Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.834 W Hallam St.A29-94Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning A29-94 2735-123-04-002 1 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 i LAND USE APPLICATION FEES v S� CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -- -- --- - -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -MR011 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Signif. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -53450-146 Board of Adjustment -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check _ REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering - County 00115-63340-163 Engineering - City -- 00123-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL Name:_ Address: Check #: Phone: Project: - Date: — --.— - No of Copes: -- OP eu�j a5 -4u�� �- %5- pecr��G CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 04/22/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: y/a9'/tip 2735-123-04-002 A29-94 STAFF MEMBER: ML PROJECT NAME: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning <& &MQ5 Exr,rw-kjei Project Address: 834 West Hallam Legal Address: APPLICANT: Michael Hull and Earl Jones Applicant Address: 834 West Hallam REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann Representative Address/Phone: 230 E. Hopkins 925-6958 Aspen, CO 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ 2119 # APPS RECEIVED 4 ENGINEER $ 96 # PLATS RECEIVED 4 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 2215 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X P&Z Meeting Date 7(i/le 7 PUBLIC HEARING: Yam' NO Q VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date 3-111 V PUBLIC HEARING: NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District X City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other X Zoning Energy Center x Other rlPrL. DATE REFERRED: � / INITIALS:ID DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: "1- 1 INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Housing Open Space FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Zoning Env. Health Other: ' • 0 Ivi 4VID):t:1:ION vi TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clausd`n, o-Zunity Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner DATE: December 12, 1994 RE: Poppies Bistro Cafe Vested Rights - 2nd Reading of Ordinance 64, Series 1994. SUMMARY: The Applicants, Michael Hull and Earl Jones, have received an administrative approval from the Planning Director granting GMQS Exemption for the construction of a free market dwelling unit on the applicants' property. A copy of the GMQS Exemption approval is included as Exhibit "A". The applicant is seeking vested rights for a period of three years to provide consistency with State vesting requirements. The Planning Office recommends approval of first reading of this Ordinance with conditions. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The AACP encourages "messy vitality," which seems to reflect what has taken place on this parcel. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council adopted Ordinance 37 (Landmark Designation) and Ordinance 34 (Rezoning from R-6 to Office) on September 26, 1994. The applicants' desire to add a free market dwelling unit was discussed at the Council hearings. LOCATION: Poppies Bistro Cafe is located at 834 W. Hallam, Block 10, Lots K and L, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ISSUES: There are no outstanding issues relative to the request for Vested Rights. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the request for Vested Rights of the "Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit," subject to the following conditions: 1. As recommended by the City Engineer, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two -bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or petition the City to vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve second reading of Ordinance 64, Series 1994 for the Poppies Bistro Cafe GMQS Exemption Vested Rights for Block 10, Lots K and L City and Townsite of Aspen." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance 64, Series 1994 "A" Administrative approval for Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit "B" Public Notice FO • C� ORDINANCE NO. 01 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE POPPIES BISTRO CAFE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 824 W. HALLAM (BLOCK 10, LOTS K AND L, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant vesting of development rights for a site specific development plan for a period of three years from the date of final development plan approval; and WHEREAS, Michael Hull and Earl Jones, ("Applicants"), as represented by Sunny Vann, submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting construction of a free market dwelling unit on the second level of the existing Poppies Bistro Cafe, in conjunction with a request for Landmark Designation and Rezoning from R-6 to Office; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1994 City Council approved the requests for Landmark Designation by Ordinance 37 and Rezoning by Ordinance 34; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council approvals the Planning Director approved a GMQS Exemption for the addition of a residential dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24-7-801(A) (1) (b) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' are also seeking vested rights approval for the GMQS Exemption for a period of three years to provide consistency with State vesting requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: The Planning Director granted GMQS Exemption approval to the Applicants pursuant to Section 24-7-801 (A) (1) (b) (3) of the Municipal Code subject to the following conditions: 1. As recommended by the City Engineer, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights for the Poppies Bistro Cafe site specific development plan as follows: I 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) 2 years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approval granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 3 • day of 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be published 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 , 1994. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1994. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 4 John Bennett, Mayor Exhibit A • .kV #11 ti TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit DATE: October 19, 1994 REQUEST: Michael Hull and Earl Jones are the owners of Poppies Bristo Cafe which received Landmark Designation (Ordinance 37) and Rezoning approval (Ordinance 34) on September 26, 1994. The land use application requested the addition of an approximately 970 sq.ft., two bedroom, one bath dwelling unit to the existing structure. This request may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 24-7-801(A) (1) (b) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. CODE REQUIREMENT: This provision of the Land Use Regulations reads: The enlargement of an historic landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse, or dormitory units; The applicant is seeking approval to add a two bedroom one bath unit to the second floor of the existing structure. Since the property has been designated a Historic Landmark, the Planning Director can approve this request. Several conditions of approval have been recommended by staff to accommodate the addition of a dwelling unit on the parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the applicant's request for one residential dwelling unit to be added to the Poppies Bristo Cafe at 834 West Hallam. 1. As recommended by the City Engineer the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces.are required for the new two bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVC-Clauson, S an Community Development Director 2 • 0Exhibit B Saturday -Sunday, November 19-20, 1994 • The Aspen Times �C Public Notice ORDINANCE NO. 64 (SERIFS OF 19994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE POPPIES BLSTRO CAFE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 824 W. HALLAM (BLOCK 10, LOTS K AND L, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-&207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant vesting of development rights for a site specific development plan for a period of three years from the date of final development plan approval; and WHEREAS, Michael Hull and Earl Jones, ('Applicants-), as represented by Sunny Vann, submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting construction of a free market dwelling unit on the second level of the existing Poppies Bistro Cafe, in conjunction with a request for landmark Designation and Rezon- ing from R6 to Office; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1994 City Coun- cil approved the requests for landmark Desig- nation by Ordinance 37 and Rezoning by Ordi- nance 34; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council approvals the Planning Director approved a GMQS Exemption for the addition of a residen- tial dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24-7- 801(A)(1)(b)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' are also seeking vested rights approval for the GMQS Exemp- tion for a period of three years to provide con- sistency with State vesting requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE C" COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL- ORADO: Section l: The Planning Director granted GMQS Exemption approval to the Applicants pursuant to Section 244MI(A)0)(b)(3) of the Municipal Code subject to the following condi- tions: 1. As recommended by the City Engineer, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plaits. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm runoff must be maintained on site. c. The applicant shall consult City Engineer- ing (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights4A-way. Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or devel- opment, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit. unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Toning Com- mission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 246-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights for the Poppies Bistro Cafe site specific development plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. Howev- er, any failure to abide by the terms and condi- tions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the Munic- ipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be sub- ject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific devel- opment plan from subsequent reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not Inconsistent with the approval granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested prop- erty right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties sub- ject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and rechanical codes. In this regard as a condition of this site develop- ment approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, elec- trical and mechanical codes, unless an exemp- tion therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of December 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB- LLSHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of Novem- ber, 1994. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Published in The Aspen Times on November 18, 1994. �flt�ti S10W TMI SNOW M SNOW MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner DATE: November 14, 1994 RE: Poppies Bistro Cafe Vested Rights - 1st Reading of Ordinance(o9, Series 1994. SUMMARY: The Applicants, Michael Hull and Earl Jones, have received an administrative approval from the Planning Director granting GMQS Exemption for the construction of a free market dwelling unit on the applicants' property. A copy of the GMQS Exemption approval is included as Exhibit "A". The applicant is seeking vested rights for a period of three years to provide consistency with State vesting requirements. The Planning Office recommends approval of first reading of this Ordinance with conditions. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The AACP encourages "messy vitality" which seems to reflect what has taken place on this parcel. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council adopted Ordinance 37 (Landmark Designation) and Ordinance 34 (Rezoning from R-6 to Office) on September 26, 1994. The applicants' desire to add a free market dwelling unit was discussed at the Council hearings. LOCATION: Poppies Bistro Cafe is located at 834 W. Hallam, Block 10, Lots K and L, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ISSUES: There are no outstanding issues relative to the request for Vested Rights. FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATIONS: None are anticipated. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the request for Vested Rights of the "Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit" administrative approval subject to the following conditions: 1. As recommended by the City Enginc,!er, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. • • 2. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). Two new parking spaces are required for the new two -bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have first reading of Ordinance , Series of 1994." "I move for the approval of the Poppies Bistro Cafe GMQS Exemption Vested Rights for Block 10, Lots K and L City and Townsite of Aspen." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance , Series 1994 "A" Administrative approval for Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit 2 ORDINANCE NO. _ (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING VESTED RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE POPPIES BISTRO CAFE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 824 W. HALLAM (BLOCK 10, LOTS K AND L, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant vesting of development rights for a site specific development plan for a period of three years from the date of final development plan approval; and WHEREAS, Michael Hull and Earl Jones, ("Applicants"), as represented by Sunny Vann, submitted an application to the Planning Office requesting construction of a free market dwelling unit on the second level of the existing Poppies Bistro Cafe, in conjunction with a request for Landmark Designation and Rezoning from R-6 to Office; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1994 City Council approved the requests for Landmark Designation by Ordinance 37 and Rezoning by Ordinance 34; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council approvals the Planning Director approved a GMQS Exemption for the addition of a residential dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24-7-801(A) (1) (b) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' are also seeking vested rights approval for the GMQS Exemption for a period of three years to provide consistency with State vesting requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: The Planning Director granted GMQS Exemption approval to the Applicants pursuant to Section 24-7-801(A)(1)(b)(3) of the Municipal Code subject to the following conditions: 1. As recommended by the City Engineer, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. section 2: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant the Applicant vested rights for the Poppies Bistro Cafe site specific development plan as follows: I 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) RI years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3. Nothing in the approvals provided by this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and/or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approval granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen, including but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 3: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen, no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 3 day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be published 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 , 1994. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1994. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 0 John Bennett, Mayor Exhibit A MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit DATE: October 19, 1994 REQUEST: Michael Hull and Earl Jones are the owners of Poppies Bristo Cafe which received Landmark Designation (Ordinance 37) and Rezoning approval (Ordinance 34) on September 26, 1994. The land use application requested the addition of an approximately 970 sq.ft., two bedroom, one bath dwelling unit to the existing structure. This request may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 24-7-801(A) (1) (b) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. CODE REQUIREMENT: This provision of the Land Use Regulations reads: The enlargement of an historic landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse, or dormitory units; The applicant is seeking approval to add a two bedroom one bath unit to the second floor of the existing structure. Since the property has been designated a Historic Landmark, the Planning Director can approve this request. Several conditions of approval have been recommended by staff to accommodate the addition of a dwelling unit on the parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the applicant's request for one residential dwelling unit to be added to the Poppies Bristo Cafe at 834 West Hallam. 1. As recommended by the City Engineer the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation • species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED' S an lauson, Community Development Director 2 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Poppies GMQS Exemption for a Residential Unit DATE: October 19, 1994 REQUEST: Michael Hull and Earl Jones are the owners of Poppies Bristo Cafe which received Landmark Designation (Ordinance 37) and Rezoning approval (Ordinance 34) on September 26, 1994. The land use application requested the addition of an approximately 970 sq.ft., two bedroom, one bath dwelling unit to the existing structure. This request may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 24-7-801(A) (1) (b) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. CODE REQUIREMENT: This provision of the Land Use Regulations reads: The enlargement of an historic landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse, or dormitory units; The applicant is seeking approval to add a two bedroom one bath unit to the second floor of the existing structure. Since the property has been designated a Historic Landmark, the Planning Director can approve this request. Several conditions of approval have been recommended by staff to accommodate the addition of a dwelling unit on the parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the applicant's request for one residential dwelling unit to be added to the Poppies Bristo Cafe at 834 West Hallam. 1. As recommended by the City Engineer the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation • species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit, unless reduced by HPC. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans, obtain a Board of Adjustment or HPC variance for the proposed setback encroachment, or vacate the alley. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED• san Clauson, Community Development Director 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Stan Clausoh, City Planning Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner DATE: September 26, 1994 RE: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning - 2nd Reading of Ordinance Series 1994 SUMMARY: The Applicants (Michael Hull and Earl Jones, represented by Sunny Vann) propose to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property from R-6 to the Office zone district and obtain a GMQS Exemption for a free market dwelling unit. The applicant needs to obtain Historic Landmark designation prior to obtaining the GMQS Exemption for the dwelling unit. Therefore, this memorandum only reviews the request for rezoning. The GMQS Exemption will be granted by the Planning Director after historic landmark designation and rezoning. This application is a two-step review process before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Poppies restaurant is a non -conforming use in the R- 6 zone district. The applicant is interested in constructing a free market unit on the second level of the building for use by a restaurant employee. The proposed addition of a 970 sq.ft. two bedroom, one bath unit will exceed the underlying floor area limitation on the property by approximately 210 sq.ft., and is therefore not permitted by the Code in the R-6 Zone District. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The AACP does not specifically refer to the applicant's property. The request for historic landmark approval of the structure is consistent with the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The applicant requested a Code interpretation by City Council on March 28, 1994, regarding the allowable floor area ratio for a non -conforming use in the R-6 zone district. City Council did not support the applicant's interpretation to calculate the floor area of the R-6 parcel for a "duplex" unit which would have permitted the second level addition. Instead City Council expressed conceptual support for this property to be rezoned to the Office zone district due to the minimal nature of the request, the voluntary designation of the property as a historic landmark, consistency with the AACP, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. This application is being filed by the applicant in response to the direction offered by City Council. A copy of the application is included as Exhibit "A". LOCATION: 834 W. Hallam. Block 10, Lots K and L, City and Townsite of Aspen. REFERRAL COMMENTS: City Engineering- Refer to Exhibit "B" for complete referral memo. Zoning - Bill Drueding has indicated that a Board of Adjustment variance or alley vacation will be required for the work proposed within the rear yard setback. CURRENT ISSUES: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a use which is compatible with the surrounding land uses of the neighborhood, despite its location in a residential zone district. Due to the high traffic volume of Highway 82, the use of this property as a restaurant since the mid-19701s, and the USFS office adjacent to this site, the applicant's request for rezoning to Office is a reasonable request that is consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. In addition, a restaurant is a conditional use in a historic landmark in the Office zone district. Although the applicant has indicated that the new residential dwelling unit may be available to restaurant employees, it is not proposed to be deed restricted. Staff would prefer a resident occupied status on this unit to ensure that it contributes housing opportunities to the local working population, however, this is not a requirement of this review. Pursuant to Sections 24-7-1102 (Amendment to the Zone District Map), staff finds that the review criteria have been met. The specific criteria and staff responses are included as Exhibit "C". FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATIONS: None are anticipated. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning for a map amendment, without any conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the rezoning of the Poppies Bistro Cafe to the Office zone district which is located on Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, as outlined in Ordinance 34, Series 1994." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance 34, Series 1994 "A" Application information "B" Engineering referral memo "C" Vicinity map "D" Planning staff responses to Code sections 24-7-1102 "E" Public Notice cc.rezone.poppies.2nd u • ORDINANCE NO. ,-) (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING A MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING FROM THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT TO THE (0) OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE POPPIES BISTRO CAFE (LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 10 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, the Applicants' (Michael Hull and Earl Jones, represented by Sunny Vann) proposal is to rezone the parcel from R-6 to the Office zone district in order to obtain more floor area to construct an addition on the existing structure and to relieve the existing use of its non -conforming status. The Applicant's request for a GMQS Exemption for a free market dwelling unit and Vested Rights will take place after the property has received Historic Landmark designation; and WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides for City Council to approve amendments to the official zone district map; and WHEREAS, Poppies Bistro Cafe is zoned R-6 and a restaurant is a non -conforming use in this zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the applicant's request at a public hearing on June 7, 1994, and recommended approval of the Map Amendment to City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant a Map Amendment which rezones the subject parcel from the R-6 zone district to the O (Office) zone district, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 2: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be published 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 , 1994. John 6ennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 1994. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ord.cc.rezone.poppies • 0 Exhibit A VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants April 22, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Mary Lackner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning Dear Marv: Please consider this letter an application to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property, which is located at 834 West Hallam Street, from R-6, Medium-Densitv Residential, to O, Office. Designation of the existing structure as a Historic Landmark, and a GMQS exemption for one (1) residential dwelling unit which is proposed to be con- structed on the property, is also requested (see Exhibit 1, Pre -Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 7-1103, 7-704 and 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Michael Hull and Earl Jones, the owners of the property (see Exhibit 2, Warranty Deed). Permission for Vann Associates to repre- sent the Applicants is attached as Exhibit 3. A list of owners located within three hundred (300) feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. Existing Conditions The Applicants' property is legally described as Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 6, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area and is zoned R-6, Medium -Density Residential. The property is accessible from West Hallam Street, Eight Street, and the remnant of a public alley which terminates at the rear of the property. The remainder of the alley appears to have been acquired by the adjacent property owner. Man-made improvements to the property are limited to a two (2) story, victorian frame house which is occupied by Poppies Bistro Cafe. The restaurant is a noncon- forming, commercial use in the underlying R-6 zone district, and contains approxi- mately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Al- 230 East Hopkins .avenue • Aspen. Colorado 81611 • 303/925-6958 • Fax 303.920-9310 Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 2 though the structure has significant historical merit, it has not been historically designated. The property is bounded on the north and east by the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service's property, which consists of the remainder of Block 10, all of Block 9, and a vacated portion of West Francis Street, contains the White River Forest's Aspen Ranger Station and several residential structures which are apparently used to house Forest Service employees. The Aspen Villas Condominiums and the Sagewood Condominiums are located to the south and west of the property and across West Hallam and Eights Streets, respectively. Existing zoning in the immediate site area consists primarily of R-6, Medium -Density Residential, and R/MF, Residential/Multi- Family. The Forest Service's property is also designated SPA, Specially Planned Area. Proposed Development The Applicants wish to construct a residential dwelling unit above the rear of the existing structure to provide on -site housing for the restaurant's employees. To accomplish this objective, they propose to historically designate the property, and to construct the new unit pursuant to a GMQS exemption. The exemption in question permits the enlargement of a Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) free market dwelling unit. The proposed designation has been reviewed by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, who recommended that the structure be historically designated by the City Council. The proposed unit will contain two (2) bedrooms, one (1) bath, and approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) square feet of floor area (see Exhibit 7, Architectural Drawings). The unit will be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occupants. The addition's architectural design will be reviewed and approved by the HPC to ensure that the new unit is compatible with the existing structure. As the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district do not contain an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, the Applicants submitted a request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the property's maximum allowable floor area (see Exhibit 8). In its review of the interpretation request, the Planning Office took the position that the R-6 zone district's single-family, floor area ratio should be used to determine the size of the expanded structure, its commercial use notwith- standing (see Exhibit 9). Unfortunately, the Planning Office's recommended approach limits the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 3 nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, only two hundred and sixty (260) square feet of available floor area remains for expansion purposes. While a five hundred (500) square foot bonus may be granted to a Historic Landmark by the Historic Preservation Commission, the resulting seven hundred and sixty (760) square feet of available floor area is insufficient to accommodate the proposed dwelling unit. The Applicants appealed the Planning Director's floor area interpretation to the City Council who upheld the staff recommendation. In her memorandum to the Council, Diane Moore recommended that the Applicants consider either rezoning the property or a text amendment to resolve the floor area problem (see Exhibit 10). The Council members present at the appeals hearing were receptive to the Applicants' proposed development and expressed their conceptual support for a rezoning of the property. The Council's support was based on the minimal nature of the request, its consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the voluntary designation of the property as a Historic Landmark, and the existing land uses in the immediate site area. Review Requirements The Applicants' proposed development is contingent upon the rezoning of the property and the designation of the existing structure located thereon as a Historic Landmark. A GMQS exemption is also required for the proposed dwelling unit. 1. Rezoning Pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Land Use Regulations, a private application for an amendment to the City's official zone district map may only be submitted on or prior to February 15 and August 15 of each year. The Applicants, therefore, respectfully request that the Planning Office sponsor the rezoning, as the City Council has indicated its willingness to consider the request. The applicable review criteria for such applications, and the proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are discussed below. a) "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed rezoning complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, the Aspen Land Use Regulations. As no demonstrable benefit would result from terminating the existing restaurant use, a rezoning of the property to O, Office, would eliminate its present non -conforming status, thereby bringing the structure into compliance with the use requirements of the Land Use Regulations. The proposed addition will comply with all applicable dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district with the possible exception of the rear 0 • Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 4 yard setback. A variance is believed to have been granted by the Board of Adjust- ment for the present encroachment into the rear yard setback. The additional encroachment which will result from the proposed second floor addition may be approved by the HPC in connection with its review of the project. No other variation in the dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district, or waiver of any applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the Applicants. b) "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." While the new Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically address the Applicants' property, the proposed rezoning of the property, its historic designation, and the construction of a residential dwelling unit thereon for the restaurant's employees, is consistent with intent and policies of the Plan. More specifically, the rezoning of the property will eliminate the restaurant's nonconform- ing use status, thereby eliminating an existing hurdle to the continued use of the property for restaurant purposes. The preservation of such uses in their existing locations is integral to the Plan's concept of "messy vitality". In addition, the designation of Poppies Bistro Cafe as a Historic Landmark is consistent the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation, and its policy of retaining and encouraging eclectic and varietal businesses along the City's Main Street corridor. Similarly, the Applicants' provision of on -site housing for the restaurant's employees is consistent with Plan's policy to encourage infill development to permit more employees to live in close proximity to their jobs. c) "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with sur- rounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighbor- hood characteristics." The purpose of the O, Office, zone district is to "provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." The Main Street O, Office, zone district presently termi- nates at North Seventh Street, one (1) block east of the Applicants' property. The character of Seventh and West Hallam Streets in the vicinity of the property, howev- er, is consistent with the Main Street corridor. The portions of North Seventh and West Hallam Streets in question are inarguably high volume thoroughfares with a mixture of land uses. The immedi- ate site area contains single-family residential, multi -family residential, lodge, office, and commercial uses. Given the character of the area, it is highly unlikely that the Poppies Bistro Cafe property will revert to residential use. In fact, the property has Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 5 not been used for residential purposes in at least twenty (20) years. Prior to the opening of Poppies Bistro Cafe in 1981, the building housed the Golden Barrel res- taurant, which occupied the premises for approximately eight (8) years. The existing restaurant use is compatible with surrounding land uses, and significantly contributes to the so-called "messy vitality" of the community. d) "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the area's existing road system. While the proposed residential unit will generate approximately four (4) additional vehicular trips per day, the neighboring street system is more than adequate to accommodate the resulting increase in traffic. This increase may be reduced in part by the availability of mass transit service. Public bus stops are presently located in front of the property on both sides of West Hallam Street. e) "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the City's public facilities. Existing water, sewer and drainage systems are either adequate to handle the proposed development or will be upgraded by the Applicants as may be required. No significant impact upon the City's parks, schools and emergency medical facilities should occur as a result of the proposed rezoning. f) "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environment. g) "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compati- ble with the community character in the City of Aspen." While compatibility with the City's "community character" is obviously a subjective criteria, we believe that the uses that are allowed within the proposed O, Office zone district are consistent with the existing character of the West Hallam and Main Street corridor. As noted previously, the property's historic restaurant use represents an integral and desirable part of Aspen's so-called "messy vitality" which the new Aspen Area Community Plan seeks both to retain and encourage. Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 6 h) "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amend- ment." In our opinion, the "changed condition" which supports the proposed rezoning is the citizen's vision statement embodied in the new Aspen Area Communi- ty Plan. The Plan specifically encourages the preservation of the so-called "messy vitality" that "originally created Aspen's renowned cultural and sociological diversity". Poppies Bistro Cafe represents a valued component of the community's diverse restaurant population. Its location outside the commercial core provides both locals and tourists alike an alternative dining experience which is essential to the public's concept of messy vitality. Rezoning of the property to O, Office, will not only remove the restaurant's non -conforming use status, but permit the construction of a residential dwelling unit which will help meets the housing needs of its employees. i) "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would remove the existing restaura- nt's non -conforming status, and permit the construction of on -site housing for the restaurant's employees, the public interest would appear to be appropriately served by approval of the rezoning request. As discussed previously, the Applicants' proposed rezoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and complies with all ap- plicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. 2. Historic Landmark Designation As noted previously, an application to designate Poppies Bistro Cafe as a historic landmark has been reviewed and recommended for approval by both the HPC and the P&Z. The application was also considered by the City Council at first reading prior to its withdrawal pending the receipt of the Planning Director's floor area interpretation. At this point, I believe that the Council need only hold a public hearing to complete the designation process. Should additional procedural steps be necessary, the Applicants would be pleased to cooperate as may be required. 3. GMQS Exemption Pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations, the Planning Director shall exempt the enlargement of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling unit from the City's growth management quota system. As there are no specific review criteria for such exemptions, the designation of the structure by the City Council, and the proposed addition's compliance with the applicable dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district should be sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the requested exemption. Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 7 Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, 'ASSOCIATES IN SV:cwv Attachments c:\bus\city.app' app22993.rez 0 • EXHIBIT 1 City of Aspen Pre -Application Conference Summary Planner Date Project �P z Applicants Represents tee Representative's Phone Owner's Name The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Land Use Code Sect ion Comments % - //Ca ,FL-Z0 i;V fo 0 - 70 rPylea.7 2f �n�i�iva• .412zz� 0 Ap Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) &Z and C Public Hearing: (yes (no) a� ��Z 4i✓ CG ` I ailg -� 1-4 h0� H�L Deposit for the Application Review: S Referral agency Flat fees: 96 - Petfj/r��iii�r TOTALDEPOSIT tha ' (Additional hours are billed at a rate of 163/hr.) To Apply Submit the Following Information: Proof of ownership. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also states the name, address and telephone nu nber of the representative. Total deposit for review of the application S 'Q /? copies of the complete application packet and maps. Summary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including street address and legal description of the property. Q An 8 1/2- by I I- vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of .Aspen. ® Site plan shall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical features (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.) QG4NQO !'/_�O �P �l�Cl� C�eQP illDOa�C/?175. 10. These items need to be submitted if circled: t List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses. 114 Site photos. Proof of legal access to the parcel. ,2 Historic Preservation Commission review/approval. Rk337036 IU/02/91 09:54 Rer *uU bl:. 658 F'G 102 t — Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt� k, Doc S60.VU Re" ce No. Tills DEED, Made this 1St day of October '19 9 between WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL O M ofthe Wq z C County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, ofthe first part, and a1' EARL JONES and- M17KEIHULL, Tenants in Common, to 4 whose legal address is a=a � e c/o Poppies, 834"W. Hallam, IQ E Win Aspen, Colorado 81611 O f-t GSA ofthe County of Pitkin and State of W >, � Colorado, of the second part: E t••t W P U Q N WITNESSETH, That the said part ofthe first part, for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS and q� other good and valuable considerations DOLLARS to the said part 1es of the first part in hand paid by said part y of the second part. the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, havegranted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said part y of the second part,its heirs and assigns for ever. all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: Lots K and L, Block 10, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, subject to: Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1987 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156, and Easement and right of way for an irrigation ditch as granted to United States of America by The Golden Barrel, Inc. also known as the Golden Barrell Restaurant & Lounge in the instrument recorded June 6, 1973 in Book 276 at Page 494 as Reception No. 160120, affecting the following described property: Over and across Lot h of Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. p�Q also known as street and number 834 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 8161i w Zen TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditamants and appurtenances the rrtu helonging, or to nncwtsc npprr- t7 taming, and the reversion and reversions. remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and ail tiie < EL estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said part ley of the first part, either to law or ILU �I equity, of. in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. ' LE TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described .with the appurtenances. unto tr (C said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns forever. And the said part ley of the first part. T ff for them eel VeS heirs, exeeutora, and administrators. do - covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and C with the said party ofthe second part,.'.itS heirs.and asaigns,that at the time ofthe enseahng and delivery C otthese presents, are well seized ofthe premises above conveyed. as of good, sure. perfect, absolute and Indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple. and he •ve good right, full power and authority i' to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes. assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind of naturesoever. Except 1991 Real Property taxes payable in 1992 and Lease between Parties of the first part,`formerly D. & G. Golden Barrel, Inc., and Mike'Hull and Earl Jones, recorded in Book 513 at Page 418, records of Pitkin County, Colorado EXHIBIT 2 and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession ofthe said part y of the second part. its heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claimingor to claim the whole or any part thereof, t he said part ies ofthe first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the said part ieSofthe first part have hereunto set theiihand S and seal S the day and year first above written. 1/�J•' (SEAL W L A. G NER (SEAL) P J. D (SEAL) STATE OFCOLORADO. HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL �fk aa. County of GTD E II I The lorea'eiWg?�I�ntAwas GILNERged before me this day of (J r j 19 91 by PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka I CtOL DALE H� illy commission expires 5 �'". 19 nesa my hand an tcial s I. '•� O� N R Y C, rt 'c C� r No Al W1lRRAN77 DEED. —Per PsatosnlJla R—,d— 6ndfad Pvb4hlsa Ca., R,o,v. Calmasa 11.79 ., --171 n x y 7 A U1 'A I N . -3 ,A 0 n n EXHIBIT 3 April 15, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Johnson: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to rezone our property which is located at 834 West Hallam Street in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, L I NTATIiiiXv�!� X -I Earl J&es Poppies Bistro Cafe 834 West Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2333 c:\bus\city.1tr\1tr22993-kj2 XHIBIT 6 3 5.7 . X elfvo.M� a` 6u�lcli � � O � O a 20 n � o• co o �d. �• � r r r•;r ° i(D L T W o9 � � •ti' �a NCTES 0 - indicates found rebar and cap • - indicates set rebar and cap marked L.S. 14111 The real property described hereon does not lie within the limits of a 100 Year Flood Hazard Boundary. Leo_al Descrio_tion: Lots K and L, Block 10, City and T.ownsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on August 16, 1993 a survey was performed by me on the parcel of land described hereon. A two-story frame house was found to be on said parcel as shown on this plat. All easements, encroachments and rights -of -way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and bel' f. i i By : %_. Sydnao Lin come P.L.S. 14111 • y„ Trn �rover�e'v�� BY: /NES /N SPACE SYDNEY LINCICOME ( -.S. 14111) BOX 121 CAHBONCALE, COL0. 303-963-36: 1 7 t,t_O• 4 q 9 SCALE:I 20' (Z9 AVMAH) 133blS VJV-n4H r w w x IK I J a EXHIBIT 7 Y Jet Z g LL 0 0 0 Z Q L1J I — (I) W U) 0 Cl- 0 CL • • m _0 • • r pq�i �� u !Q z 0 a ui J ul S F O N FIN _M U7 S \C� PH oil / jl /jj� �I val VE • • W ' r Yoe i V E'I aI I'mm wVy < w \� a a Auj FIN LAJ 0 L'i V) ui x ,K\ Ph, z 0 LLJ 0 z uj • • VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultarc October 21, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Affordable Housing Unit Dear Kim: EXHIBIT 8 Please consider this letter a formal request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district (see Exhibit 1, Preapplication Conference Summary). The requested is submitted by Michael Hull, the owner of Poppies Bistro Cafe, pursuant to Section 11-101 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Permission for Vann Associates to represent Mr. Hull is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Background As we have discussed, the Applicant would like to construct an affordable housing unit above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this objective, he proposes to historically designate his property, and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided for in Section 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Regula- tions. As the purpose of the unit is to provide housing for various restaurant employees, including himself, the Applicant proposes to deed restrict the unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's resident occupancy guidelines. At issue is the size of the unit that can be constructed. The property in question consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 3, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies the two (2) story frame house located thereon. The Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in the underlying R-6 zone dis- trict, and contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Although the structure has historical. merit, it has not been historically designated. Proposed Development As the attached architectural plan illustrates (see Exhibit 3), the proposed two (2) bed- room, one (1) bath unit would contain approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) 230 mast Hopkins Avenue • .aspen Colorado 816111 • 303/925-6958 • pax 303/920-9310 0 0 Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 2 square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occupants. To ensure that the addition is compatible with the existing structure, the addition's archi- tectural design will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Please note that the Applicant has already commenced the historic designation process, and that a work session has been held with the Commission to discuss the design of the addition. Requested Interpretation The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family, residential zone districts. As a result, the Regulations provide no guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses (e.g., Poppies) which are located in the R-6 zone district. Since non -conforming uses cannot be expanded, this lack of guidance would not ordinarily pose a problem. However, as the addition of an affordable housing unit would not increase the size of the structure's non -conforming use, the issue of maximum allow- able floor area is crucial to the Applicant's proposal. The Planning Office has suggested that the R-6 zone district's single-family floor area ratio should be used as an appropriate guideline for the expanded structure. This ratio, however, would limit the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, insufficient floor area would remain with which to construct the desired affordable housing unit. If a residential guideline is to be utilized, I believe that the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area ratio would be more appropriate. As the only use to which the restaurant can be converted is residential, the inclusion of an affordable housing unit would render the structure a duplex. In addition, a duplex is permitted on a lot of six thousand (6,000) square feet, provided that the lot contains a historic landmark (see Section 5-201.D.2.). Unfortunately, duplexes which are located on such lots cannot exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) single-family residence (see Section 5-201.D.10.). This requirement, however, is arguably inapplicable, as Poppies Bistro Cafe is neither a single-family nor duplex residential dwelling. Given the Regulation's lack of direction with respect to this issue, I believe that the Planning Office has sufficient latitude to establish an appropriate floor area limitation for the property. Ideally, this limitation would take into account the Applicant's objective, it's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the historic nature of the struc- ture, and the compatibility of the addition with surrounding development. A duplex floor area limitation would appear to address all of these concerns. 0 • Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 3 Significantly larger multi -family structures are located across West Hallam and Eighth Streets on the south and west sides of the property. The property to the north and east of Poppies's is presently owned by the United States Forest Service, and has been identified as a potential location for additional affordable housing development. As the proposed addition must be approved by the HPC, its compatibility with both the existing structure and the neighborhood will be taken into account. Finally, the Applicant's desire to voluntarily provide an on -site affordable housing unit is commendable, and is consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. The maximum allowable floor area for a duplex on a six thousand (6,000) square foot lot in the R-6 zone district is three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet. As the existing structure contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area, six hundred and twenty (620) square feet will be available for the proposed affordable housing unit. An additional floor area bonus of approximately three hundred and fifty (350) square feet will be requested from the HPC in connection with the historic designation of the structure. In summary, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the Planning Office's position regarding the Applicant's ability to utilize the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area limitation for the proposed development. As Mr. Hull would like to commence construction of the unit in as timely a manner as possible, your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VAINN AISOCIATES Sunny Vark/AICP SV:cwv cc: Michael Hull Jake Vickery a\bus\city.app\app22993.int EXHIBIT 9 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S): Chanter 24, Section 5-201.D.10 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which refers to the allowable Floor Area Ratios in the R-6 Medium Density Residential zone district. Also involved is the permitted FAR for a non -conforming use in all residential zones. EFFECT=V-- DATE: January 10, 1994 WRITTEN BY: Kim Johnson, Planner r R\ APPROVED BY: Diane Moore, City Planning Directo9�- BACXGROQND: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in this residential zone district. The existing building contains anproximately 2,980 sc-�ara feet Of floor area. Tale 51te 15 6, 000 scuare feet of lot area. The site is located at 0' W. Hallam Street (Lots K and L, TOwnsite of Aspen). The property is bounded on the north and east by the U.S. Forest. Service. To the west and south, across Eighth and w . Hallam respectively are mu It; residential build;ngs. The restaurant owner washes to expand the structure to accommodate a 970 s.f. affordable housing unit pursuant to G.MQS Exemption for affordable housing. In addition, the applicant is seeking Historic Landmark designation for the building. The issue set forth in this interpretation request is that the R-6 zone district does not specify an allowable FAR for non- conforming uses. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 s.f.) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. R-6 states that only if the property is designated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. It is the applicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to. use the space as an affordable housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth .for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for 1 C. 01 0 designated historic landmarks). Staff believes this provision applies regardless of the use of proposed additional FAR. In this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 s.f. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, Planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (as a Conditional Use) would be the duplex FAR figure. In this case however, the lot met the land area requirements for a duplex. INTERPRETATION: The Planning Director's interpretation and application of Section 5-201.0.10 of Chapter 24 of tZe As an Municipal Code to the case at hand is that: The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a s; ngle g=mily lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements. In reviewing the information presented by the applicant regarding the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in the R-6 zone, it does not appear that sufficient evidence has been presented for staff to determine that a duplex FAR is appromri ate for a single family parcel in this district or this site. The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable sections in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates to this request. JA i 2 EXHIBIT 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director '\ DATE: March 28, 1994 RE: Appeal to City Council - Planning Director Interpretation Regarding Poppies Bistro Cafe SUPLKARY: The Planning Director has the authority to make all interpretations regarding Chapter 24, Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen. The authority for this is outlined in Section 24- 11-101 of the Code. An interpretation may be requested by any affected person. In this particular case, Poppies Bistro requested a Planning Director interpretation regarding the allowable floor area ratios for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. The applicant has elected to appeal the interpretation of the planning director to the city council. The Land Use Regulations provide for Council's consideration of the petition within thirty (30) days of its filing. The applicant has agreed to the scheduling of this item on the March 28, 1994 agenda, even though this date exceeds the 30 day time frame for appeals. Planning staff recommends that Council affirm the Planning Director interpretation. BACKGROUND: The property in question is Poppies Bistro Cafe that consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite cf Aspen. Poppies's is located on north side of Main Street, adjacent to the Unites States Forest Service property. The lot area of the parcel contains six thousand (6,000) square feet. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies a two (2) story frame house and is a non -conforming use in the underlying R-6 zone district. Poppies currently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. The Applicant, Michael Hull, would like to construct a housing unit (voluntarily deed restricted to resident occupancy) above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this, he proposes to historically designate his property and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided in Section 24-8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations. The purpose of, this unit is to provide housing for either restaurant employees or himself. The proposed dwelling unit would contain approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. It should be noted that the applicant has commenced the historic designation process and that a worksession with HPC has been held to discuss the design of the addition. The applicant, however, has put on hold the historic designation of this property, pending the outcome of this appeal. CURRENT ISSUES: Sunny Vann and Jake Vickery, representing M--. Hull, requested a Planning Director interpretation (Exhibit A) regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non- conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. At issue is the size of the dwelling unit that can be constructed. The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial uses as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family zone districts. Therefore, the regulations do not provide guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses. The R-6 zone district does provide floor area ratios for detached residential dwellings and duplex units. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FPR for this parcel should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3 , 600 sq. ft. ) deszite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. A provision in the R-6 zone district states that only if the property is designated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but, the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. "Total external floor area ratio for two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot between 6,.000 and 9,000 square feet containing a historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling." It is the applicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to use the space as a housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in ohx a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other Cc provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for designated historic landmarks) . Staff believes that this provision ,cam applies regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In �'�.� this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 sq. ft. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure, which totals a maximum of c, 3,240 sq. ft. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, planning staff made the determination that the maximum FPS for the r Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (conditional use) would be the duplex FAR figure because it met the duplex lot area in the R-15 residential zone district. W fl it is important to note that the applicant could still construct the attached dwelling unit but the size of the unit would be limited to the FAR of a single family home, with the potential for an FAR bonus if the property is historically landmarked. For example: Single family maximum FAR - 3,240 sq. ft. Poppies existing FAR - 2,980 sq. ft. Remaining FAR 260 sq. ft. p Gi 07 Landmark structure FAR bonus - 500 sQ. ft. �. (maximum granted by HPC) %nV Maximum FAR for dwelling unit 760 sq. ft. The findings made in the planning director interpretation (Exhibit B) are summarized as follows: "The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed nor ei he a single family lot or aduplex lot depending up n s." ther established per the zone's minimum lot area q This interpretation provides the guidance requested by the applicant in the determination of the maximum allowable flocr area. As mentioned previously, the applicant requested an appeal of the Planning Director's aon the points listed inotheloriginal �requestThey and based the appeal the following points: 1. The proposed project supports the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan 2. Residentially zoned properties on Highway 82 are heavily impacted and deserve special consideration. 3. Increases in FAR are generally supported by the Code to encourage the creation of employee housing. 4. The request is modest. Staff agrees housing is a and that the to resident FAR for the outlined in However, the determination of maximum allowable floor area ratios in a given zone district is contained within the zone districts' dimensional requirements. Or, in this particular situation, an interpretation is made absent information.. The dimensional requirements essentially provide a limitation to the size of with the applicant that the construction of affordable goal out lined in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) voluntary construction of a dwelling unit restricted occupancy is encouraged. Additionally, increases in creation of affordable housing units is a concept the AACP . P� I O IZ MCC • 0 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: May 25, 1994 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning & GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: I. Alley - The application is correct that the remainder of the alley was acquired by the adjacent property owner. The alley was vacated in 1937. 2. Site drainage - As discussed on page 5 of the application, one of the considerations is the adequacy of public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 3. Sidewalks - The sidewalk along 8th Street is only 4 feet wide and abuts the curb. Normally when a sidewalk abuts a curb in a parallel parking area, an additional 1 1/2 feet of width is required to provide space for "No Parking Here to Corner" or other signs. This side street sidewalk could be interpreted as being in the West End where sidewalks are not required, however usable pedestrian spaces 5 feet wide are required. The sidewalk should be widened to 6 1/2 feet from the back of the curb. The sidewalk on Hallam Street is also 4 feet wide. It could easily be widened to 5 feet. The sidewalk swings out to the curb around a lilac bush where the usable area necks down to less than 3 feet. The lilac should be pruned back to provide at least five feet of clear sidewalk. Attention is called to current community concerns for handicap access of sidewalk and other public areas. 4. Parking - The application does not appear to discuss parking. There are two cars parked on site with registrations that expired in 1983. Their spaces should be indicated as such on the final building permit plans. We recommend that on -site parking be required. The alley behind Poppies is an open public right-of-way, but it does not serve • any users beyond Poppies. The adjacent property owners could request vacating the alley which would add some usable parking area. Half of the alley might be vacated to the adjacent property owners on each side of the alley. 5. Work in the Public Right -of --way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Bob Gish, Cris Caruso, Amy Amidon M94.262 MKI lba C--j 0 0 Exhibt D Rezoning (Amendment to the Zone District Map) Section 24-7-1102 The applicant is requesting that the property be zoned from R-6 to Office zone district which will permit the existing structure to expand to accommodate the second floor dwelling unit. Section 24- 7-1102 establishes the review criteria for a rezoning application. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The proposed development will need to comply with all provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. The restaurant use will become a conditional use once the property is historically designated, thereby eliminating the non -conforming status of the use. The proposed addition will comply with the dimensional requirements of the Office zone district, except for the rear yard setback in which the structure presently encroaches 11 feet into the setback. The second floor addition will encroach an additional four feet into the rear yard and will require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically refer to the applicant's property. The historic designation of the parcel is consistent with the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation and encouraging eclectic and varietal businesses along the City's Main Street corridor. The new dwelling unit will also be used to house restaurant employees, thereby meeting a goal of providing in town housing for in town workers. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to "provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." Although the subject property is on W. Hallam St. and not Main Street the characteristics of Eighth and Hallam is consistent with the purpose of the Office zone district. The adjacent properties contain a mix of single family residential, multi -family residential (Aspen Villas Condos, Sagewood -Condos, USFS employee housing), lodge (Barvarian Inn), and office uses (USFS offices). A vicinity map indicating the adjacent zoning is included as Exhibit "C". i The subject property has been used as commercial/restaurant space for the last 20 years. Prior to the opening of Poppies Bistro Cafe in 1981, the Golden Barrel restaurant occupied the premises for approximately eight years. No complaints regarding the restaurant operations have been filed with the Environmental Health Department. Staff believes that the restaurant use at this location is compatible with the surrounding land uses and can be considered "messy vitality" which is encouraged by the AACP. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The addition of a dwelling unit will add approximately four vehicle trips per day. The applicant has not discussed parking nor has indicated any parking spaces on the site plan. Generally, restaurant guests park on Eighth Street as no off-street parking is available. The applicant should consider a request to the City to vacate the alley in order to obtain additional space for off-street parking, as recommended in the City Engineer's letter. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit. The applicant may request special review from HPC to reduce the number of required parking spaces, although staff would not support a reduction due to the crowded nature of the residential area. The site is immediately adjacent to the Eighth Street bus stop which is a local, down valley, and skier shuttle stop. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The addition of one dwelling unit in conjunction with the rezoning to Office will have a negligible impact on public facilities. The applicant has committed to upgrade and/or pay for the extension of facilities to this property as required. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The infill development permitted by the rezoning will not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. P% • 0 . , , G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: Staff believes that the historic nature of the building and maintaining the restaurant use is compatible with the community character. The ability of the applicant to provide a dwelling unit for employees of the restaurant adds residential character to the property. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: The long-standing nonconforming use of the property is a condition that will be eliminated by the rezoning. Staff supports the proposed map amendment because a nonconforming use is converted into a conditional use. In addition Main Street has been promoted in the AACP, and other review efforts, as an eclectic mixed -use neighborhood. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: The applicant's request is not in conflict with the public interest, and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The only item which does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 24 is the encroachment into the rear yard setback, which will need to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3 �-3 Box 7 Exhibit E Aspen, Colorado PR,,� _� � ar P_ b1-,i�A MCA. NT STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. Copy of Notice County of Pitkin ORDINANCE NO. 34 I, Loren Jerlkirls do solemnly swear tl:at I am the (SERIES OF1994) Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES: that .the salve is a week- AN , COLOR OF THE ANT COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING A MAP ly newspaper printed, In, whole Cr In part, and published AMENDMENT FOR REZONING FROM THE R-6 in the Count of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and ilas a en- Y g C ZONE DLS- ZONE DISTRICT To THE (0) BISOFFITRO TRICT FOR THE POPPIES BLSTRO CAFE (LOTS eral circulation therein; that said newso aper has been K AND 14 BLOCK 10 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF published continuously and uninL2_ iruutcdly in said ASPEN) WHEREAS, the Applicants' (Michael Hull and County of Pitkin, for a period of more than `;fty-two coil- Earl Jones, represented by Sunny Vann) pro-, t Secutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the posal is to rezone the parcel from R-6 to the Office zone district In order to obtain more r n ', - ` o , annexed legal notice or adv ertisenicnt; 'L'iat said, ne'v\ spa- floor area to construct an addition on the e,dst- Ing structure and to relieve the exLtling use of per has beer, admitted to the United States mails as sec- It's non -conforming status. The Applicant's and Class inatter under the provisions of ho Act of March request for a GMQS Exemption for a free mar- take 3, 1379, or any amendments thereof, and iniai said news- ket dwelling unit and Vested Rights will place after the property has received Historic t aver is a a weekly news�a ,er duly cuaiified for publish- P y � i y 1 landmark designation; and WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen In^g legal notices and advertisemcn'ts with "tic I.; Fnl;lg Of Municipal Code provides for City Council to 1 a�e laws of t�,e State of Colorado. approve amendments to the ofIictal zone dis- trictmap; and WHEREAS, Poppies Bistro Cafe Is zoned R-6 That the annexed legal notice or advertiser:c:. was pub- and a restaurant Is a nonconforming use In this zone district; and lisped in the ref-ular and entire issue of every number of WHEREAS, the PlanningandZoning Commis-o ..�I said weedy newspaper for the period of �_ colnsecu- pion considered the applicant's request at a public hearing on June 7, 1994, and recom- tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice mended approval of the Map Amendment to, �1'aS Ii the issue of ne`,vspaper Crated City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ////����s,a/id, S A.D., 19 � and that the last pub- CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COI, lira; on o sa`d notice was in t :e issue of said ews a-er /1�� P 1� ORADO: Section 1: That It does hereby grant a Map. �ed W A.D., 19 `� Y Amendment which rezones the subject parcel �-'Y- from the R-6 zone district to the O (Office) zone district, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 2: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the gth day of August, 1994 at , 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hear-. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary Ing shall be published In a newspaper of getter-, al circulation within the City of Aspen. public In and for the COUnty of Pitkin State of COIGN d0 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB - on this Iq dayof ; �.D. 9 , 1 1JSHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the Ilth day of July, 1994. 'i John Bennett, Mayor N iary Public ATTEST: Kathryn& Koch, City Clerk !ap;"tr Published In The Aspen Times July 15. 1994.' My comi.assion expires MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning Dire to FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner DATE: July 11, 1994 RE: �P�o_ppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning - 1st Reading of Ordinance Series 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Applicants (Michael Hull and Earl Jones, represented by Sunny Vann) propose to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property from R-6 to the Office zone district and obtain a GMQS Exemption for a free market dwelling unit. The applicant needs to obtain Historic Landmark designation prior to obtaining the GMQS Exemption for the dwelling unit. Therefore, this memorandum only reviews the request for rezoning. This application is a two-step review process before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this Ordinance. BACKGROUND: Poppies restaurant is a non -conforming use in the R- 6 zone district. The applicant is interested in constructing a free market unit on the second level of the building for use by a restaurant employee. The proposed addition of a 970 sq.ft. two bedroom, one bath unit will exceed the underlying floor area limitation on the property by approximately 210 sq. ft. , and is therefore not permitted by the Code in the R-6 Zone District. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: The AACP does not specifically refer to the applicant's property. The request for historic landmark approval of the structure is consistent with the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The applicant requested a Code interpretation by City Council on March 28, 1994, regarding the allowable floor area ratio for a non -conforming use in the R-6 zone district. City Council did not support the applicant's interpretation to calculate the floor area of the R-6 parcel for a "duplex" unit which would have permitted the second level addition. Instead City Council expressed conceptual support for this property to be rezoned to the Office zone district due to the minimal nature of the request, the voluntary designation of the property as a historic landmark, consistency with the AACP, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. This application is being filed by the applicant in response to the direction offered by City Council. A copy of the application is included as Exhibit "A". PROCESS: The public hearing and second reading for the Historic Landmark designation application and rezoning are scheduled for August 8, 1994. First reading for Landmark designation was approved by City Council on October 25, 1993, but did not proceed to second reading at the request of the applicant. The applicant's request for a GMQS Exemption for a free market dwelling unit, cannot be granted by the Planning Director until after the property is historically designated by City Council. After Landmark designation has taken place, the applicant will be seeking vested rights approval from City Council for the GMQS Exemption. LOCATION: 834 W. Hallam. Block 10, Lots K and L, City and Townsite of Aspen. REFERRAL COMMENTS: City Engineering- Refer to Exhibit "B" for complete referral memo. Zoning - Bill Drueding has indicated that a Board of Adjustment variance or alley vacation will be required for the work proposed within the rear yard setback. CURRENT ISSUES: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a use which is compatible with the surrounding land uses of the neighborhood, despite its location in a residential zone district. Due to the high traffic volume of Highway 82, the use of this property as a restaurant since the mid-19701s, and the USFS office adjacent to this site, the applicant's request for rezoning to Office is a reasonable request that is consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. In addition, a restaurant is a conditional use in a historic landmark in the Office zone district. Although the applicant has indicated that the new residential dwelling unit may be available to restaurant employees, it is not proposed to be deed restricted. Staff would prefer a resident occupied status on this unit to ensure that it contributes housing opportunities to the local working population, however, this is not a requirement of this review. Pursuant to Sections 24-7-1102 (Amendment to the Zone District Map), staff finds that the review criteria have been met. The specific criteria and staff responses are included as Exhibit "C". FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATIONS: None are anticipated. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning for a map amendment, without any conditions. • u PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the Rezoning of the Poppies Bistro Cafe to the Office zone district which is located on Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, as outlined in Ordinance3:4, Series 1994, at first reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance -M, Series 1994 "A" Application information "B" Engineering referral memo "C" Vicinity map "D" Planning staff responses to Code sections 24-7-1102 cc.rezone.poppies.ist E • ORDINANCE NO. J4 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, GRANTING A MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING FROM THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT TO THE (0) OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE POPPIES BISTRO CAFE (LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 10 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, the Applicants' (Michael Hull and Earl Jones, represented by Sunny Vann) proposal is to rezone the parcel from R-6 to the Office zone district in order to obtain more floor area to construct an addition on the existing structure and to relieve the existing use of it's non -conforming status. The Applicant's request for a GMQS Exemption for a free market dwelling unit and Vested Rights will take place after the property has received Historic Landmark designation; and WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides for City Council to approve amendments to the official zone district map; and WHEREAS, Poppies Bistro Cafe is zoned R-6 and a restaurant is a non -conforming use in this zone district; and WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission considered the applicant's request at a public hearing on June 7, 1994, and recommended approval of the Map Amendment to City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant a Map Amendment which rezones the subject parcel from the R-6 zone district to the O (Office) zone district, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code. • • Section 2: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of f 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing a public notice of the hearing shall be published 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 , IWDZI0 John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 1994. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ord.cc.rezone.poppies • 0 Exhibit A VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants April 22, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Mary Lackner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning Dear Mary: Please consider this letter an application to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property, which is located at 834 West Hallam Street, from R-6, Medium -Density Residential, to O, Office. Designation of the existing structure as a Historic Landmark, and a GMQS exemption for one (1) residential dwelling unit which is proposed to be con- structed on the property, is also requested (see Exhibit 1, Pre -Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 7-1103, 7-704 and 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Michael Hull and Earl Jones, the owners of the property (see Exhibit 2, Warranty Deed). Permission for Vann Associates to repre- sent the Applicants is attached as Exhibit 3. A list of owners located within three hundred (300) feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. Existing Conditions The Applicants' property is legally described as Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 6, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area and is zoned R-6, Medium -Density Residential. The property is accessible from West Hallam Street, Eight Street, and the remnant of a public alley which terminates at the rear of the property. The remainder of the alley appears to have been acquired by the adjacent property owner. Man-made improvements to the property are limited to a two (2) story, victorian frame house which is occupied by Poppies Bistro Cafe. The restaurant is a noncon- forming, commercial use in the underlying R-6 zone district, and contains approxi- mately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Al- 230 East Hopkins Avenue - Aspen. Colorado 81611 • 303/925-6958 - Fax 303 920-9310 Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 2 though the structure has significant historical merit, it has not been historically designated. The property is bounded on the north and east by the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service's property, which consists of the remainder of Block 10, all of Block 9, and a vacated portion of West Francis Street, contains the White River Forest's Aspen Ranger Station and several residential structures which are apparently used to house Forest Service employees. The Aspen Villas Condominiums and the Sagewood Condominiums are located to the south and west of the property and across West Hallam and Eights Streets, respectively. Existing zoning in the immediate site area consists primarily of R-6, Medium -Density Residential, and R/MF, Residential/Multi- Family. The Forest Service's property is also designated SPA, Specially Planned Area. Proposed Development The Applicants wish to construct a residential dwelling unit above the rear of the existing structure to provide on -site housing for the restaurant's employees. To accomplish this objective, they propose to historically designate the property, and to construct the new unit pursuant to a GMQS exemption. The exemption in question permits the enlargement of a Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) free market dwelling unit. The proposed designation has been reviewed by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, who recommended that the structure be historically designated by the City Council. The proposed unit will contain two (2) bedrooms, one (1) bath, and approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) square feet of floor area (see Exhibit 7, Architectural Drawings). The unit will be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occupants. The addition's architectural design will be reviewed and approved by the HPC to ensure that the new unit is compatible with the existing structure. As the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district do not contain an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, the Applicants submitted a request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the property's maximum allowable floor area (see Exhibit 8). In its review of the interpretation request, the Planning Office took the position that the R-6 zone district's single-family, floor area ratio should be used to determine the size of the expanded structure, its commercial use notwith- standing (see Exhibit 9). Unfortunately, the Planning Office's recommended approach limits the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 3 nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, only two hundred and sixty (260) square feet of available floor area remains for expansion purposes. While a five hundred (500) square foot bonus may be granted to a Historic Landmark by the Historic Preservation Commission, the resulting seven hundred and sixty (760) square feet of available floor area is insufficient to accommodate the proposed dwelling unit. The Applicants appealed the Planning Director's floor area interpretation to the City Council who upheld the staff recommendation. In her memorandum to the Council, Diane Moore recommended that the Applicants consider either rezoning the property or a text amendment to resolve the floor area problem (see Exhibit 10). The Council members present at the appeals hearing were receptive to the Applicants' proposed development and expressed their conceptual support for a rezoning of the property. The Council's support was based on the minimal nature of the request, its consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the voluntary designation of the property as a Historic Landmark, and the existing land uses in the immediate site area. Review Requirements The Applicants' proposed development is contingent upon the rezoning of the property and the designation of the existing structure located thereon as a Historic Landmark. A GMQS exemption is also required for the proposed dwelling unit. 1. Rezoning Pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Land Use Regulations, a private application for an amendment to the City's official zone district map may only be submitted on or prior to February 15 and August 15 of each year. The Applicants, therefore, respectfully request that the Planning Office sponsor the rezoning, as the City Council has indicated its willingness to consider the request. The applicable review criteria for such applications, and the proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are discussed below. a) "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed rezoning complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, the Aspen Land Use Regulations. As no demonstrable benefit would result from terminating the existing restaurant use, a rezoning of the property to O, Office, would eliminate its present non -conforming status, thereby bringing the structure into compliance with the use requirements of the Land Use Regulations. The proposed addition will comply with all applicable dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district with the possible exception of the rear Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 4 yard setback. A variance is believed to have been granted by the Board of Adjust- ment for the present encroachment into the rear yard setback. The additional encroachment which will result from the proposed second floor addition may be approved by the HPC in connection with its review of the project. No other variation in the dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district, or waiver of any applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the Applicants. b) "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." While the new Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically address the Applicants' property, the proposed rezoning of the property, its historic designation, and the construction of a residential dwelling unit thereon for the restaurant's employees, is consistent with intent and policies of the Plan. More specifically, the rezoning of the property will eliminate the restaurant's non -conform- ing use status, thereby eliminating an existing hurdle to the continued use of the property for restaurant purposes. The preservation of such uses in their existing locations is integral to the Plan's concept of "messy vitality". In addition, the designation of Poppies Bistro Cafe as a Historic Landmark is consistent the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation, and its policy of retaining and encouraging eclectic and varietal businesses along the City's Main Street corridor. Similarly, the Applicants' provision of on -site housing for the restaurant's employees is consistent with Plan's policy to encourage infill development to permit more employees to live in close proximity to their jobs. c) "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with sur- rounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighbor- hood characteristics." The purpose of the O, Office, zone district is to "provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." The Main Street O, Office, zone district presently termi- nates at North Seventh Street, one (1) block east of the Applicants' property. The character of Seventh and West Hallam Streets in the vicinity of the property, howev- er, is consistent with the Main Street corridor. The portions of North Seventh and West Hallam Streets in question are inarguably high volume thoroughfares with a mixture of land uses. The immedi- ate site area contains single-family residential, multi -family residential, lodge, office, and commercial uses. Given the character of the area, it is highly unlikely that the Poppies Bistro Cafe property will revert to residential use. In fact, the property has Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 5 not been used for residential purposes in at least twenty (20) years. Prior to the opening of Poppies Bistro Cafe in 1981, the building housed the Golden Barrel res- taurant, which occupied the premises for approximately eight (8) years. The existing restaurant use is compatible with surrounding land uses, and significantly contributes to the so-called "messy vitality" of the community. d) "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the area's existing road system. While the proposed residential unit will generate approximately four (4) additional vehicular trips per day, the neighboring street system is more than adequate to accommodate the resulting increase in traffic. This increase may be reduced in part by the availability of mass transit service. Public bus stops are presently located in front of the property on both sides of West Hallam Street. e) "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the City's public facilities. Existing water, sewer and drainage systems are either adequate to handle the proposed development or will be upgraded by the Applicants as may be required. No significant impact upon the City's parks, schools and emergency medical facilities should occur as a result of the proposed rezoning. f) "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environment. g) "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compati- ble with the community character in the City of Aspen." While compatibility with the City's "community character" is obviously a subjective criteria, we believe that the uses that are allowed within the proposed O, Office zone district are consistent with the existing character of the West Hallam and Main Street corridor. As noted previously, the property's historic restaurant use represents an integral and desirable part of Aspen's so-called "messy vitality" which the new Aspen Area Community Plan seeks both to retain and encourage. Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 6 h) "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amend- ment." In our opinion, the "changed condition" which supports the proposed rezoning is the citizen's vision statement embodied in the new Aspen Area Communi- ty Plan. The Plan specifically encourages the preservation of the so-called "messy vitality" that "originally created Aspen's renowned cultural and sociological diversity". Poppies Bistro Cafe represents a valued component of the community's diverse restaurant population. Its location outside the commercial core provides both locals and tourists alike an alternative dining experience which is essential to the public's concept of messy vitality. Rezoning of the property to O, Office, will not only remove the restaurant's non -conforming use status, but permit the construction of a residential dwelling unit which will help meets the housing needs of its employees. i) "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would remove the existing restaura- nt's non -conforming status, and permit the construction of on -site housing for the restaurant's employees, the public interest would appear to be appropriately served by approval of the rezoning request. As discussed previously, the Applicants' proposed rezoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and complies with all ap- plicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. 2. Historic Landmark Designation As noted previously, an application to designate Poppies Bistro Cafe as a historic landmark has been reviewed and recommended for approval by both the HPC and the P&Z. The application was also considered by the City Council at first reading prior to its withdrawal pending the receipt of the Planning Director's floor area interpretation. At this point, I believe that the Council need only hold a public hearing to complete the designation process. Should additional procedural steps be necessary, the Applicants would be pleased to cooperate as may be required. 3. GMQS Exemption Pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations, the Planning Director shall exempt the enlargement of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling unit from the City's growth management quota system. As there are no specific review criteria for such exemptions, the designation of the structure by the City Council, and the proposed addition's compliance with the applicable dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district should be sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the requested exemption. Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 7 Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VAN ASSOCIATES •.. IV Sunny n, AICP SV:cwv Attachments cAb us\city.app\app22991 rez EXHIBIT 1 Project Aoalicant T s s Phone Owner's Name City of Aspen Pre -Application Conference Summary 2Zon/ Planntr Date The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Land Use Code Section Comments % - &02 &-Z24 ire fo D � � — /Lc ap Q� �•u�r t d s -/io 3 0,1,e /GD /eyleW a��uae �+iz�tit°rur Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) &Z and f,i , I, ,, Public Hearing: (yes) (no) q7 ��Z 4i✓ CG -�o /a Deposit for the Application Review: a119 , bor•S Referral agency flat fees: 96 - P/tq�ieeg�r TOTALDEPOSIT a *l/5 (Additional hours are billed at a rate of 163/lir.) To Apply Submil the Following Infm-inaliom Proof of ownership. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also states the name, address and telephone nuuLnber of the representative. Total deposit for review of the application $ �? /S . copies of the complete application packet and maps. Summary letter explaining (lie request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including street address and legal description of the property. An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. ® Site plan sliall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical features (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.) 0 r _;A"/ code 10. These items need to be submitted if circled: List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses. �k( Site photos. Proof of legal access to the parcel. ,2+r Historic Preservation Commission review/approval. Recor Recep lo. — THIS DEED, Made this 1St a337036 10/u2/91 09:54 Rec $5.04-) El:. 656 PG 102 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt� , Doc 760.00 dayof October , 19 91 , between WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL 17 i O M ofthe W Cl 7'County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the first part, and GLH EARL JONES and MI-KEtHULL, Tenants in Common, pQ Jwhose legal address is c/o Poppies, 834"W. Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 81611 O Ei fx� of the County of Pitkin and State of 7a Colorado• of the second port: E+ N WQ U � a WITNESSETii. That the said part of the first part, for and inconsideration of TEN DOLLARS and q� other good and valuable considerations DOLLARS to the said part ies of the first part in hand paid by said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, havegranted. bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell• convey and confirm• unto the said part y of the second part, its heirs and assigns for- ever• all the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: Lots K and L, Block 10, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, subject to: Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1987 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156, and Easement and right of way for an irrigation ditch as granted to United States of America by The Golden Barrel, Inc. also known as the Golden Barrell Restaurant & Lounge in the instrument recorded June 6, 1973 in Book 276 at Page 494 as Reception No. 160120, affecting the following described property: Over and across Lot K of Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. p�Q also known as street and number 834 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Z03 ..n TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in nnywise nppt O taming• and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainder&• rents• issues and profits thereof. and all thr aa-3 estate, right, title, interest• claim and demand whatsoever of the said part ies of the first part, either in law of LL!,A equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described .with the appurtenances, unto tr: •. (L said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns forever. And the said part ies of the first pai t. s�Qfor them eel VES heirs, executor, and administrators,:do �- covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and 00 with the said party of the second part, '.its.heirs.and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and deliver .v 1 ofthese presents• are well seized of the premises above conveyed. as of good• sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate ofinheritance. in law, in fee simple, and ha -ve:" 7 ' good right, full power and authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind of naturesoever. Except 1991 Real Property taxes payable in 1992 and Lease between Parties of the first part,.- .formerly D. & G. Golden Barrel, Inc., and Mike -Hull and Earl Jones, recorded in Book 513 at Page 418, records of Pitkin County, Colorado EXHIBIT 2 and the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said part y of the second part. its heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claimingor to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said part ies ofthe first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said part iesofthe first part have hereunto settheilhand S and seal S the day and year first above written. - / ' A. GILNER) �{ f/ (SEAL) (SEAL) li STATE OFCOLORADO, 1 HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL P (as. County of 14� i, The to reitoing Instrument was acknowledged before ms this / � day of (J j 19 91 by WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka C�tOL DALE H�1 My commission expires 5 -' 7 . 19 , ness my hand an icial s I. II INRY rt�- ir \ Q I • 'J,:PU��' , ,Q No., AZ WARRANTY DEED. —►se Paei-or Ale g—,a— B,.e(e,d Pedishlss Co., Go+... Cals,.ds t t•�s ., a 7 W rr 0 T (D n fD ro a EXHIBIT 3 April 15, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Johnson: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to rezone our property which is located at 834 West Hallam Street in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, S X-1 Earl J nes Poppies Bistro Cafe 834 West Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2333 cAb us\ci ty.ltr\I t r22993. kj 2 EXHIBIT 5 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of Cityof f Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and /s (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THEPROJECT). � 9 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. • • 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness. APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $Z which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN By: Diane Moore City Planning Director 2 APPLICANT By: Flailing Add ess: Date: / 21 /C14 \ 6p.0�r X` 35.7. .Z s V0.M Soil V O a r° - dec co ZI b; IV 4,� s ttree� ` NOTES 0 - indicates found rebar and cap * - indicates set rebar and cap marked L.S. 14111 The real property described hereon does not lie within the limits of a 100 Year Flood Hazard Boundary. Lea_al Descrio_tion: Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on August 16, 1993 a survey was performed by me on the parcel of land described hereon. A two-story frame house was found to be on said parcel as shown on this plat. All easements, encroachments and rights -of -way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and i i By: Sydna Lin come P.L.S. 14111 i Tm ^r0ve.r&eIA� GA-L vex " 83 i1 - o BY LINES /N SPACE SYDNEY UNC/COME (L.S.14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-38: 17 U-0. { q4 I I SCALEA"= 20; SIT 6 EXHIBIT 7 (39 AVAAAH) 13381S V4YnVH 9 Lu W W Q cn I z g LL O O 0 z a w U) 0 w U) O a O a U Rm m W �9 H N w 3 • . " y?! ; r 8 ��� :.. ��� �- �i 0 w '� ui - <f IK 4 • • EI c(� y �€g �I m Z 0 a w J W S H 0 Z r X W K-' C� 0 EXHIBIT 8 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants October 21, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Affordable Housing Unit Dear Kim: Please consider this letter a formal request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district (see Exhibit 1, Preapplication Conference Summary). The requested is submitted by Michael Hull, the owner of Poppies Bistro Cafe, pursuant to Section 11-101 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Permission for Vann Associates to represent Mr. Hull is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Background As we have discussed, the Applicant would like to construct an affordable housing unit above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this objective, he proposes to historically designate his property, and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided for in Section 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Regula- tions. As the purpose of the unit is to provide housing for various restaurant employees, including himself, the Applicant proposes to deed restrict the unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's resident occupancy guidelines. At issue is the size of the unit that can be constructed. The property in question consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 3, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies the two (2) story frame house located thereon. The Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in the underlying R-6 zone dis- trict, and contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Although the structure has historical merit, it has not been historically designated. Proposed Development As the attached architectural plan illustrates (see Exhibit 3), the proposed two (2) bed- room, one (1) bath unit would contain approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen. Colorado 81611 • 303/925-6958 • Fax 303/920-9310 Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 2 square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occupants. To ensure that the addition is compatible with the existing structure, the addition's archi- tectural design will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Please note that the Applicant has already commenced the historic designation process, and that a work session has been held with the Commission to discuss the design of the addition. Requested Interpretation The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family, residential zone districts. As a result, the Regulations provide no guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses (e.g., Poppies) which are located in the R-6 zone district. Since non -conforming uses cannot be expanded, this lack of guidance would not ordinarily pose a problem. However, as the addition of an affordable housing unit would not increase the size of the structure's non -conforming use, the issue of maximum allow- able floor area is crucial to the Applicant's proposal. The Planning Office has suggested that the R-6 zone district's single-family floor area ratio should be used as an appropriate guideline for the expanded structure. This ratio, however, would limit the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, insufficient floor area would remain with which to construct the desired affordable housing unit. If a residential guideline is to be utilized, I believe that the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area ratio would be more appropriate. As the only use to which the restaurant can be converted is residential, the inclusion of an affordable housing unit would render the structure a duplex. In addition, a duplex is permitted on a lot of six thousand (6,000) square feet, provided that the lot contains a historic landmark (see Section 5-201.D.2.). Unfortunately, duplexes which are located on such lots cannot exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) single-family residence (see Section 5-201.D.10.). This requirement, however, is arguably inapplicable, as Poppies Bistro Cafe is neither a single-family nor duplex residential dwelling. Given the Regulation's lack of direction with respect to this issue, I believe that the Planning Office has sufficient latitude to establish an appropriate floor area limitation for the property. Ideally, this limitation would take into account the Applicant's objective, it's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the historic nature of the struc- ture, and the compatibility of the addition with surrounding development. A duplex floor area limitation would appear to address all of these concerns. 0 0 Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 3 Significantly larger multi -family structures are located across West Hallam and Eighth Streets on the south and west sides of the property. The property to the north and east of Poppies's is presently owned by the United States Forest Service, and has been identified as a potential location for additional affordable housing development. As the proposed addition must be approved by the HPC, its compatibility with both the existing structure and the neighborhood will be taken into account. Finally, the Applicant's desire to voluntarily provide an on -site affordable housing unit is commendable, and is consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. The maximum allowable floor area for a duplex on a six thousand (6,000) square foot lot in the R-6 zone district is three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet. As the existing structure contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area, six hundred and twenty (620) square feet will be available for the proposed affordable housing unit. An additional floor area bonus of approximately three hundred and fifty (350) square feet will be requested from the HPC in connection with the historic designation of the structure. In summary, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the Planning Office's position regarding the Applicant's ability to utilize the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area limitation for the proposed development. As Mr. Hull would like to commence construction of the unit in as timely a manner as possible, your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours t VANN AASOCIATES Sunny VanVAICP SV:cwv cc: Michael Hull Jake Vickery c:\bus\city.a pp\app22993.int �1 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen EXHIBIT 9 APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S): Chapter 24, Section 5-201.D.10 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which refers to the allowable Floor Area Ratios in the R-6 Medium Density Residential zone district. Also involved is the permitted FAR for a non -conforming use in all residential zones. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994 WRITTEN BY: Kim Johnson, Planner + �R APPROVED BY: Diane Moore, City Planning 0irecto�. BACKGROUND: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in this residential zone district. The existing building contains approximately 2,930 square feet of floor area. The site is 6,000 square feet of lot area. The site is located at 334 W. Hallam Street (Lots K and L, Townsite of Aspen). The property is bounded on the north and east by the U.S. Forest Service. To the west and south, across Eighth and W. Hallam respectively are multi -family residential buildings. The restaurant owner wishes to expand the structure to accommodate a 970 s.f. of ordable housing unit pursuant to GMQS Exemption for affordable housing. In addition, the applicant is seeking Historic Landmark designation for the building. The issue set forth in this interpretation request is that the R-6 zone district does not specify an allowable FAR for non- conforming uses. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 s.f.) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. R-6 states that only if the property is desifgnated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. It is the applicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to. use the space as an affordable housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth .for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for 1 0) designated historic landmarks). Staff believes this provision applies regardless of the use of proposed additional FAR. In this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 s.f. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, Planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (as a Conditional Use) would be the duplex FAR figure. In this case however, the lot met the land area requirements for a duplex. INTERPRETATION: The Planning Director's interpretation and application of Section 5-201.D.10 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code to the case at hand is that: The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a s-4 ngle family lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements. In reviewing the infor,nation presented by the applicant regarding the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in the R-6 zone, it does not appear that sufficient evidence has been presented for staff to determine that a duplex FAR is appropriate for a single family parcel in this district or this site. The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable sections in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates to this request. i E W S EXHIBIT 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director�� DATE: March 28, 1994 RE: Appeal to City Council - Planning Director Interpretation Regarding Poppies Bistro Cafe SUMMARY: The Planning Director has the authority to make all interpretations regarding Chapter 24, Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen. The authority for this is outlined in Section 24- 11-101 of the Code. An interpretation may be requested by any affected person. In this particular case, Poppies Bistro requested a Planning Director interpretation regarding the allowable floor area ratios for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. The applicant has elected to appeal the interpretation of the planning director to the city council. The Land Use Regulations provide for Council's consideration of the petition within thirty (30) days of its filing. The applicant has agreed to the scheduling of this item on the March 28, 1994 agenda, even though this date exceeds the 30 day time frame for appeals. Planning staff recommends that Council affirm the Planning Director interpretation. BACKGROUND: The property in question is Poppies Bistro Cafe that consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. Poppies's is located on north side of Main Street, adjacent to the Unites States Forest Service property. The lot area of the parcel contains six thousand (6,000) square feet. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies a two (2) story frame house and is a non -conforming use in the underlying R-6 zone district. Poppies currently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. The Applicant, Michael Hull, would like to construct a housing unit (voluntarily deed restricted to resident occupancy) above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this, he proposes to historically designate his property and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided in Section 24-8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations. The purpose of. this unit is to provide housing for either restaurant employees or himself. The proposed dwelling feet would ofontain floor area approximately unit would be and seventy (970) square W, • located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. It should be noted that the applicant has commenced the historic designation process and that a worksession with HPC has been held to discuss the design of the addition. The applicant, however, has put on hold the historic designation of this property, pending the outcome of this appeal. CURRENT ISSUES: Sunny Vann and Jake Vickery, representing Mr. Hull, requested a Planning Director interpretation (Exhibit A) regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non- conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. At issue is the size of the dwelling unit that can be constructed. The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial uses as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family zone districts. Therefore, the regulations do not provide guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses. The R-6 zone district does provide floor area ratios for detached residential dwellings and duplex units. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR for this parcel should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 sq. ft. ) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. A provision in the R-6 zone district states that only if the property is designated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but, the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. "Total external floor area ratio for two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot between 6,.0o0 and 9,000 square feet containing a historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling." It is the applicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to use the space as a housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. /ti Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other 5h� Cc provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for 'nor °r designated historic landmarks). Staff believes that this provision ,cam applies regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In �%,1'.� this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 sq.ft. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure, which totals a maximum of 3,240 sq. ft. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the s� Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (conditional use) would be the duplex FAR figure because it met the duplex lot area in the R-15 residential zone district. It is important to note that the applicant could still construct the attached dwelling unit but the size of the unit would be limited to the FAR of a single family home, with the potential for an FAR bonus if the property is historically landmarked. For example: Single family maximum FAR - 3,240 sq. ft. Poppies existing FAR - 2,980 sa. ft. Remaining FAR 260 sq. ft. ft. p o ,i i 7 Landmark structure FAR bonus - 500 sa. (maximum granted by HPC) Maximum FAR for dwelling unit 760 sq. ft. The findings made in the planning director interpretation (Exhibit B) are summarized as follows: "The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a single family lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements." This interpretation provides the guidance requested by the applicant in the determination of the maximum allowable floor area. As mentioned previously, the applicant requested an appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation to Council (Exhibit C). They based the appeal on the points listed in the original request and the following points: 1. The proposed project supports the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan 2. Residentially zoned properties on Highway 82 are heavily impacted and deserve special consideration. 3. Increases in FAR are generally supported by the Code to encourage the creation of employee housing. 4. The request is modest. Staff agrees with the applicant that the construction of affordable housing is a goal outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and that the voluntary construction of a dwelling unit restricted to resident occupancy is encouraged. Additionally, increases in FAR for the creation of affordable housing units is a concept outlined in the AACP. PR�pjZIT�CS However, the determination of maximum allowable floor area ratios in a given zone district is contained within the zone districts' dimensional requirements. Or, in this particular situation, an ' interpretation is made absent information.. The dimensional requirements essentially provide a limitation to the size of 0 Exhibit B MEMORANDUM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: May 25, 1994 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning & GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Alley - The application is correct that the remainder of the alley was acquired by the adjacent property owner. The alley was vacated in 1937. 2. Site drainage - As discussed on page 5 of the application, one of the considerations is the adequacy of public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 3. Sidewalks - The sidewalk along 8th Street is only 4 feet wide and abuts the curb. Normally when a sidewalk abuts a curb in a parallel parking area, an additional 1 1/2 feet of width is required to provide space for "No Parking Here to Corner" or other signs. This side street sidewalk could be interpreted as being in the West End where sidewalks are not required, however usable pedestrian spaces 5 feet wide are required. The sidewalk should be widened to 6 1/2 feet from the back of the curb. The sidewalk on Hallam Street is also 4 feet wide. It could easily be widened to 5 feet. The sidewalk swings out to the curb around a lilac bush where the usable area necks down to less than 3 feet. The lilac should be pruned back to provide at least five feet of clear sidewalk. Attention is called to current community concerns for handicap access of sidewalk and other public areas. 4. Parking - The application does not appear to discuss parking. There are two cars parked on site with registrations that expired in 1983. Their spaces should be indicated as such on the final building permit plans. We recommend that on -site parking be required. The alley behind Poppies is an open public right-of-way, but it does not serve 0 • any users beyond Poppies. The adjacent property owners could request vacating the alley which would add some usable parking area. Half of the alley might be vacated to the adjacent property owners on each side of the alley. 5. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Bob Gish, Cris Caruso, Amy Amidon M94.262 Im r 0 Exh i bt D Rezoning (Amendment to the Zone District Map) Section 24-7-1102 The applicant is requesting that the property be zoned from R-6 to Office zone district which will permit the existing structure to expand to accommodate the second floor dwelling unit. Section 24- 7-1102 establishes the review criteria for a rezoning application. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The proposed development will need to comply with all provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. The restaurant use will become a conditional use once the property is historically designated, thereby eliminating the non -conforming status of the use. The proposed addition will comply with the dimensional requirements of the Office zone district, except for the rear yard setback in which the structure presently encroaches 11 feet into the setback. The second floor addition will encroach an additional four feet into the rear yard and will require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically refer to the applicant's property. The historic designation of the parcel is consistent with the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation and encouraging eclectic and varietal businesses along the City's Main Street corridor. The new dwelling unit will also be used to house restaurant employees, thereby meeting a goal of providing in town housing for in town workers. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to "provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." Although the subject property is on W. Hallam St. and not Main Street the characteristics of Eighth and Hallam is consistent with the purpose of the Office zone district. The adjacent properties contain a mix of single family residential, multi -family residential (Aspen Villas Condos, Sagewood Condos, USFS employee housing), lodge (Barvarian Inn), and office uses (USFS offices). A vicinity map indicating the adjacent zoning is included as Exhibit "C". • 0 The subject property has been used as commercial/restaurant space for the last 20 years. Prior to the opening of Poppies Bistro Cafe in 1981, the Golden Barrel restaurant occupied the premises for approximately eight years. No complaints regarding the restaurant operations have been filed with the Environmental Health Department. Staff believes that the restaurant use at this location is compatible with the surrounding land uses and can be considered "messy vitality" which is encouraged by the AACP. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The addition of a dwelling unit will add approximately four vehicle trips per day. The applicant has not discussed parking nor has indicated any parking spaces on the site plan. Generally, restaurant guests park on Eighth Street as no off-street parking is available. The applicant should consider a request to the City to vacate the alley in order to obtain additional space for off-street parking, as recommended in the City Engineer's letter. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit. The applicant may request special review from HPC to reduce the number of required parking spaces, although staff would not support a reduction due to the crowded nature of the residential area. The site is immediately adjacent to the Eighth Street bus stop which is a local, down valley, and skier shuttle stop. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The addition of one dwelling unit in conjunction with the rezoning to Office will have a negligible impact on public facilities. The applicant has committed to upgrade and/or pay for the extension of facilities to this property as required. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The infill development permitted by the rezoning will not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. 2 0 0 G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: Staff believes that the historic nature of the building and maintaining the restaurant use is compatible with the community character. The ability of the applicant to provide a dwelling unit for employees of the restaurant adds residential character to the property. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: The long-standing nonconforming use of the property is a condition that will be eliminated by the rezoning. Staff supports the proposed map amendment because a nonconforming use is converted into a conditional use. In addition Main Street has been promoted in the AACP, and other review efforts, as an eclectic mixed -use neighborhood. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: The applicant's request is not in conflict with the public interest, and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The only item which does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 24 is the encroachment into the rear yard setback, which will need to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning and GMQS Exemption DATE: June 7, 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property from R-6 to the Office zone district and obtain a GMQS exemption for a free market dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Michael Hull and Earl Jones, represented by Sunny Vann. LOCATION: 834 W. Hallam. Block 10, Lots K and L, City and Townsite of Aspen. The property is currently zoned R-6. BACKGROUND: Poppies restaurant is a non -conforming use in the R- 6 zone district. The applicant is interested in constructing a free market unit on the second level of the building for use by a restaurant employee. The proposed addition of a 970 sq.ft. two bedroom, one bath unit will exceed the underlying floor area limitation on the property by approximately 210 sq.ft., and is therefore not permitted by the Code in the R-6 Zone District. The applicant requested a Code interpretation by City Council on March 28, 1994 regarding the allowable floor area ratio for a non- conforming use in the R-6 zone district. City Council did not support the applicant's interpretation to calculate the floor area of the R-6 parcel for a "duplex" unit thereby permitting the second level addition. Instead City Council expressed conceptual support for this property to be rezoned to the Office zone district due to the minimal nature of the request, the voluntary designation of the property as a historic landmark, consistency with the AACP, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. This application is being filed by the applicant in response to the direction offered by City Council. A copy of the application is included as Exhibit "A". REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. City Engineer- Comments from Chuck Roth are included in this memorandum as Exhibit "B". 2. Zoning- Bill Drueding has indicated that a Board of Adjustment variance will be required for the work proposed within the rear yard setback. STAFF COMMENTS: This application is being reviewed pursuant to Sections 24-7-1102 Rezoning and 24-8-104 GMQS Exemption. Rezoning (Amendment to the Zone District Map) Section 7-1102 The applicant is requesting that the property be zoned from R-6 to Office zone district which will permit the existing structure to expand to accommodate the second floor dwelling unit. Section 24- 7-1102 establishes the review criteria for a rezoning application. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: The proposed development will need to comply with all provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. The restaurant use will become a conditional use once the property is historically designated, thereby eliminating the non -conforming status of the use. The proposed addition will comply with the dimensional requirements of the Office zone district, except for the rear yard setback in which the structure presently encroaches 11 feet into the setback. The second floor addition will encroach an additional four feet into the rear yard and will require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically refer to the applicant's property. The historic designation of the parcel is consistent with the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation and encouraging eclectic and varietal businesses along the City's Main Street corridor. The new dwelling unit will also be used to house restaurant employees, thereby meeting a goal of providing in town housing for in town workers. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The purpose of the Office (0) zone district is to "provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." Although the subject property is on W. Hallam St. and not Main Street the characteristics of Eighth and Hallam is consistent with the purpose of the Office zone district. The adjacent properties contain a mix of single family residential, multi -family residential (Aspen Villas Condos, Sagewood Condos, USFS employee housing), lodge (Barvarian Inn), and office uses (USFS offices). A vicinity map indicating the adjacent zoning is included as Exhibit "C". 2 • 0 The subject property has been used as commercial/restaurant space for the last 20 years. Prior to the opening of Poppies Bistro Cafe in 1981, the property housing the Golden Barrel restaurant, which occupied the premises for approximately eight years. No complaints regarding the restaurant operations have been filed with the Environmental Health Department. Staff believes that the restaurant use at this location is compatible with the surrounding land uses and can be considered "messy vitality" which is encouraged by the AACP. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The addition of a dwelling unit will add approximately four vehicle trips per day. The applicant has not discussed parking nor has indicated any parking spaces on the site plan. Generally, restaurant guests park on Eighth Street as no off-street parking is available. The applicant should consider a request to the City to vacate the alley in order to obtain additional space for off-street parking, as recommended in the City Engineer's letter. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit. The applicant may request special review from HPC to reduce the number of required parking spaces, although staff would not support a reduction due to the crowded nature of the residential area. The site is immediately adjacent to the Eighth Street bus stop which is a local, down valley, and skier shuttle stop. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The addition of one dwelling unit in conjunction with the rezoning to Office will have a negligible impact on public facilities. The applicant has committed to upgrade and/or pay for the extension of facilities to this property as required. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The infill development permitted by the rezoning will not have any adverse impacts on the natural environment. 3 • • G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: Staff believes that the historic nature of the building and maintaining the restaurant use is compatible with the community character. The ability of the applicant to provide a dwelling unit for employees of the restaurant adds residential character to the property. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: The long-standing nonconforming use of the property is a condition that will be eliminated by the rezoning. This conversion of a nonconforming use into a conditional use in this location is a reason to support the proposed map amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: The applicant's request is not in conflict with the public interest, and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The only item which does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 24 is the encroachment into the rear yard setback, which will need to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to the issuance of any building permits. GMQS Exemption (for a Historic Landmark) Section 7-801(A) (1) (b) (3) This provision of the Land Use Regulations reads: The enlargement of an historic landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling or three (3) hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse, or dormitory units; Response: The applicant is seeking approval to add a two bedroom one bath unit to the second floor of the existing structure. This exemption is only available to the applicant if the property is historically landmarked. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended landmark designation on October 5, 1993 to City Council. No action on designation has been taken by City Council due to the code interpretation that recently took place. Once this application is reviewed and approved by City Council, the Planning Director may approve this GMQS Exemption. SUMMARY: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a use which is compatible with the surrounding land uses of the neighborhood, although it is located 4 v\ • 0 in a residential zone district. Due to the high traffic volume of Highway 82, the use of this property as a restaurant since the mid- 19701s, and the USFS office adjacent to this site, the applicant's request for rezoning to Office is a reasonable request that is consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Land Use regulations. Although the applicant has indicated that the new residential dwelling unit may be available to restaurant employees, it is not proposed to be deed restricted. Staff would prefer a resident occupied status on this unit to ensure that it contributes housing to the local working population, however, this is not a requirement of this review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the applicant's request subject to the following conditions: 1. As recommended by the City Engineer the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant shall indicate the parking configuration, trash & recycle area, and utilities on the building permit plans. b. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. C. The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-os-way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 2. Two new parking spaces are required for the new two bedroom unit. 3. The applicant shall either revise the plans or obtain a Board of Adjustment variance for the proposed setback encroachment. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend rezoning approval from the R-6 to Office zone district for the Poppies Bistro Cafe to City Council, subject to the conditions recommended in the June 7, 1994 Planning Office memorandum." 5 • EXHIBITS: A- Application information B- City Engineer referral comments C- Vicinity map V' • Exhibit A VAN N ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants April 22, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Mary Lackner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning Dear Mary: Please consider this letter an application to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property, which is located at 834 West Hallam Street, from R-6, Medium -Density Residential, to O, Office. Designation of the existing structure as a Historic Landmark, and a GMQS exemption for one (1) residential dwelling unit which is proposed to be con- structed on the property, is also requested (see Exhibit 1, Pre -Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 7-1103, 7-704 and 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Michael Hull and Earl Jones, the owners of the property (see Exhibit 2, Warranty Deed). Permission for Vann Associates to repre- sent the Applicants is attached as Exhibit 3. A list of owners located within three hundred (300) feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. Existing Conditions The Applicants' property is legally described as Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 6, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area and is zoned R-6, Medium -Density Residential. The property is accessible from West Hallam Street, Eight Street, and the remnant of a public alley which terminates at the rear of the property. The remainder of the alley appears to have been acquired by the adjacent property owner. Man-made improvements to the property are limited to a two (2) story, victorian frame house which is occupied by Poppies Bistro Cafe. The restaurant is a noncon- forming, commercial use in the underlying R-6 zone district, and contains approxi- mately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Al- 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958 • Fax 303/920-9310 Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 2 though the structure has significant historical merit, it has not been historically designated. The property is bounded on the north and cast by the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service's property, which consists of the remainder of Block 10, all of Block 9, and a vacated portion of West Francis Street, contains the White River Forest's Aspen Ranger Station and several residential structures which are apparently used to house Forest Service employees. The Aspen Villas Condominiums and the Sagewood Condominiums are located to the south and west of the property and across West Hallam and Eights Streets, respectively. Existing zoning in the immediate site area consists primarily of R-6, Medium -Density Residential, and R/MF, Resident ial/Multi- Family. The Forest Service's property is also designated SPA, Specially Planned Area. Proposed Development The Applicants wish to construct a residential dwelling unit above the rear of the existing structure to provide on -site housing for the restaurant's employees. To accomplish this objective, they propose to historically designate the property, and to construct the new unit pursuant to a GMQS exemption. The exemption in question permits the enlargement of a Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) free market dwelling unit. The proposed designation has been reviewed by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, who recommended that the structure be historically designated by the City Council. The proposed unit will contain two (2) bedrooms, one (1) bath, and approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) square feet of floor area (see Exhibit 7, Architectural Drawings). The unit will be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley at the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occupants. The addition's architectural design will be reviewed and approved by the HPC to ensure that the new unit is compatible with the existing structure. As the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district do not contain an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, the Applicants submitted a request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the property's maximum allowable floor area (see Exhibit 8). In its review of the interpretation request, the Planning Office took the position that the R-6 zone district's single-family, floor area ratio should be used to determine the size of the expanded structure, its commercial use notwith- standing (see Exhibit 9). Unfortunately, the Planning Office's recommended approach limits the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 3 nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, only two hundred and sixty (260) square feet of available floor area remains for expansion purposes. While a five hundred (500) square foot bonus may be granted to a Historic Landmark by the Historic Preservation Commission, the resulting seven hundred and sixty (760) square feet of available floor area is insufficient to accommodate the proposed dwelling unit. The Applicants appealed the Planning Director's floor area interpretation to the City Council who upheld the staff recommendation. In her memorandum to the Council, Diane Moore recommended that the Applicants consider either rezoning the property or a text amendment to resolve the floor area problem (see Exhibit 10). The Council members present at the appeals hearing were receptive to the Applicants' proposed development and expressed their conceptual support for a rezoning of the property. The Council's support was based on the minimal nature of the request, its consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the voluntary designation of the property as a Historic Landmark, and the existing land uses in the immediate site area. Review Requirements The Applicants' proposed development is contingent upon the rezoning of the property and the designation of the existing structure located thereon as a Historic Landmark. A GMQS exemption is also required for the proposed dwelling unit. 1. Rezoning Pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Land Use Regulations, a private application for an amendment to the City's official zone district map may only be submitted on or prior to February 15 and August 15 of each year. The Applicants, therefore, respectfully request that the Planning Office sponsor the rezoning, as the City Council has indicated its willingness to consider the request. The applicable review criteria for such applications, and the proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are discussed below. a) "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed rezoning complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, aka, the Aspen Land Use Regulations. As no demonstrable benefit would result from terminating the existing restaurant use, a rezoning of the property to O, Office, would eliminate its present non -conforming status, thereby bringing the structure into compliance with the use requirements of the Land Use Regulations. The proposed addition will comply with all applicable dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district with the possible exception of the rear C, 0 • Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 4 yard setback. A variance is believed to have been granted by the Board of Adjust- ment for the present encroachment into the rear yard setback. The additional encroachment which will result from the proposed second floor addition may be approved by the HPC in connection with its review of the project. No other variation in the dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district, or waiver of any applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the Applicants. b) "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." While the new Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically address the Applicants' property, the proposed rezoning of the property, its historic designation, and the construction of a residential dwelling unit thereon for the restaurant's employees, is consistent with intent and policies of the Plan. More specifically, the rezoning of the property will eliminate the restaurant's nonconform- ing use status, thereby eliminating an existing hurdle to the continued use of the property for restaurant purposes. The preservation of such uses in their existing locations is integral to the Plan's concept of "messy vitality". In addition, the designation of Poppies Bistro Cafe as a Historic Landmark is consistent the Plan's philosophy of historic preservation, and its policy of retaining and encouraging eclectic and varietal businesses along the City's Main Street corridor. Similarly, the Applicants' provision of on -site housing for the restaurant's employees is consistent with Plan's policy to encourage infill development to permit more employees to live in close proximity to their jobs. c) "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with sur- rounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighbor- hood characteristics." The purpose of the O, Office, zone district is to "provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that are now adjacent to commercial and business areas, and commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares." The Main Street O, Office, zone district presently termi- nates at North Seventh Street, one (1) block east of the Applicants' property. The character of Seventh and West Hallam Streets in the vicinity of the property, howev- er, is consistent with the Main Street corridor. The portions of North Seventh and West Hallam Streets in question are inarguably high volume thoroughfares with a mixture of land uses. The immedi- ate site area contains single-family residential, multi -family residential, lodge, office, and commercial uses. Given the character of the area, it is highly unlikely that the Poppies Bistro Cafe property will revert to residential use. In fact, the property has Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 5 not been used for residential purposes in at least twenty (20) years. Prior to the opening of Poppies Bistro Cafe in 1981, the building housed the Golden Barrel res- taurant, which occupied the premises for approximately eight (8) years. The existing restaurant use is compatible with surrounding land uses, and significantly contributes to the so-called "messy vitality" of the community. d) "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the area's existing road system. While the proposed residential unit will generate approximately four (4) additional vehicular trips per day, the neighboring street system is more than adequate to accommodate the resulting increase in traffic. This increase may be reduced in part by the availability of mass transit service. Public bus stops are presently located in front of the property on both sides of West Hallam Street. e) "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the City's public facilities. Existing water, sewer and drainage systems are either adequate to handle the proposed development or will be upgraded by the Applicants as may be required. No significant impact upon the City's parks, schools and emergency medical facilities should occur as a result of the proposed rezoning. f) "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environment. g) "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compati- ble with the community character in the City of Aspen." While compatibility with the City's "community character" is obviously a subjective criteria, we believe that the uses that are allowed within the proposed O, Office zone district are consistent with the existing character of the West Hallam and Main Street corridor. As noted previously, the property's historic restaurant use represents an integral and desirable part of Aspen's so-called "messy vitality" which the new Aspen Area Community Plan seeks both to retain and encourage. Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 6 h) "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amend- ment." In our opinion, the "changed condition" which supports the proposed rezoning is the citizen's vision statement embodied in the new Aspen Area Communi- ty Plan. The Plan specifically encourages the preservation of the so-called "messy vitality" that "originally created Aspen's renowned cultural and sociological diversity". Poppies Bistro Cafe represents a valued component of the community's diverse restaurant population. Its location outside the commercial core provides both locals and tourists alike an alternative dining experience which is essential to the public's concept of messy vitality. Rezoning of the property to O, Office, will not only remove the restaurant's non -conforming use status, but permit the construction of a residential dwelling unit which will help meets the housing needs of its employees. i) "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would remove the existing restaura- nt's non -conforming status, and permit the construction of on -site housing for the restaurant's employees, the public interest would appear to be appropriately served by approval of the rezoning request. As discussed previously, the Applicants' proposed rezoning is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and complies with all ap- plicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. 2. Historic Landmark Designation As noted previously, an application to designate Poppies Bistro Cafe as a historic landmark has been reviewed and recommended for approval by both the HPC and the P&Z. The application was also considered by the City Council at first reading prior to its withdrawal pending the receipt of the Planning Director's floor area interpretation. At this point, I believe that the Council need only hold a public hearing to complete the designation process. Should additional procedural steps be necessary, the Applicants would be pleased to cooperate as may be required. 3. GMQS Exemption Pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations, the Planning Director shall exempt the enlargement of an Historic Landmark which develops not more than one (1) residential dwelling unit from the City's growth management quota system. As there are no specific review criteria for such exemptions, the designation of the structure by the City Council, and the proposed addition's compliance with the applicable dimensional requirements of the O, Office, zone district should be sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the requested exemption. Ms. Mary Lackner April 22, 1994 Page 7 Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VANIASSOCIATES r Sunny lynn, AICP SV:cwv Attachments cAbus\city.app\app22993.rez 0 EXHIBIT 1 City of Aspen Pre -Application Conference Summary Plann r Date Project - .ei O� Applicants RepresentaliVe K Representative's Phone Owner's Name /n 1 The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Land Use Code Section Continents 7 - ZZoa 2,f � to D > /LcaD art« ef s -7-7-//O-'/. Ito Z7,067 ceyiGal "-,ua&- ic�ivprcu. 4a,'Xt tD it D Pik �Q/t /iW . Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) &Z and C Public Hearing: (yes (no) q7 �P-VZ o�✓ CG Deposit for the Application Review: S of /(9' Referral agency flat fees: (%6 - e i�AP�i4 TOTALUEPOSIT #' (Additional hours are billed at a rate of 163/hr.) To Apply Submit the Following Information: Proof of ownership. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also states the name, address and telephone nLutnber of the representative. Total deposit for review of the application $ 2:? /J . copies of the complete application packet and maps. Summary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including street address and legal description of the property. An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. Site plan shall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical features (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.) a d �iovn/ Co�P ,QOQ� s. 10. These items need to be submitted if circled: 0 List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses. Jk( Site photos. Proof of legal access to the parcel. ,2 Historic Preservation Commission review/approval. Recorded at Rece t THIS DEED. Made this st #337036 10/02/91 09154 Rer $5.4ju Ell' 65B F'G 102 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt� 1 , Doc $60.0C) dayof October '19 9 EXHIBIT 2 between WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and r CAROL HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL 7 O M ofthe wQZ1� 'Countyof Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the f irst part, and a H EARL JONES and- MIKE i HULL, Tenants in Common, �9, I,Jwhose legal address is c/o Poppies, 834"W. Hallam, 994 U�rrfaW'a� -, Aspen, Colorado 81611 O (rH of the Cu my of Pitkin and State of >l � Colorado, of the second part: H W Q U a � H'ITNESSETH,That the said part of the fiat part, for and inconsideration of TEN DOLLARS and q other good and valuable considerations DOLLARS to the said part 1e3 of the first part in hand paid by said part y of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, havegranted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said part y of the second part,itS heirs and assigns for ever, all the following described lot or parcel orland, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to wit: Lots K and L, Block 10, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, subject to: Exceptions and reservations as set forth in the Act authorizing the issuance of the Patent for the City and Townsite of Aspen recorded March 1, 1987 in Book 139 at Page 216 as Reception No. 60156, and Easement and right of way for an irrigation ditch as granted to United States of America by The Golden Barrel, Inc. also known as the Golden Barrell Restaurant & Lounge in the instrument recorded June 6, 1973 in Book 276 at Page 494 as Reception No. 160120, affecting the following described property: Over and across Lot K of Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. p�Q also known asstreet and number 834 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 61611 Zoo 1) TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in nnvwise npper. I O twining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the ' f�in.7 estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said part ieS of the first part, either in Is,,- or LLJ equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances. unto Ii;•. fL said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns forever. And the said part ies of the first part. T for them sel Ves heirs, executors, and administrators,:do covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and < 0 with the said party of the second part,'.itS.heirs.and assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, are 'well seised of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and ha .Ve ­ : ' good right, full power and authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind of naturesoever. Except 1991 Real Property taxes payable in 1992 and Lease between Parties of the first part, -formerly D. & G. Golden Barrel, Inc., and Mike"Hull and Earl Jones, recorded in Book 513 at Page 418, records of Pitkin County, Colorado and t lie above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said part y of the second part, its heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said part ieS ofthe first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said part ies.of the first part he ve hereunto set theithand S and seal S the day and year first above written. n n W L A. G NER L (SEAL) P " (SEAL) i STATE OF COLORADO, ClilttHALL aka CAROL DALE HALL County of 7k� The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this / _T� day of V f 19 91 by WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka --ynn C� OL DAE hey commission expires 5 -! { .19 1 nL ess my hanJ an icial s I. PU e s.' No, A71 WORRANTY DEED. -►or Pbotosrepble Aemrd- andfwd Pv6kehins Co., Dms . CalarWa 11.7Y -I T j r� N '.4 1. -J ID -3 J P v ID n N y rr ;n ID n ID ro a • EXHIBIT 3 April 15, 1994 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Johnson: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to rezone our property which is located at 834 West Hallam Street in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Earl J nes Poppies Bistro Cafe 834 West Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2333 cAbus\city.1tr\1tr22993.kj2 0 0 EXHIBIT 5 ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and 15672fo (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THEPROJECT). V t n1-1 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICA! "T agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. • 0 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness,PLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of which is for � hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN By: 1�a�h WIIQ— Diane Moore City Planning Director 2 APPLICANT By: W -A , i� I- — Mailing Add ess: Date: 1.1 J 2 I i ZC14- \x\ AML tvP�'O vamp iWl� O v p ScabP_--I" 20 -� o p n � o ,�f dec co r L_ o l-C //u - o �X 3 ry s zre e NOTES 0 - indicates found rebar and cap • - indicates set rebar and cap marked L.S. 14111 The real property described hereon does not lie within the limits of a 100 Year Flood Hazard Boundary. Legal Description: Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. I hereby certify that on August 16, 1993 a survey was performed by me on the parcel of land described hereon. A two-story frame house was found to be on said parcel as shown on this plat. All easements, encroachments and rights -of -way in evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and bel' f. i By: SydneJy Lin,�ricome P.L.S. 14111 ��tip�rove'vv`e'vt Su�rve 83 o /NES /N SPACE SYDNEY LINCICOME (L.S. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 { r? LLO. 4 SCALE:I 2o' XHIBIT 6 0 s EXHIBIT 7 Y %S (7a AVMAH) 133HIS WYTIdH .' w W k zz ^J LL O O CC z a w U) 0 w U) O a O cr CL V _\T 9 I MY Nx 0 11 oil (I H N w 3 PF1 r '1� IN °= �I A �i 0 { z 0 H N W a 0 EXHIBIT 8 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants October 21, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Affordable Housing Unit Dear Kim: Please consider this letter a formal request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district (see Exhibit 1, Preapplication Conference Summary). The requested is submitted by Michael Hull, the owner of Poppies Bistro Cafe, pursuant to Section 11-101 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Permission for Vann Associates to represent Mr. Hull is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Background As we have discussed, the Applicant would like to construct an affordable housing unit above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this objective, he proposes to historically designate his property, and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided for in Section 8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Regula- tions. As the purpose of the unit is to provide housing for various restaurant employees, including himself, the Applicant proposes to deed restrict the unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's resident occupancy guidelines. At issue is the size of the unit that can be constructed. The property in question consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 3, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies the two (2) story frame house located thereon. The Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in the underlying R-6 zone dis- trict, and contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Although the structure has historical merit, it has not been historically designated. Proposed Development As the attached architectural plan illustrates (see Exhibit 3), the proposed two (2) bed- room, one (1) bath unit would contain approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) 230 East Hopkins Avenue - Aspen. Colorado 81611-303/925-6958 • Fax 303/920-9310 • • Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 2 square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occupants. To ensure that the addition is compatible with the existing structure, the addition's archi- tectural design will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Please note that the Applicant has already commenced the historic designation process, and that a work session has been held with the Commission to discuss the design of the addition. Requested Interpretation The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family, residential zone districts. As a result, the Regulations provide no guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses (e.g., Poppies) which are located in the R-6 zone district. Since non -conforming uses cannot be expanded, this lack of guidance would not ordinarily pose a problem. However, as the addition of an affordable housing unit would not increase the size of the structure's non -conforming use, the issue of maximum allow- able floor area is crucial to the Applicant's proposal. The Planning Office has suggested that the R-6 zone district's single-family floor area ratio should be used as an appropriate guideline for the expanded structure. This ratio, however, would limit the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, insufficient floor area would remain with which to construct the desired affordable housing unit. If a residential guideline is to be utilized, I believe that the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area ratio would be more appropriate. As the only use to which the restaurant can be converted is residential, the inclusion of an affordable housing unit would render the structure a duplex. In addition, a duplex is permitted on a lot of six thousand (6,000) square feet, provided that the lot contains a historic landmark (see Section 5-201.D.2.). Unfortunately, duplexes which are located on such lots cannot exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) single-family residence (see Section 5-201.D.10.). This requirement, however, is arguably inapplicable, as Poppies Bistro Cafe is neither a single-family nor duplex residential dwelling. Given the Regulation's lack of direction with respect to this issue, I believe that the Planning Office has sufficient latitude to establish an appropriate floor area limitation for the property. Ideally, this limitation would take into account the Applicant's objective, it's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the historic nature of the struc- ture, and the compatibility of the addition with surrounding development. A duplex floor area limitation would appear to address all of these concerns. 1} \ • is Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 3 Significantly larger multi -family structures are located across West Hallam and Eighth Streets on the south and west sides of the property. The property to the north and east of Poppies's is presently owned by the United States Forest Service, and has been identified as a potential location for additional affordable housing development. As the proposed addition must be approved by the HPC, its compatibility with both the existing structure and the neighborhood will be taken into account. Finally, the Applicant's desire to voluntarily provide an on -site affordable housing unit is commendable, and is consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. The maximum allowable floor area for a duplex on a six thousand (6,000) square foot lot in the R-6 zone district is three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet. As the existing structure contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area, six hundred and twenty (620) square feet will be available for the proposed affordable housing unit. An additional floor area bonus of approximately three hundred and fifty (350) square feet will be requested from the HPC in connection with the historic designation of the structure. In summary, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the Planning Office's position regarding the Applicant's ability to utilize the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area limitation for the proposed development. As Mr. Hull would like to commence construction of the unit in as timely a manner as possible, your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, VANN ASSOCIATES Sunny VanVAICP SV:cwv cc: Michael Hull Jake Vickery c:\bus\ci ty.a pp\app22993.int EXHIBIT 9 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE CODE INTERPRETATION XURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Chapter 24, Section 5-201.0.10 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which refers to the allowable Floor Area Ratios in the R-6 Medium Density Residential zone district. Also involved is the permitted FAR for a non -conforming use in all residential zones. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994 WRITTEN BY: Kim Johnson, Planner I APPROVED BY: Diane Moore, City Planning Directo_ BACKGROUND: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in this residential zone district. The existing building contains approximately 2,980 square feet of floor area. The site is 6,000 square feet of lot area. The site is located at 334 W. Hallam Street (Lots K and L, Townsite of Aspen). The property is bounded on the north and east by the U.S. Forest Service. To the west and south, across Eighth and W. Hallam respectively are multi -family residential buildings. The restaurant owner wishes to expand the structure to accommodate a 970 s.f. affordable housing unit pursuant to GMQS Exemption for affordable housing. In addition, the applicant is seeking Historic Landmark designation for the building. The issue set forth in this interpretation request is that the R-6 zone district does not specify an allowable FAR for non- conforming uses. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 s.f.) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. R-6 states that only if the property is desifgnated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. It is theapplicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to. use the space as an affordable housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth .for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for designated historic landmarks). Staff believes this provision applies regardless of the use of proposed additional FAR. In this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 s.f. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, Planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (as a Conditional Use) would be the duplex FAR figure. In this case however, the lot met the land area requirements for a duplex. INTERPRETATION: The Planning Director's interpretation and application of Section 5-201.D.10 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code to the case at hand is that: The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a single family lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements. In reviewing the information presented by the applicant regarding the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in the R-6 zone, it does not appear that sufficient evidence has been presented for staff to determine that a duplex FAR is appropriate for a single family parcel in this district or this site. The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable sections in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates to this request. A 2 i i EXHIBIT 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director �� DATE: March 28, 1994 RE: Appeal to City Council - Planning Director Interpretation Regarding Poppies Bistro Cafe SUMMARY: The Planning Director has the authority to make all interpretations regarding Chapter 24, Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen. The authority for this is outlined in Section 24- 11-101 of the Code. An interpretation may be requested by any affected person. In this particular case, Poppies Bistro requested a Planning Director interpretation regarding the allowable floor area ratios for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. The applicant has elected to appeal the interpretation of the planning director to the city council. The Land Use Regulations provide for Council's consideration of the petition within thirty (30) days of its filing. The applicant has agreed to the scheduling of this item on the March 28, 1994 agenda, even though this date exceeds the 30 day time frame for appeals. Planning staff recommends that Council affirm the Planning Director interpretation. BACKGROUND: The property in question is Poppies Bistro Cafe that consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. Poppies's is located on north side of Main Street, adjacent to the Unites States Forest Service property. The lot area of the parcel contains six thousand (6,000) square feet. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies a two (2) story frame house and is a non -conforming use in the underlying R-6 zone district. Poppies currently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. The Applicant, Michael Hull, would like to construct a housing unit (voluntarily deed restricted to resident occupancy) above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this, he proposes to historically designate his property and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided in Section 24-8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations. The purpose of.this unit is to provide housing for either restaurant employees or himself. The proposed dwelling unit would contain approximately nine hundred and seventy ( 97 0 ) square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. It should be noted that the applicant has commenced the historic designation process and that a worksession with HPC has been held to discuss the design of the addition. The applicant, however, has put on hold the historic designation of this property, pending the outcome of this appeal. CURRENT ISSUES: Sunny Vann and Jake Vickery, representing Mr. Hull, requested a Planning Director interpretation (Exhibit A) regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non- conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. At issue is the size of the dwelling unit that can be constructed. The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial uses as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family zone districts. Therefore, the regulations do not provide guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses. The R-6 zone district does provide floor area ratios for detached residential dwellings and duplex units. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR for this parcel should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 sq. ft.) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. A provision in the R-6 zone district states that only if the property is designated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but, the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. "Total external floor area ratio for two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot between 6,.000 and 9,000 square feet containing a historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling." It is the applicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to use the space as a housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. /ti Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in ohx a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other 5 provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for iion cc�c �o °s designated historic landmarks). Staff believes that this provision r � "I,% applies regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In Y this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 sq.ft. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure, which totals a maximum of 3,240 sq. ft. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the s.-� Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (conditional use) would be the duplex FAR figure because it met the duplex lot area in the R-15 residential zone district. E It is important to note that the applicant could still construct the attached dwelling unit but the size of the unit would be limited to the FAR of a single family home, with the potential for an FAR bonus if the property is historically landmarked. For example: Single family maximum FAR - 3,240 sq. ft. Poppies existing FAR - 2,980 scr. ft. Remaining FAR bonus - 260 500 sq. sci. ft. ft. O 41,7 Landmark structure FAR (maximum granted by HPC) Maximum FAR for dwelling unit 760 sq. ft. The findings made in the planning director interpretation (Exhibit B) are summarized as follows: "The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a single family lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements." This interpretation provides the guidance requested by the applicant in the determination of the maximum allowable floor area. As mentioned previously, the applicant requested an appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation to Council (Exhibit C). They based the appeal on the points listed in the original request and the following points: 1. The proposed project supports the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan 2. Residentially zoned properties on Highway 82 are heavily impacted and deserve special consideration. 3. Increases in FAR are generally supported by the Code to encourage the creation of employee housing. 4. The request is modest. Staff agrees with the applicant that the construction of affordable housing is a goal outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and that the voluntary construction of a dwelling unit restricted to resident occupancy is encouraged. Additionally, increases in FAR for the creation of affordable, housing 'units is a concept outlined in the AACP. PKIOIZI-neS However, the determination of maximum allowable floor area ratios in a given zone district is contained within the zone districts' dimensional requirements. Or, in this particular situation, an interpretation is made absent information.. The dimensional requirements essentially provide a limitation to the size of • Exhibit B MEMORANDUM To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department Date: May 25, 1994 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning & GMQS Exemption Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Alley - The application is correct that the remainder of the alley was acquired by the adjacent property owner. The alley was vacated in 1937. 2. Site drainage - As discussed on page 5 of the application, one of the considerations is the adequacy of public facilities to service the use. One public facility that is inadequate is the City street storm drainage system. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 3. Sidewalks - The sidewalk along 8th Street is only 4 feet wide and abuts the curb. Normally when a sidewalk abuts a curb in a parallel parking area, an additional 1 1/2 feet of width is required to provide space for "No Parking Here to Corner" or other signs. This side street sidewalk could be interpreted as being in the West End where sidewalks are not required, however usable pedestrian spaces 5 feet wide are required. The sidewalk should be widened to 6 1/2 feet from the back of the curb. The sidewalk on Hallam Street is also 4 feet wide. It could easily be widened to 5 feet. The sidewalk swings out to the curb around a lilac bush where the usable area necks down to less than 3 feet. The lilac should be pruned back to provide at least five feet of clear sidewalk. Attention is called to current community concerns for handicap access of sidewalk and other public areas. 4. Parking - The application does not appear to discuss parking. There are two cars parked on site with registrations that expired in 1983. Their spaces should be indicated as such on the final building permit plans. We recommend that on -site parking be required. The alley behind Poppies is an open public right-of-way, but it does not serve • any users beyond Poppies. The adjacent property owners could request vacating the alley which would add some usable parking area. Half of the alley might be vacated to the adjacent property owners on each side of the alley. 5. Work in the Public Right -of --way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Bob Gish, Cris Caruso, Amy Amidon M,P-14 0 1* Villae MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council / THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage? l FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director. DATE: March 28, 1994 RE: Appeal to City Council - Planning Director Interpretation Regarding Poppies Bistro Cafe SUMMARY: The Planning Director has the authority to make all interpretations regarding Chapter 24, Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen. The authority for this is outlined in Section 24- 11-101 of the Code. An interpretation may be requested by any affected person. In this particular case, Poppies Bistro requested a Planning Director interpretation regarding the allowable floor area ratios for non -conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. The applicant has elected to appeal the interpretation of the planning director to the city council. The Land Use Regulations provide for Council's consideration of the petition within thirty (30) days of its filing. The applicant has agreed to the scheduling of this item on the March 28, 1994 agenda, even though this date exceeds the 30 day time frame for appeals. Planning staff recommends that Council affirm the Planning Director interpretation. BACKGROUND: The property in question is Poppies Bistro Cafe that consists of Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. Poppies's is located on north side of Main Street, adjacent to the Unites States Forest Service property. The lot area of the parcel contains six thousand (6,000) square feet. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies a two (2) story frame house and is a non -conforming use in the underlying R-6 zone district. Poppies currently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. The Applicant, Michael Hull, would like to construct a housing unit (voluntarily deed restricted to resident occupancy) above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this, he proposes to historically designate his property and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided in Section 24-8-104.A.1.b.(3) of the Land Use Regulations. The purpose of this unit is to provide housing for either restaurant employees or himself. The proposed dwelling unit would contain approximately nine hundred and seventy (970) square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley which abuts the rear of the property. It should be noted that the applicant has commenced the historic designation process and that a worksession with HPC has been held to discuss the design of the addition. The applicant, however, has put on hold the historic designation of this property, pending the outcome of this appeal. CURRENT ISSUES: Sunny Vann and Jake Vickery, representing Mr. Hull, requested a Planning Director interpretation (Exhibit A) regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non- conforming uses in the R-6 zone district. At issue is the size of the dwelling unit that can be constructed. The R-6 zone district does not provide an external floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial uses as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family zone districts. Therefore, the regulations do not provide guidance as to the maximum allowable floor area for non -conforming commercial uses. The R-6 zone district does provide floor area ratios for detached residential dwellings and duplex units. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR for this parcel should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 sq. ft.) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. A provision in the R-6 zone district states that only if the property is designated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but, the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. "Total external floor area ratio for two detached residential dwellings or a duplex on a lot between 6,000 and 9,000 square feet containing a historical landmark shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling." It is the applicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to use the space as a housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures are proximal to the subject property. Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for designated historic landmarks). Staff believes that this provision applies regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 sq.ft. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure, which totals a maximum of 3,240 sq. ft. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (conditional use) would be the duplex FAR figure because it met the duplex lot area in the R-15 residential zone district. It is important to note that the applicant could still construct the attached dwelling unit but the size of the unit would be limited to the FAR of a single family home, with the potential for an FAR bonus if the property is historically landmarked. For example: Single family maximum FAR - 3,240 sq. ft. Poppies existing FAR - 2,980 sg. ft. Remaining FAR 260 sq. ft. Landmark structure FAR bonus - 500 sa. ft. (maximum granted by HPC) Maximum FAR for dwelling unit 760 sq. ft. The findings made in the planning director interpretation (Exhibit B) are summarized as follows: "The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a single family lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements." This interpretation provides the guidance requested by the applicant in the determination of the maximum allowable floor area. As mentioned previously, the applicant requested an appeal of the Planning Director's interpretation to Council (Exhibit C). They based the appeal on the points listed in the original request and the following points: 1. The proposed project supports the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan 2. Residentially zoned properties on Highway 82 are heavily impacted and deserve special consideration. 3. Increases in FAR are generally supported by the Code to encourage the creation of employee housing. 4. The request is modest. Staff agrees with the applicant that the construction of affordable housing is a goal outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and that the voluntary construction of a dwelling unit restricted to resident occupancy is encouraged. Additionally, increases in FAR for the creation of affordable housing units is a concept outlined in the AACP. However, the determination of maximum allowable floor area ratios in a given zone district is contained within the zone districts' dimensional requirements. Or, in this particular situation, an interpretation is made absent information. The dimensional requirements essentially provide a limitation to the size of structures relative to lot sizes. Mass and bulk within a given zone district should be consistent, whether the structure contains a conforming or nonconforming use. To request that staff or Council overlook FAR considerations for the construction of a dwelling unit (restricted to resident occupancy) is not the appropriate avenue. Staff would suggest that Council consider other ways to accomplish the goals outlined by the applicant. Some options could include: * Consider rezoning the parcel to a zone district that is compatible with the surrounding properties; * Consider text amendments that provide for increased FAR only for affordable housing units. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Director recommends that Council affirm the previous interpretation for Poppies. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Letter from Sunny Vann to Kim Johnson requesting Planning Director interpretation. Exhibit B: Planning Director Interpretation Regarding Poppies Bistro Exhibit C: Letter from Jake Vickery requesting appeal to Council. MAR 23 194 01: 34PM 'YnNN SUMMERS COOK P. 2 • • EXHIBIT A VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants October 21, 1993 HAND DELIVERED Nis. Kim Johnson AspenlPitlydn Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Affordable Housing Unit Dear Kira: Please consider this letter a formal request for a Planning Director interpretation regarding the determination of allowable floor area for non -conforming uses in the R-b zone district (see Exhibit 1, Preapplication Conference Summary). The requested is submitted by N lchaei Hull, the owner of Poppies Bistro Cafe, pursuant to Section 11-101 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Permission for Vann Associates to represent W. Hull is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Background As we have discussed, the Applicant would like to construct an affordable housing unit above the rear of his restaurant. To accomplish this objective, he proposes to historically designate his property, and to apply for a growth management quota system exemption for an additional dwelling unit, as provided for in Section 8-104.A_1.b.(3) of the Regula- tions. As the purpose of the unit is to provide housing for various restaurant employees, including himself, the Applicant proposes to deed restrict the unit to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's resident occupancy guidelines. At issue is the size of the unit that can be constructed. The property in question consists of Lots K and 4 Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen (see Exhibit 3, Improvement Survey). The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land area. Poppies Bistro Cafe occupies the two (2) story frame house located thereon. The Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in the underlying R-b zane dis- trict, and contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet of floor area. Although the structure has historical merit, it has not been historically designated. Proposed Development As the attached architectural plan illustrates (see Exhibit 3), the proposed two (2) bed- room, one (1) bath unit would contain approximately nitre hundred and seventy (970) 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 .303l925-6958 - Fax 303/920-9310 MAR 23 '94 01:35FM VPNN SUMMERS COOK P. • • Ms. Kim Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 2 square feet of floor area. The unit would be located above the restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via a new exterior stairway located adjacent to the alley ,%rhich abuts the rear of the property. An exterior deck is proposed as an amenity for the unit's occarpants. To ensure that the addition is compatible with the existing structure, the addition's archi- tectural design will be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Please note that the Applicant has already commenced the historic designation process, and that a work session has been held with the Commission to discuss the design of the addition. Requested Interpretation The R-6 7Dne district does not provide an external floor area ratio for commercial uses, as such uses are generally prohibited in the City's single-family, residential zone districts. As a result, the Regulations provide no guidance as to the maximum allowable Door area for non -conforming commercial uses (e.g, Poppies) which are located in the R-6 zone district. Since non -conforming uses cannot be expanded, this lack of guidance would not ordinarily pose a problem. However, as the addition of an affordable housing unit would not increase the size of the structure's non -conforming use, the issue of maximum allow- able floor area is crucial to the Applicant's proposal. The Planning Office has suggested that the R-6 zone district's single-family floor area ratio should be used as an appropriate guideline for the expanded structure. This ratio, however, would limit the property's maximum allowable floor area to three thousand two hundred and forty (3,240) square feet. As the existing structure presently contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (2,980) square feet, insufficient floor area would remain with which to construct the desired affordable housing unit. If a residential guideline is to be utilized, I believe that the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area ratio would be more appropriate. As the only use to which the restaurant can be converted is residential, the inclusion of an affordable housing unit would render the structure a duplex in addition, a duplex is permitted on a lot of six thousand (6,000) square feet, provided that the lot contains a historic landmark (see Section 5 201.D,2.). Unfortunately, duplexes which are located on such lots cannot exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) single-family residence (see Section 5-201.D.10.). This requirement, however, is arguably inapplicable, as Poppies Bistro Cafe is neither a single-family not duplex residential dwelling. Given the Regulation's lack of direction with respect to this issue, I believe that the Planning Office has sufficient latitude to establish an appropriate floor area limitation for the property. Ideally, this limitation would take into account the Applicant's objective, it's consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the historic nature of the struc- ture, and the compatibility of the addition with surrounding development. A duplex floor area limitation would appear to address all of these concerns. MAR 23 '94 01:35PM VANN SUMMERS COOK P.4 • • Ms. Mm Johnson October 21, 1993 Page 3 Significantly larger multi -family structures are located across West Hallam and Eighth Streets on the south and west sides of the property. The property to the north and east of Poppies's is presently owned by the United States Forest Service, and has been identified as a potential location for additional affordable housing development. As the proposed addition must be approved by the WC, its compatibility with both the existing, structure and the neighborhood will be taken into account. Finally, the Applicant's desire to voluntarily provide an on -site affordable housing unit is coturnendable, and is consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. The maximum allowable floor area for a duplex on a six thousand (6AW) square foot lot in the R-6 zone district is three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet. As the existing structure contains approximately two thousand nine hundred and eighty (Z980) square feet of floor area, six hundred and twenty (620) square feet will be available for the proposed affordable housing unit. An additional floor area bonus of approximately three hundred and fifty (350) square feet will be requested from the HPC in connection with the historic designation of the structure. In summary, I would appreciate it if you would provide rite with the Planning Ofce's position regarding the Applicant's ability to utilize the R-6 zone district's duplex floor area limitation for the proposed development. As Mr. Hull would like to commence construction of the unit In as timely a manner as possible, your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours VANN ASSOCIATES Sunny SV:ewv cc: Michael Hull Jake Vickery c:*wNaRyApp\Rpp22903.int • • ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen EXHIBIT B APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Chapter 24, Section 5-201.D.10 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which refers to the allowable Floor Area Ratios in the R-6 Medium Density Residential zone district. Also involved is the permitted FAR for a non -conforming use in all residential zones. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994 WRITTEN BY: Kim Johnson, Planner I APPROVED BY: Diane Moore, City Planning Directo BACKGROUND: Poppies Bistro Cafe is a non -conforming commercial use in this residential zone district. The existing building contains approximately 2,980 square feet of floor area. The site is 6,000 square feet of lot area. The site is located at 834 W. Hallam Street (Lots K and L, Townsite of Aspen). The property is bounded on the north and east by the U.S. Forest Service. To the west and south, across Eighth and W. Hallam respectively are multi -family residential buildings. The restaurant owner wishes to expand the structure to accommodate a 970 s.f. affordable housing unit pursuant to GMQS Exemption for affordable housing. In addition, the applicant is seeking Historic Landmark designation for the building. The issue set forth in this interpretation request is that the R-6 zone district does not specify an allowable FAR for non- conforming uses. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable FAR should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3,600 s.f.) despite the fact that the lot area only permits a single family home. R-6 states that only if the property is desifgnated an Historic Landmark is a duplex allowed, but the FAR shall not exceed that allowed for a single family dwelling. It is theAapplicant's belief that the greater FAR should be allowed because of the intention to use the space as an affordable housing unit (resident occupied deed restriction) and that larger multifamily structures - are proximal to the subject property. Staff responds that the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for 1 • u designated historic landmarks). Staff believes this provision applies regardless of the use of proposed additional FAR. In this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6,000 s.f. lot to the FAR allowed for a single family structure. In 1991, in a similar situation to this request, Planning staff made the determination that the maximum FAR for the Messiah Lutheran Church expansion (as a Conditional Use) would be the duplex FAR figure. In this case however, the lot met the land area requirements for a duplex. INTERPRETATION: The Planning Director's interpretation and application of Section 5-201.D.10 of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code to the case at hand is that: The maximum allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in a residential zone district is that which is allowed for either a single family lot or a duplex lot depending upon the FARs established per the zone's minimum lot area requirements. In reviewing the information presented by the applicant regarding the allowable FAR for a non -conforming use in the R-6 zone, it does not appear that sufficient evidence has been presented for staff to determine that a duplex FAR is appropriate for a single family parcel in this district or this site. The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable sections in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates to this request. A 2 i FEB 17 W4 EXHIBIT C February 15, 1994 Ms. Kim Johnson HAND DELIVER Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Voluntary Employee Housing Unit Petition requesting modification of Director's Interpretation. On October 19, 1993, we submitted a request for a Director's Interpretation allowing adequate FAR to add a family employee unit to the existing non -conforming restaurant use. While the formal Interpretation is dated January 10, it was not mailed, and there is some confusion about when it was finally made available. We recall picking it up around January 17. A copy is attached. Asper Section 11-101(F) of the Aspen Land Use code we are appealing this interpretation to the City Council. Please consider this the formal appeal request. We base our appeal on the points listed in the original request and following points: I. This proposed project supports the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP states that there is a need for suitable family employee housing to counterbalance the exodus of families down valley. Furthermore, the housing of employees close to their source of employment reduces traffic and its multiple impacts. It also calls for disbursed, integrated, small scale projects that help maintain and reinforce the historical town fabric and neighborhood character. The proposed project conforms explicitly to all of these goals. II. Residentially zoned properties on Highway 82 are heavily impacted and deserve special consideration. This parcel is located on Highway 82 and bears little if any relationship to similarly zoned properties in the heart of the R6 Zone, i.e. the West End. We believe this property might be more appropriately placed in the OFFICE ZONE: "The purpose of the Office (0) zone is to provide for the establishment of offices and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of former residential areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and COMMERCIAL USES ALONG MAIN STREET AND OTHER HIGH VOLUME THOROUGHFARES." 100 SOUTH SPRING ST. #3 POST OFFICE BOX 12360 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE / FACSIMILE ( 3 0 3 ) 9 2 5 - 3 6 6 0 • 0 The point is that these properties are acknowledged to be no longer suitable for family residential use and such exclusive residential zoning is no longer appropriate. By comparison, if Poppies were placed in the OFFICE zone the following would apply: 1. Poppies would be an allowed Conditional Use ( not non -conforming). 2. Mixed use buildings are allowed and encouraged. (commercial+residential) 3. Duplexes are allowed on 6000 sf lots with an allowable FAR of 3,600 sf. 4. FAR for restaurant use is 0.75:1 (or 4500 FARsf) with increase to 1:1 (6,000) if 60 % of increase is affordable housing. 5. The requested FAR is 0.6:1 or 3,600 FARsf. III. Increases in FAR are generally supported by the code to encourage the creation of employee housing. This project is consistent with the intent of the code. Numerous examples of this exist in the code. Planning Director's Interpretation states "Staff believes this provision (the allowable FAR for a non- conforming use in a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an allowed use on a specifically sized lot) regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In the absence of any specific code language regarding non- conforming FAR, we believe that the general intention of providing employee housing should prevail. In this case, the proposal calls for no expansion of the existing non- conforming use. The FAR is used solely to provide housing for ar, employee family who might otherwise have to drive down valley for housing. Under other circumstances, such housing would actually be required. IV. The Request is modest. A one bedroom free market unit is allowed. The request is to be able to add a second bedroom. The request is minimal and is still subject to the formal review and approval of HPC. This project has been reviewed in an HPC worksession without any preliminary objections regarding any adverse effect of the historic resource or neighborhood. Summary: We believe that this project, given its unique nature and its modest FAR increase to allow a 2 bedroom family sized unit is aligned with the AACP goals, that it should be considered on its merit in light of the general goals and intent of the code, and that it is critical what the additional FAR is used for. We believe this project is a win -win -win situation for all and we are seeking a legitimate mechanism by which to implement it, especially within the context of its pre-existing use, surrounding multifamily and government uses, location on 82 and the changing nature of Main Street. The unit could be placed sub -grade with exterior stairs and light wells but this would result in a less desirable unit and more impact to the historical resource. Also, please keep in mind that this unit proposed on a voluntary basis. A smaller free market unit is permitted under the code. We do not really care how the interpretation is made but we do believe it should be interpreted to allow this kind of project. One suggestion might be as follows: It is acceptable for mixed -use building in the R6 zone located directly on highway 82, to utilize the duplex FAR when 100% of the increase over single family FAR is for affordable housing. Sincerely, 41 " Jake Vickery PUBLIC NOTICE RE: POPPIES BISTRO CAFE AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, September 12, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Michael Hull and Earl Jones, 834 W. Hallam St., Aspen, CO to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property from R-6, Medium Density Residential, to O, Office, and requesting approval of Landmark Designation. The property is located at 834 W. Hallam St.; Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 9/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 26, 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- City of Aspen Account C��2,3H sw • ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Zoning FROM: Mary Lackner, Planning Office RE: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning & GMQS Exemption Parcel ID No. 2735-123-04-002 DATE: April 30, 1994 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Poppies requesting approval of Rezoning from R-6 to Office and GMQS Exemption. Please return your comments to me no later than May 23, 1994. Thank you. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Mary Lackner CC Leslie Lamont From: Kim Johnson Postmark: Apr 29,94 10:05 AM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to a reply: Poppies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reply text: From Kim Johnson: I think we should take this date requirement out - I've never really understood the reasoning behind it. In the meantime, Mary should probably address this date citation in the code and make sure P&Z and CC rule that this application can proceed regardless of its submission date. Then lets get rid of it! Preceding message: From Mary Lackner: How should I proceed with this case now? From Leslie Lamont: although it is very nebulous about the date "on or before" we have asked council to sponsor this stuff in the past but come to think of it most of the AH rezonings that we have done we did not first ask for consent. but in the very distant past that is what we did. Kim maybe this is something we should "clarify" in your code amendments either make the lang. more specific or take it out. what do you gals think??? From Mary Lackner: Since this is a rezoning application and there are specific deadlines in the code for submission, should we ask CC for a variance from these dates? 1I9, JO�1✓1 w- Co Mia. Scxys1Gt/ Cit! 9e► does YLO1 • • ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197 April 30, 1994 Mr. Sunny Vann Vann Associates 230 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning and GMQS Exemption Case A29-94 Dear Sunny, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. Please submit a list of adjacent property owners. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, June 7, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p. m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call Mary Lackner the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5106. Sincerely, 0-ej�� 4v-Zot'.4 Deborah DuBord Office Manager apz.ph • E PUBLIC NOTICE RE: POPPIES BISTRO CAFE AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 7, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Michael Hull and Earl Jones, 834 W. Hallam St., Aspen, CO to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property from R-6, Medium Density Residential, to O, Office. The property is located at 834 W. Hallam St. ; Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on May 20, 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Aspen Account 5W PUBLIC NOTICE RE: POPPIES BISTRO CAFE AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, August 8, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Michael Hull and Earl Jones, 834 W. Hallam St., Aspen, CO to rezone the Poppies Bistro Cafe property from R-6, Medium Density Residential, to O, Office. The property is located at 834 W. Hallam St.; Lots K and L, Block 10, City and Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on July 22, 1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Aspen Account