the present zoning is correct as the area offers an appropriate 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:-tat, consequently, reduction in allowable density is appropriate. The Commission would recommend, how- ever, that the area be rezoned from R-o to R-30 PUD but realize that, because this change was not advertised, the Commission is (at this time) limited to a r.ec(nTiended change to R-15 PUD i. r-15 Lodge (PUD) . The Co: -omission recommends against the rezoning of R-15L PUD districts to R-30L PUD inasmuch as retention of the R-15L PUD should encourage tic construction of additional lodging units at the base of the mountain. Dated: Chairman IH . • • 11 • • 0 Fin i r--,- �I (SST FL, F-r - - I�1--rYYYrWYKi THE D U R A N T - ORIGINAL BLDG DURANT & ORIGINA L S7S ASPEN, COLO L ,�(Z PL.A N - for JACK MILLER, JM