HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.834 W Hallam St.A29-94 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 04/22/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: dlArl!w 2735-123-04-002 A29-94
STAFF MEMBER: ML
PROJECT NAME: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning Exen+!jL;n
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 A)P P. l PUBLIC HEARING: Y�0 NO
Q VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
�
CC Meeting Date -1 l u U PUBLIC HEARING: (.Y- 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
Zoning Energy Center x Other W'
DATE REFERRED:- a/ INITIALS: DUE: 5lo?31?Ll
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: (Z ri INITIAL: ZW
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clausd`ti, .,� o ' nity 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
2
{
1
ORDINANCE NO. (401-T d
(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
I TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 824 W. HALLAM
(BLOCK 10, LOTS R 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
i
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:
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.
i
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.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
4
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
l
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
Exhibit B
Saturday-Sunday,November 19.20, 1994• The Aspen Tunes 9-C
Public Notice
ORDINANCE NO.64
(SERIES OF 19994)
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(BLACK 10,
LOTS K AND L. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN)
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 246207 of the
Aspen Municipal Code,City Council may grant 3.Nothing in the approvals provided by this
vesting of development rights for a site specific Ordinance shall exempt the site specific devel-
development plan for a period of three years opment plan from subsequent reviews and/or
tram the date of final development plan approvals required by this Ordinance or the
approval;and general rules,regulations or ordinances of the
WHEREAS,Michael Hull and Earl Jones, City provided that such reviews or approvals
(*Applicants'),as represented by Sunny Vann, are not inconsistent with the approval granted
submitted an application to the Planning Office and vested herein.
.requesting construction of a free market 4.The establishment herein of a vested prop-
dwelling unit on the second level of the existing erty right shall not preclude the application of
Poppies Bistro Cafe,in conjunction with a ordinances or regulations which are general in
request for Landmark Designation and Rezon- nature and are applicable to all properties sub-
ing from R6 to Office;and ject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen;
WHEREAS,on September 26,1994 City Coun- including but not limited to,building,fire,
c8 approved the requests for Landmark Desig- plumbing.electrical and%echanfcai codes.in
nation by Ordinance 37 and Rezoning by Ordi- this regard,as a condition of this site develop-
nance 34;and ment approval,the developer shall abide by
WHEREAS,subsequent to the City Council any and all such building,fire,plumbing,elec-
approvals the Planning Director approved a trical and mechanical codes,unless an exemp-
GMQS Exemption for the addition of a residen- tion therefrom is granted in writing.
tial dwelling unit pursuant to Section 24=7- Section 3:The City Clerk shall cause notice of
80011(A)(T)(b)(3)of the Aspen Municipal Code; this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper
WHEREAS,the Applicants'are also seeking of general circulation within the City of Aspen,
PP g no later than fourteen(14)days following final
vested rights approval for the GMQS Exemp- adoption hereof.Such notice shall be given in
tion for a period of three years to provide con- the following form:
sistency with State vesting requirements. Notice is hereby given to the general public
NOW,THEREFORE,BE R ORDAINED BY THE of the approval of a site specific development
CRY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN.COL- plan,and the creation of a vested property
ORADO: right pursuant to Title 24,Article 68,Colorado
Section l:The Planning Director granted Revised Statutes,pertaining to the following
GMQS Exemption approval to the Applicants described property.
pursuant to Section 24-7601(A)(1xb)(3)of the The property shall be described in the notice
Municipal Code subject to the following condi- and appended to said notice.
tions: Section 4:A public hearing on the Ordinance
1.As recommended by the City Engineer,the shall be held on the 12th day of December 1994
applicant shall comply with the following: at 5:00 P.M.In the City Council Chambers,
a.The applicant shall indicate the parking Aspen City Hall,Aspen,Colorado.Fifteen(15)
confiijtuatlon,trash&recycle area,and utilities days prior to the hearing a public notice of the
on the building permit plaits. hearing shall be published in a newspaper of
b.The new development plan mutt provide general circulation within the City of Aspen.
for no more than historic drainage(lows to INTRODUCED,READ AND ORDERED PUB-
leave the site.Any Increase to historic storm LISHED as provided by law,by the City Council
runoff mutt be maintained on site. of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of Novenr
c. The applicant shall consult City Engineer- ber,1994
ing(920-5080)for design considerations of John Bennett,Mayor
development within public rightsof way.Parks ATTEST:Kathryn S.Koch,City Clerk
Department(920-5120)for vegetation species, Published in The Aspen Times on November
and shall obtain permits for any work or devel- 1&1994.
opment,including landscaping,within public
rights-of-way from City Streets Department
(920-5130). s SIT
2.-Two new parking spaces are required tor, i
the new two bedroom unit,unless reduced by
HPC. M.
3.The applicant shall either revise the plans, f
obtain a Board Adjustment r 11PC valiance
for the proposed setback encroachment,or N►�/ SNOW
vacate the alley. ,L+1T�N,
4.All material representations made by the Tffik
applicant in the application and during public.
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Coin-
mission mission shall be adhered to and considered
`conditions of approval,unless otherwise
amended by other conditions.
Section 2:Pursuant to Section 24-&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 turns 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 Munk-
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.
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 (ol , 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 Enginoer, 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.
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
i
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)
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 .
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
4
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
t
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` Clauson, Community
Development Director
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauso Director
,,�Y Planning
FROM: Mary -Lackner, - Planner
DATE: September 26, 1994
RE: Poppies Bistro Cafe Rezoning - 2nd Reading of Ordinance
J-IL, 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
T
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
ORDINANCE NO.31
(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 fiennett, 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
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 non-con-
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. AI-
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 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,
VAN ASSOCIATES
Sunny n, AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
cAb us\city.app\app22993.rez
EXHIBIT 1
City of Aspen
Pre-Application Conference Summary /
Mav y CC/CF L y y `11//��
Planner Date
Project �QZD�'J/ 6 Qi On
Applicants RepresentalliVe vI
Representative's Phone
Owner's Name
Type of Application F/Z01711V � (rti/C F. rzlup2�701_7
Deseri Lion of the ro�ect/develo ent being requested .r i L - a c
ri?v 0 Z 91 a 000 -
/ fa /CQ, i ii LL /lOn
n / / l
The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following
reports:
Land Use Code Section Comments
7-//0,,? 2=041 fo
7ETCOU /ewe"", 1 it/i�'/GLa
Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) &Z and C
Public Hearing: (yes (no) Qi' /O-vZ 4i✓ CG
APL Deposit for the Application Review: t a/!9
Referral agency flat fees:
TOTALDEPOSIT %'�3`
(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 nuulnber of the representative.
Total deposit for review of the application S,Q/S .
tCSU _1� 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.
0 An 8 1/2- by I l" 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.)
Qac9rrl dl�a.� .rk.1 ��Qp ogi�ns. -
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 Historic Preservation Commission review/approval.
`-1
�3
#337036 10/02/91 09:54 Rec Ov EK. 656 FG 102
nece at—
Rece Silvia_Davis, Pitkin Cnt� •k, Doc $60.00
`�e;sh No._ _
THIS DEED,Made this 1st day of October ,19 91 EXHIBIT 2
between WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and
CAROL HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL
O�^ of the
W O'�L County of Pitkin and State of Colorado,of the first part,and
a H EARL JONES and- MIKE Y HULL, Tenants in Common,
4aa . �whose legal address is c/o Poppies, 834"W . Hallam,
14[�rr w� Aspen, Colorado 81611
O H a'4'of the County of Pitkin and State of
W Colorado,of the second part:
E-4 W �
U Q W ITNESSETH,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 •yes 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. 7 a
at
c
b�Q also known as street and number 834 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 L 'A
Z�n TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances theretu belonging,or in nnywise ripper.
I taining,and the reversion and reversions,remainder and remainders,rents,issues and profits thereof,and all the U
estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the said part ies of the first part,either in law•or ro
• �LU,A equity,of,in and to the above bargained premises.with the hereditaments and appurtenances. -
.n
+
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances. unt„ li:•, p,
tC
=
said party of the second part,its heirs and assigns-forever. And the said part leS of the first part. y
for them sel ve5 heirs,executors.and administrators,:do: covenant,grant, bargain, and agree to and r*
N.
� Q with the said party of the second part,.`.1tS.heira.and.asaigns,that at the time of the en sealing and delivers o
of these presents, are well seized of the premises aboveconveyed,as of good,sure.perfect,absolute and D
indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple.and he•ve good right,full power and authority 7
in
to grant,bargain,sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid,and that the same are tree and clear n
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 m
Lease between Parties of the first part,` formerly D. b G. Golden a
Barrel, Inc. , and Mike'Hull and Earl:Jones, recorded in Book 513
at Page 418, records of Pitkin County, Colorado
• 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 pare shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the said part ieS.ofthe first part he ve hereuntosetthei2hand S
and seal S the day and year first above written.
lSEA1,
4��J G NER f!
(SEAL)D
(SEAL)
I; STATE OF COLORADO.
, HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL
! County of
The foregoing Instrument was aeknowledRad bs fore me this !c day of C/C�D L
1991 by WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka
n C� r DALE H�. p
My commission expires 5 — --y� .19 1 ness my hand an ieial s
v 6 li
O
No,8 11 WOJUL M DEED.—Per Paebarapble R--,d— Bndfeed Pa61 shlot Ca Dog,fa)onds i 1.7a
I
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,
Michael Flull
Earl J nes
Poppies Bistro Cafe
834 West Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2333
cAbus\dty.1trVtr22993.kj2
XHIBIT 6
-n
�
3S.7.
o •ar
�. 2-S raM�
0P
� O
Sccti e:1"=20 � _� o
n
�.o
W r /
Q 71
`71\
NCT°S
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.
Lecal Description: 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 kjwledge and
By; --
Sydn,o Lin come P.L.S. 14111
i
T �roveevL S�.trve
83
Z.
B>~ INES IN SPACE
SYDNEY L/NCJCOME(L.S.14111)
BOX 121 CAHBONOALE,COLO. 303-963-3852
1 r? AU.0. 4 q9 SCALE-.I°= 20'
I ' I I iI - I
I
PROPOSED ADDITION �i! 11,I
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR I }
ALLEY I III i i II I I w
I
,I
7TH STREET
�AKF VICK[�"
PROPOSED SITE AND ROOF PLAN t
m
X
0o
- ---
�r
I�v�os�n uP�R �inoN 1 �C�s-1'G, t�Pt'>✓f2 I,iE�YEI.
ot
]AC[VICltlY
^ ( I
S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
VEST EL E`/ATION
%F41r1-v 1 T"%Dl Teti ®® .., .. ...
G
Ll - -
NORTH ELEVATION r ,
lan
I '
ilililii it ill�l it I I !I � � ��
=a_T EI-Ey- - 101\!
JAKE V(CCEtT
: t
r�r�'=% ,;vii-!�".� �r%oi�"�'- ► �aa,�°;�::
1`1
HO Hl�rjfm-
jz
14'1' G 4
If�^tla� vl->z�t
JAKE VIyC K�;RT
EX. SITE PLAN .
I
i
Tnr
I
EX BASEMENT PLAN
----*
i - Y 4 W H t%tY N! 14zM
i
EX. LOWER PLAN
115��
SAKE VICKERY
1 ,
LL
EX UPPER PLAN
A
c V�JI�DN JAKE VICKE KT
EX.SOUTH ELEVATION
f-
rot9l" -
J11 11
SAKE VICK ERA
EX WEST ELEVAT 19N ,
�►�ri"Le9
i
I I
Ll
i
EX. NORTH ELEVATION
tj
<I ry 1
-lull
BARE�ICKIRV
EX EAST ELEVAT ION r 0019
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 l.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. Coicrado 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.
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 SOCIATES
Sunny Va AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Michael Hull
Jake Vickery
c:\bus\ciryapp\app22993.in1
EXHIBIT 9
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
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 .
E77ECTIVE DA'L'E: Ja..^.uary 10 , 1994 �
WRITTEN BY: Kim Johnson, Planner
APPROVED BY: Diane Moore, City Planning 0irecto�
BACKGROUND: Popmies Bistro Cafe is a non-conforming commercial use
in `:Z is residential zone district. The existing bu--ding contains
approximately 2 , 988 S`_+are feet of floor area. i'::e site is 6 , 000
scuar_ feet o` lot area. The site is located at 8114 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
souh, across Eighth and W. Hallam respectively are multf
t ti i- amily
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
Land-mark desianation 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-
confo=. ing uses. The applicant proposes that the maximum allowable
FAR should be that which is allowed for a duplex (3 , 600 s . f. )
desmite the fact that r
the lot area only permits a single family
home. R-6 states that only if the property is desirgnat_d 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 FA_R should be allowed because of the
intention to. use tie- 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
designated historic landmarks) . Staff believes this provision C
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 stZ`scture.
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 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 �cr
either a single family lot or a duplex lot depending upon
the FARs established per the zone ' s minimum lot area
requirements .the ir. o.- at!on presented by the applicant regard'_ng
In reviewing � _ 6
the allowable FAR for a non-conforming use in the R-o zone, it does
not appear that 51===c-ent evidence has been presented nor Staf�
to determine that a duplex F?.R is appropriate for a single family
parcel in this district or this Site.
The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable
sec, ions in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates
to this request.
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
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.
Povnies' 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) s-"ory 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 would
of floor area approximately
unit would be
and seventy (970) squ are feet
1
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_r.
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
ohx a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an
b `cc allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other
, provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for
goy °s designated historic landmarks) . Staff believes that this provision
applies regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In
� q" this instance, the R-6 zone limits a 6, 000 sq. ft. lot to the FAR
5 � allowed fora, 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
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.
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 scT. ft.
Remaining FAR 260 sq. ft. p
AR bonus - 500 sa. ft. 97
Landmark structure F � O
(maximum granted by HPC)
2
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:
supports the goals of the Aspen Area
1. The proposed project
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 oceation of affordable housing Additionally, is ca a in
FAR for the cr concept
outlined in the AACP• PR I 0 ELI 7l�S
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
x�
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. Parlcing - 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
M44.262
n,.J
.1� �� � '1►�.l�/b.�s x/11/'1�
� ° ► Z' •fir, ���1
�11 •
If
all
_ �i�i�.
MEN
ONE
�a
II
� �� ` ' • '� ,,,iii d{� � ------
7
�• � / . � j EEYB EE E. E . E . � ....
��� � �� � ���, •. i . ■ �� CE E E E C EE... � E.E E
� . E.. . . .E.E...EE
4 •� • i �9■ESE■. EEEE EEE EEEEE■E■■:�:■::::8
0 on Elm
F9 .
EE .�..EEE=...■. .e.C.■....■.E�. ■
.. .•.•.•.•. . . . . 1 / /.,1,1,1,1,1.,1 � _ k , � ;�-- ■�■ ■E ■
c � ►Ic•►o�►�► ►�����,�C�►��,1,1,E,�. � ,1 ,�•.i,., � J �
►� �► /�►�/�/ ► i+�glo•�X1':•1 1 1 i i 1
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" .
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
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
TIf
Box -L Exhibit E
Aspen, Colo coo
T - T
OF 3 IC1 T-11
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss. Coi?v oi'Notice
Couay of Pitkin
ORDNANCE NO.34
i, Lcrei, 1_-.,zki?is do solemnly f 1--1 1 anL L-1c YM OF 1994)
' '- ff 4 COUNCIL OF
Publisher of THE ASPEN TR,!-, S: Lhc,� ",,e �s a week- ,AN ORDINANCE.OF THE C;
ASPEN` COLORADO'•GRANTING A.MAP
I'llewsL1211per prinLed, in, wholo c," in and DUblished TMFi;6 REZONING FROM THE,R-6
ZONE AMENDMENT TO ZONE D5i
TFE(0)OFFICE
ii- tile County of Pit kin State of Co.lorado, and a gell- TRICT FOR THE POPPIES BISTRO CAFE(LOTS,
craI C.;rCL'Ilation therein; 41-ha-1 s_- -,id 'has 1�.cen K AND 1.Bu)cK to CITY AND TOWNSWO
i
ublished cont nuously and �n -aici ASPEN)
WHEREAS the Applicants (Michael Hull add�i
,
Co ally of Pitkin, for a Period of more t "1L"7-,Lv,7o Co-n- Earl JoneC relikesentia by Sunny,yann)O.io-j
PoW It twrtk6tte�the!�parcel arcel,from R-6.to,&':
slecutive weeks next pr;,:),, to tl-,e p =_O.n of Lile
Office_zone'distiict1n.or.der to ohtalp,mor
annexed IL-6-al, notice or adveirl,s-21-liencl- floor area to construct an additl
ing-StrUCture and to relieve the emung use,
per 1has 1-ocen admutted to the ljnil�e& S�,-"Les as sec- it's non-c'ofiformini-stitus.-Ibi Appllcafiilrsi�
and class matter under the p lrov's;ons of Act-of N111an-1 re'qUest40rA,GMQS Exemption fora free.mir-'�1
ket-dwelling unit and Vested r Rights'will tiki�-I
3, 1079, or an, a1me.-d,,-,Cn,ts and 'L a
�- L SzaiJ 11011,S- place after thepropert y has received HIS toric.
.)7
pat, r Js a a weekly ne-,,vSpaper d
WHEREAS.,Sectlon 1444102 of,the Aspen,
n e g a I rL o t i c o s a In d a d v-,r':!se._::;: . w; muntcIpilCode.provides for'Clty Council to�
I'le laws of the State o"(-oloraC o. ApPf-dVe-amendments tothe offlclal.zLone�o,ts�;I,
tract map;and
WHEREAS,Poppies Bistro Cafe Is Zzon
and restaurant is a nonconforming u
li ar the annexed lel,al notice or advc,,:'Li sc:mc:,_ -vk.as i)ub- this,zoneft
trict;and
WHOWAS.the Plarmini-and Zoning Commls�-
hz;11-1e,; 1"n Ze,-ulai7 and en!;11-e issi-,.e al: CV,211,- Cj Sion considered the applicant's request-a I I.
said weclklv newspaper for the per:od o' Co.Lsecu- 4 d
public.heAring on June 7.199 ,an re4;gtr!7
'M, in�crt�ons,- arid, thxL the iirst pubil�cati!Dl' 0"S�''dj 1__Lol mendod.a:pproval of Map Amendment
L .W
and',
,vvas Lile iSs"10 of splic� n C i� ZI e - c,a 1 c City a-NOW THEREFORE,BE rr ORDAINED BY THE
Said A.D., 119 qV a,,d t+l'li ,Si Pub- CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COG'
OR
7
i c P lo
11 i C at 0 rL 0 sald notice was h� i�e issue o- --�aid'l Seciton I.That It
does hereby grant a Map,
,11
Fed e, A.D., Amendment which rezones the subject parcel.
from the R-6 zone district to the 0(Office)zone
-district,pursuant 46,Section 24-7-1102 of the
Aspen Municipal Code
Section 2:A public hearing on the Ordinance,,
Shan be held on the 8th day ofA4ust.1994 at
5.00 P.M.in the City Council Chambers;Aspen,-
City Hall,Aspen,Colorado.Fifteen(I.5),d#jj,
prior to the hearing a pubilt notice'of the h6ag`
Ing shall bepublish6dida newspaper of gene'-
Subscribed and sworn to bciorc a notarl,
at circulation within-the City of Aspen.
public in and for the County of F-4kin, Stale Colorado, INTRODUCED..READ AND ORDERED PU&;
0i L hi:s Iq day of/�%,W, D., 1 USHED as provided by la-,by the City Cotincil
9 of the City of Aspen on,the 11th day of July,
1994.
John Bennett,Mayon
ATTEST:
N. ,ary Pul-,'�'c Kathryn S.Koch,City Clerk
T 'ary T'lui,
Published JnThe Aspen rimes July 15,1994.'�
!"'y con-Ln
L11 a
to
Vill
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Any Margerum, City Manage
F
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim City Planning Dire to
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE: July 11, 1994
RE: �Poppies 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-1970 ' s, 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.
T
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 , 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. lst
r°
r 2
ORDINANCE NO. 34
(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 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 .
John Bennett, Mayor
� ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
ord.cc.rezone.poppies
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 non-con-
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
,.r
Sunny ` n, AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
c:\bus\city.app\app22993.rez
EXHIBIT 1
City of Aspen
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Planndr Date
Project Re-zon
Applicants Representative I Af
Representative's Phone
Owner's Name
Type of Application P 70n11V ¢ 6tiM Frz,!�f�c�
Descri tion of the rojec develo ent being requested t - o CZ�-
r/ r a O�0 AF-6
fa /CZ i ri GL ie4n
.� / /
The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following
reports:
Land Use Code Section Comments
7 0
o c o FIE
20 view W—WZ-
Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) &Z and C
,t ��, ' Public Hearing: (yes (no) Oil )P-VZ 4i✓ CG
Deposit for the Application Review:
Referral agency flat fees: 96 - ifvtq/reeiii4
TOTALDEPOSIT 9t'oT
(Additional hours are billed at a rate of 163/hr.)
To Apply Submil the Following Infotluation:
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 $,2.
?/J .
C� 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 tire City of Aspen.
site plan shall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical
features (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.)
Q
10.
These items need to be submitted if circled:
List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses.
Site photos.
Proof of legal access to the parcel.
,2 Historic Preservation Commission review/approval.
Reeorct t
x337036 10/02/91 09:54 Rec $5.00 £+1:: 658 FG 102
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt� 1 �, Doc $60.00
Recept., �o.— -.
THIs DEED.Made this 1st dayof October ,19 91 , EXHIBIT 2
between WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and
CAROL HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL
I
Om ofthe
W Z C County of Pitkin and State of Colorado,ofthe first part,and
P4 H EARL JONES and- MIKEYHULL, Tenants in Common,
, as Jwhose legal address is C/O Poppies, 834'rW. Hallam,
���ttt tt,z�� Aspen, Colorado 81611
O Cx�ofthe County of Pitkin and State of
>4 Colorado,of the second part:
H WQ
U a WITNESSETH,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 1es of the first part in hand paid by said part y of the second part,the receipt whereof is
hereby confessed and acknowledged,havegronted,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 Harrell 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. z
v
b�Q also known as street and number 834 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 '
Z"n TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging,or in nnywise nm er-
I T twining,and the reversion and reversions,remainder and remainders,rents,issues and profits thereof,and all the p�
' n<.a' estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the said part ies of the first part,either in law•or N
� A equity.of,to and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. n
TO HAVE AND TO-HOLD the said premises above bargained and described mith the appurtenances,unt„ t,:•: N
Zsaid party of the second part,its heirs and assigns-forever. And the said part ies of the first part, y
for them sel ves heirs,executors,and administrators,:do: covenant,grant, bargain, and agree to and rt
with the said party ' ofthe second part,.'.itS.heirs.and.assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery p
ofthesepresents, are well seized ofthe premises above.conveyed.as of good,sure.perfect,absolute and D
indefeasible estate of inheritance,in law,in fee simple,and his.ve good right,full power and authority T
to grant,bargain,sell and convey the same in manner and form at-aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear n
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 a
Barrel, Inc. , and Mike Hull and Earl:Jones, recorded in Book 513
i at Page 418, records of Pitkin County, Colorado
and t he 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. j
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said part iesof the first part have hereunto set theilhand S
and seal S the day and year first above written.
i
(� .
it W L A. G NER �i
(SEAL)
P J. D
(SEAL)
li STATE OF COLORADO, HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL
IS.
Count of
The foregoing Instrument was� wled Red before me this / day of
1991 by WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka I;
n�7 4 OL DALE H�, �,.
Aly commiuion expires -� —`7 ^ ,19 t ness my hand an petal s h
- a�sr,l ,bhr. II
JAC-
!!'
No,9;71 W1tRRANPY DEED.—rur Pbetepsphls B,oare- Bndfwd Pabluhiss Ca.,Dom.Colmsds 11.79
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,
Michael Null
'14
Earl J nes
Poppies Bistro Cafe
834 West Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611 "
(303) 925-2333
c:\bus\city.1trVtr22993.kj2
EXHIBIT 5
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
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 APPLICANT
By: By:
Diane Moore Mailing Add ess:
City Planning Director
Date: 4/2 /C14
2
XHIBIT 6
'kLI A pole--•o .1 _ ,¢ `yP"'/°� �'
35;7• 6O QQ� X`X
o
� ��•`�• Z-s�q� ramp
� � buticli�
(� O
� O
a
SC OLI e:1 26 -4 _� a
n
dec
CL) / /
0 � v
Cf
.1 / JC 1��1t 1• 1
'• 1~0� k �� � - o� o
NOTES
0 - indicates found rebar and cap
0 - 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 Descri_otion: 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
i
By: ���•
Sydney: Lin come P.L.S. 14111
r
�rove'r�ev� Su.rIrve
Br LINES IN SPACE
SYDNEY L/NC/COME(L.S.14111)
BOX 121 CAH80NOAL C0L 0. 303-963-3852
1'? SCALE I 20'
I
I I
i PROPOSED ADDITION 1!;1 I
EXISTING UPPER FLOOR ' }
� a
iALLEY act
7TH STREET
JAKE VIC'.
PROPOSED SITE AND ROOF PLAN ""`'" ,.
m
X
00
r
------------- -----
j\ 0' �iF,► M.�
� I
I
I
i
j.l�/►N� � II II
I
I- I
fPPdSP-r7, ufMR AC'-'PinoN i cls-f Pffolz Lf-VEt-
x�sT►N Low)
]A[l VICC[lY
t�
011111
Efi
SOUTH ELEVATION
VI E ST E L EVAT I ON lAl""CK£RT
G.
NORTH ELEVATION
1 II
II �
;I
PIP
AST E!E'%-� - ! ON JAKE VICKERY
mom= .., ...
0
,/ � Nay. H�sra 'e� `.P� za{•\
Ews�lliw Via; I•�\��i�~tu�.\�` � -
j -Q rel
0
I�TI� PI'1�F}
1 �
'AKE VICKEKT
EX. SITE PLAN
I+
T Tr
1
EX BASEMENT PLAN
JAKE VICKERY
i ti-�N�H rNih� �zM ,
- - -- - - d
EX, LOWER PLAN
DARE VICK,RY
71
EX UPPER PLAN
;AKF VICKFKi
EX. SOUTH ELEVATION
r--
I
_.-_- .____._-- ----- -- _--- ---_ DACE VI[[ERV
EX WEST ELEVAT 19N ® d• �•
I
EX. NORTH ELEVATION
BARE�ICKEIIY
EX EAST ELEVATION
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.
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 SOCIATES
Sunny Va AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Michael Hull
Jake Vickery
cAbus\city.applapp22993.int
1 ^1
EXHIBIT 9
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
CODE INTERPRETATION
JIIRISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIO14 (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 t �
APPROVED BY: Diane Moore, City Planning 0irectoF \.
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 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 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
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 fain; ly 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 f or staff
to determine that a duplex FAR is appropriate for a single family
parcel in this district or this site. r
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
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
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 of the Land Uselunit,
Section 24-8-104 .A. 1.b. (3) 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
1
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
ohx a residential zone shall not exceed that which is set forth for an
allowed use on a specifically sized lot (notwithstanding other
4 cc provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for
o} J designated historic landmarks) . Staff believes that this provision
r� applies regardless of the use of the proposed additional FAR. In
�r1l, �.� 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
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.
1 '1
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
Landmark structure FAR bonus - 500 sa. ft.
41 ,7
(maximum granted by HPC)
421,145
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:
r 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 p R 1 T�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
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 Ri t-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
f►"f►f► /►�►I►�►!>G►1'/► 1111 / 1►/ 1
,�,�, 1' j' 1'1►1►1►/► ►1►/►:I:i►/►t�11►/►1►/►1►/►/►/ IN
■■ ■ ■ ■ _, w �.,j. l,./.,1'1'/'1►1►/-•►1►r►�►p t►�►.�I►/►/►/►/►p/►/►11111
►� 1., , 1 .1.1►ppp/►1►�►1►j►1►/►/►p/►1►1►/►/►/►/►/►1/ /
� SEES■t■■■■■■■■■■■■■►a ■■■■■■■■■■■ '_�/�■i � ��'� t ���''1''/''1'1'1'j'1►la .
a •1' 1'1'/'1►1►1►/►I � ��:
I■1EEE1■1N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r�■■■ii�
••S:C0 MEN:ONERMS:::::::::®::::_..■►..■■.,, �o �so� s 1'►1. ,� �,� ,
....MEN.NONE.■■.■■■� .... N■■■�ia momis
r 0 mom
a moons
.... ..... ...�.............C.....�.■SmNS■ I!
t ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■
0 ON■E■■E ■■E MEN■■v IEEE ,t j► x i is ;.,
�N■ESN■1■■■1NN■�i■■
• ■V■■N■■■i■■iN■�■■i■■■E i■ ■ 1M E ...M.E
ME No SENSE , I
siii iEN i. ii■ib�■M iN ■1C■111■.■!! ■
■CHEM 0 .N■
= !�'
y.
.+nu SEES■\■■■■■�� - , �1 i � • !:' �%ON 0
'����� /�� � ►' � /11� , .� � ram � ��a
I�� G `7► �►►� �I►�� � �� ' is►iii
G
�G�G' � 'GOG► 'G► ►�, �-�`•/ app y+y,:�, ►...:, . . � ,,,
� �`/�/1lIG/GIGS►�fj����VAV i e � � ���s7:: — �.
,►•�►/►/►/ 1111/
►a►/►/►/►/►.�►.1►111►1/ ��►�►`
�'/ 1►/►1►/1/ !►.i►///►//� 1►Iii
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" .
6
N
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
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
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
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
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
i
EXHIBITS:
A- Application information
B- City Engineer referral comments
C- Vicinity map
6
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 non-con-
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
.' 1
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.
"posed 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
*brawings). -unit will be located above the,restaurant's kitchen, and accessed via
a ti&w,exterior stairway located adjacent 4to the a ey 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
L)
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
low
Sunny n, AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
c:\bus\dty.app\app22993.rez
EXHIBIT 1
City of Aspen
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Mavv
Plann r Date
Project
Applicants RepresentaVe v!
Representative's Phone
Owner's Name
Type of Application P�eOZOn//tg ¢ AMC F_AVLtq 7tol
Descri Lion of the project/develophlent being requested . s Z - O c
,rj r
fo /cZ i ri
e rA4 lewI7
/ /
The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following
reports:
Land Use Code Section Comments
7—/lOa hlzadl�V fo D> �y �Lca� 4 �•t�.t t
geolYfitz,9d —1—//0.3 Z-//01.
✓I/J�CQ tD
Referral Agencies The review is: (P&Z only) (CC only) &Z and C
Public Hearing: )P"Z a CC—
Deposit for the Application Review: t
Referral agency flat fees: 576�- P/ r2ei/its_
TOTALDEPOSIT Vcnn ,:Z 15
(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 n_utTiber of the representative.
Total deposit for review of the application $,Z?/S .
t 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 11" 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.)
Q a c�� d fat P .rk�/ CoE2P ,QpoM s
10.
These items need to be submitted if circled:
t List of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with addresses.
�k( Site photos.
Proof of legal access to the parcel.
,21; Historic Preservation Commission review/approval.
#337036 10/02/91 09:54 Rec- $5.00 DK 658 P6 102
Recorded at_
Recepti 'o__ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt� le-'f, Doc $60.00
THIS DEED,Made this } 1St day of October ,19 91 , EXHIBIT 2
between WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and
CAROL HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL
I7
O M of the
W C]'Z.C Countyof Pitkin and State of Colorado,of the first part,and
fL�+ EARL JONES and MI10EtiHULL, Tendnts in Common,
�whose legal address is c/o Poppies, 834''W. Hallam,
As en, Colorado 81611
O �i�ofthe Co ntyof Pitkin and State of
>1 Colorado,of the second part:
H W �
U �a H'ITNESSETH,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 parties 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
Countyof 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. '3
p� also known as street and number 834 West Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Z a TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging,or in anywise upper- rD i C.
(] taining,and the reversion and reversions,remainder and remainders,rents,issues and profits thereof,and all the Q
d
(1-1 estate,right,title,interest,claim and demand whatsoever of the said part ies of the first part,either in law or
rD
_ LU equity,of,in and to the above bargained premises,with the hereditaments and appurtenances. n
°t TO HAVE AND'TO*HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances,unto iF. Ili
said party of the second part,itS heirs and asaignrforever. And the said part ley of the first part. a)
for them sel ves heirs,executors,and ad mini strators;;do: covenant,grant, bargain, and agree to and r
0 with the said party of the second part,74 its.heirs,and.assigns,that at the time of the ensealing and delivery 0
of these presents, are well seized 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
j! to grant,bargain,sell and convey the same in manner,and form as aforesaid,and that the same are free and clear n
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. a G. Golden 0.
Barrel, Inc. , and Mike'Hull and Earl Jones,'•recorded in Book 513
at Page 418, records of Pitkin County, Colorado
and Elie 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 of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said part ies.of the first part ha ve hereunto set theiahand S
and seal S the day and year first above written.. .
I
i'
(SEAL
G NER
(SEAL)
(SEAL) j
I; STATE OF COLORADO, l HALL aka CAROL DALE HALL
Countyofff� tV
The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this lc day of
199 1 by WILLIAM A. GILNER, PIETRO J. DANIELI, and CAROL HALL aka I;
CttOL DALE .
lily commission expires 5 -� .19 1 ness my hand an ieial
I!
C CRY
--
No,A71 WARRANTY DEED.—For Fholosr.phl.R—,d— Bndfwd FuW{.hlss Ca,D.o .Cow d.11.90 .,
.V)
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,
W—h k, '4 1
Michael Aull
n
Earl J nes
Poppies Bistro Cafe
834 West Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2333
cAbus\dty.1tNtr22993.kj2
EXHIBIT 5
ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and -STCfo
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 41V eD
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, PLICANT 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 APPLICANT
By: By: W -A ' i�
Diane Moore Mailing Add ess:
City Planning Director
Date• .�21 /
2
XHIBIT 6
0 n 60.0<),
35.7,
� � battalL�
a
41 o
a
o
'*'U
Scal e:1"=20 � o
n
M� dec
W ' r'
O
0-
�,� ac
Lr 0 C
h;
(q,,k Sir
ee� �
NOTES
p - 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 Z
i
i
By:
Sydney Lin come P.L.S. 14111
er::rr;
^,rove eve S+��rve
83
'VL o
BY. /NES IN SPACE
NEY L/NC/COME(L.S.14111)
ESYD
121 CAHBONDALE COLO. 303-963-3852
A Aq431 SCA LE:I°= 20'
I i �
I!� I
PROPOSED ADDITION �
I
{I I I III I I II I i l IV I II I�I,I EXISTING UPPER FLOOR i
�I I
ALLEY ' i I IIIiI I I I II I I 2
I I �
;
7TH STREET
JAKE Y'
PROPOSED SITE AND ROOF PLAN
m
X
Q7
i
,
krr
yIV1�yL1 � II .
i
pRo{�os�t� uPt'ER l�s�InaN � �I�fiG q�'�� L�YEI.
�xIS71N l,ow�t� �u�V CP��t,owj
�����✓� �� �� `��� ��� y . � )ALE VICKEIT
I Ili
1111 I II
n
SOUTH ELEVATION
In'
IL impala
-
��
r--- I
(ARE VICRERY
WEST E L EVnT I ON
G
NORTH ELEVATION r ,
_ I
I i II j l
I I
_.y�T E L C`% JAKE VICKEET
0
L
0
ZV' -- -
I�^"flet♦ Pr1zk
)AKE VICKERY
EX. SITE PLAN
�k
ICI
I
i
carw�sincs I sa r�Hau. '.I cva.w ss�- � .
t
JL
EX BASEMENT PLAN
JAKEVIICKERY
EX. LOWER PLAN
< e i is _
LAKE VICKEKY
Ian
i
EX UPPER PLAN
JAKE VICKEKT
"7�
EX.SOUTH ELEVATION
7 5
r_
¶
`6FVs I
.fin..
..- -.-_.----___-- - -- JAKE VICKEKY
EX WEST ELEVAT 19N ® ��
I-7 Ili
I
i
EX. NORTH ELEVATION
JAKE VICKERY
EX EAST
ELEVATION
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.
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 SOCIATES
Sunny Va AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Michael Hull
Jake Vickery
c:\bus\city.app\app22993.int
"r
EXHIBIT 9
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
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 t
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 , 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. affordable housing unit pursuant to GMLQS 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 desi. nated 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
r
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. r
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
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
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.
/,j 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� ce provisions allowed by the code, ie. incentives/bonuses for
�o}VOS 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
similar situation to this request,
3 ,240 sq. ft. In 1991, in a
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. p
Landmark structure FAR bonus - 500 sq. ft.
4 6 07
(maximum granted by HPC)
2
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
jLt
outlined in the AACP. PR b nCS 1
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 l:�
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 Ri t-of-waX - 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
.M
, ,,aa / ► � /i��•Iii/ �►
► � 1/' ►� 111 � [��`►` i 11�►�!�
��' a, ' / .�\\\_. � �,�/►1/1111!!11.;1;�S�
iJ���11�'"■\ 1101►Gi1►U1//►1 11111 �1 t.,
7.���;�!-� .�_.I� � ►�/ ► ►,111/1►11//11►U4�►
.■�� �rI �. t � ,Op��►'�►//1/1/1►//1►/►U��
� `;',",■�,,, . • '►.,►� ►1►1►04►9►/►10 1111
jai � ►a s -6Z! I /I�r s�... a►1►1►/1►'► 1.11111
tBrawl it
imp =�1 i� w�..�i � I X41►�.���-�►��►i �1�/�1�//►�/�1�, d
_•. vim p has �Irr7/� C��IIIU/V•1 @� •1���1�1►1►1��/�`/►►i►///1`7
ry� 1wiM �
•ui �. �/►/►.a�I�+�h1�a1►/� ►/1/►117► /►i/►I
au:.,■s■� 11►1►/►�1 1►/►1/ ►'111► ► 1'1
�.:,;-r,Y sa» ► /► ►, 1►/I�� 111 // ►1� II j II
• . i� /s' ..i - RM01 iv- -■ �. 1►1►/►1►1 1 ,,11111
Wiis_ �i"� ;' ` ' !►j/ ICU a►�1��► � ►�►►1
OR- 1-hiQ� �i �� ,lair
NOR
�E,r ■ � �� �1► .V' ►/ ( ►y
owns Sol
FARP.MON, ESC ■r� _ � � S�► a ► � ►
OAF
SOMME■■■■E■■■E■■r■;
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w
+� :. •�� .� try �!1� '�!�� ', - �• ' �■C■C■CNOOSE■CCCC■C■C■C■■E■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■i■iE■■
Ci ii■ Ciiii iiiiM MESiiiiii .
■.
�E:, . - e / -., z •�� _ � ■■■■■�l■■C■■E■■■■■■O■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■M■■■
■■■mass ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ INS■MEMO■■■■■■■M■■MI
■■■CIE ME MM EMMEMC MEMO■■■■■■E■■■■■■ME■■■■■E
!fie ," ■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■O■■■■■■E■■E■■E
a■■■u■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E
MEMO
MEEMN
s �� �. •
« a1� � �'1' ''► ACC■�� .■M■■'■■ E ■■EE■E
11 NOOSE C/ ■■■■�■■■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■s■■ ■MEMO■mom■ M■■E
-■ - r�►�l�j�1�1�� �,._ ■ ► ■■■MEMO■■■■■■■■■■uE■■■E■EO■■■■■M■E■O■■E
G ' i•M j��1��'��''�''�'' ''�� ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■■■I
1, 1, /, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 ,c r ► ■■■�� ,■■E■■mom■■■■■ ■■E■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■E
�►a.�.�. �►.�.►.�.►.► . . . . j 1 1' / 1 / 1 1' 1 ► - ► ■■■■■ ■■■O■■ ■■■■■EE■E■■MOO■ EOM■I
►1111 1111711/44//O�/�/�/X14�/�!r�1�j��,j. j. 1. j. � •„ � �
�1��►�//►�/�/�►�/�/�/�/,�/,�/,�/�1�►�1,,�I���Ij,1,�,1,�1,j/,j,1,1��, �� .� ► � t,. =� C■■u■C■■■■■■C■■■EC■■■E■■■■■■C■■ME
i1►/►�/ //�/ /�►�►�t�+/,�3.�/F.;F,!�.1,�1 x,1,',1, ,1, 1, 1 ■
mom
Villa,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage
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 (9 7 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.
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 sq. ft.
Remaining FAR 260 sq. ft.
Landmark structure FAR bonus - 500 sq. 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 01:34P[,1 'vnNM 311MEW:� COOK P.2
EXHIBIT A
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
October 21, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms.Kim Johnson
Aspery tldn 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 far 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 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 EiNbit 2.
Background
As we have discussed,the Applicant would life 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.2.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 1.,Block 10, City and'T'ownsite of Aspen
(see Exhibit 3, Improvement Survey). 'T'he 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 81311 -30"25-6958-Fax 303/9201-9310
MAR 23 '94 01:35PM VANN SUMMERS COOK P.3
Ms.Kim Johnson
October 21, 1993
Page z
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 cdoing structure,the addition's archi-
tectural design will be previewed 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 looted 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-oonforniiug 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(2,950)square feet,insufficient
Door 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 oonverted 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 5-201.1 ,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.14.). 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.
MAR 23 '94 01::35PM ANN SUMMERS COOK P.4
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 IEPC,its compatibility with bath 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 far
the proposed affordable housing unit. An additional flour area bonus of approximately
three hundred and fifty (350) square feet will be requested from the HFC 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 far 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,
VAZM1N SOCZATES
Sunny Va AICP
S*til:cwv
cc: Michael dull
Jake Vickery
�1b�ssle�tY.�.pP1ap�22993,int
EXHIBIT B.
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE
CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
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 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 desilgnated 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
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.
i
2
FEg 1 7199t1
EXHIBIT C
I A K E
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:
1. 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.
11. 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 ) 925 - 3660
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+reside ntial)
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 ara 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
2
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,
0 a •
Jake Vickery
3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: POPPIES BISTRO CAFE AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT
]LAP 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 0, 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
SLJohn Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City council
Published in the Aspen Times on August 26, 1994
City of Aspen Account
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?
lh,' f.Nrl uV N\ <'ly l{:111�Ia ✓l E1 �- CC (' j F�C.J \:
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,
/viLt�
Deborah DuBord
Office Manager
apz.p6
61
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
51 - I
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
JBruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 22 , 1994
City of Aspen Account
1
I