HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.411 E Main St.A90-92
,
?-,
~:
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 12)04/92
DATE COMP~ETE:__t1 {~
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-073-30-002 A90-92
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: ~ficC~~~iRa n~~ta~raRt Text Amendment for aDen Snace
project Address: 411 E. Main st.. Asoen.CO 81611
Legal Address: Lots A. B. C & D. Block 87. city and Townsite of
Asoen
APPLICANT: The Cantina Restaurant/Chitwood Plaza Company
REPRESENTATIVE: Bob Huqhes, Oates. Huqhes & Knezevich. P.C.
Representative Address/Phone: 533 E. Hookins Avenue
Aspen. CO 81611 0-1700
;;;;7=~~~~~~~======i=;~~==lq~~====~=~~~~:;~~~~~~~:===;=======
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $1002
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:
1 STEP:
1'77(0
^ 'n
./ {'''.
'To--:~'
10 & (p
4).,/,O(P'l~ -"'-u d
2 STEP:~
P&Z Meeting Date ~~
PUBLIC HEARING:~ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: ~,~ NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING:
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
YES
NO
NO
\
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
>< City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
city Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
, \
DATE REFERRED: /2-/2>1) H2.
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
x
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space ~.oard
Other 71fc-~)
Other
DUE: I If '5/'1 '2..
x
INITIALS:
-,.r, )
<.,~ 1'..
{;"" 'w
------------------------------------------.----------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
_ City Atty
_ Housing
_ city Engineer
_ Open Space
_Zoning _Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
"-.
.
17ft ~
tr~ ~1>)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Diane Moore, city Planning Director
/-/
/
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE:
Trellis Addition at The cantina Restaurant
uL
(A
DATE:
May 4, 1993
-----~-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: . The Applicant seeks to add a trellis in the open space
adj acent to the Cantina Restaurant. The HPC has approved the
design of the structure. This proposal meets the criteria of the
newly adopted code changes allowing trellises in open spaces for
commercial restaurants and may be approved by the Planning
Director.
APPLICANTS: The cantina Restaurant, represented by Bob Hughes
LOCATION/ZONING: 411 E. Main. The site is zoned CC (Commercial
Core)
BACKGROUND: The cantina Restaurant had to remove the tall trees
in their outdoor dining courtyard after insects became a problem
in the trees. The property owner, Chitwood Plaza Company, joined
the cantina in SUbmitting a code amendment which would allow
overhead structures in required open spaces in conjunction with
commercial restaurants. The code amendment was reviewed by the HPC
and the P&Z in February and March of 1993. City Council adopted
the text amendment on April 26, 1993.
REFERRALS: Planning staff met with city Engineer Chuck Roth to
review the proposal. Chuck approves of the project as it does not
encroach into public right-of-way and causes no rainshed problems
on the sidewalk. The sidewalk in front of Chitwood Plaza is heated
so no ice is able to form.
On April 2S, 1993, the HPC reviewed the trellis design and approved
the project as proposed.
STAFF DISCUSSION: The code amendments ratified by Ordinance 9,
1993 allow the Planning Director to approve trellises in required
open spaces for use by commercial restaurants only on Historic
Landmark Designated properties or within Historic Overlay
Districts. These structures shall not be counted as FAR, nor will
open space be reduced. The following criteria are now codified
into section S-104.A.I.a. (1):
"
When a trellis structure is proposed within an open space
area, it shall be demonstrated that the structure:
. '
a) is not enclosed by walls, screens, windows or other
enclosures; and
b) shall maintain 50% of the overhead structure open to
the sky; and
c) is designed and maintained so that snow does not
accumulate to form a closed roof-like cover.
The proposed trellis clearly meets standard (a). At the HPC
meeting on April 28, the project architect Kim weil clarified that
the structure is 60% open to the sky between the wood lattice work,
thus standard (b) is satisfied. Regarding standard (c), the
Applicant has committed to keep the structure free of excessive
snow build-up which would create a solid "roof" over the open
space.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director
approve the Cantina Restaurant trellis addition as presented in the
application and as approved by the HPC. The fOllowing condition
should apply:
1) All material representations made by the applicant in the
application shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
I hereby approve the Cantina Restaurant trellis as presented in the
application and as approved by the HPC subject to the above
condition.
~t\ - . ~
Dia~ City PlannIng Director
5 j&Jq3>
D te
ATTACHMENTS:
"A" Application sketches of trellis
2
,- , '
IJI'r"'~-'"
II ;' l' Ii -"W """"'ifc-"pr n_ '
! ==-=="'=f~"'-~---- II I:: Ii iLr~,-.:JII 11~ : I;:' n:
I " .--.. '111' '1"" - -ll~ -. ~~. . I' t 'I .
, ; '" , ','" 'I ' ,I' ,,-" "
[tlJE-_..__Ji J ~ LL..l-_~ ]Il'
-- _...~
"
~~-t .~..
"'~" )
",.' '''/
t-: ./
" .
,':-
,..:4-_,
/.,,1.)-
" .~
..(~,
'C~~1 ,I
~~"'- \
l~
I
I
\ /
III I
\\ \r
,.: ):
I.. ~
'\ I!~
III
n \I
() \.
C":I c,
::r "
'(~'
d\
t- '.{\
I u' M
\{\ _~, I-
I.: ( f
I; rtl I~
," ,)
;" L \~J
\' I:
t'J I ,:
(.') r \\",
~t -t "i
~r: ;11
.t.-
~
- . -'"
: In
ill ·
"
=
'~~..'
1~~
~ii,
~1l .. ,. .
I.~,.... "f --r;~l-~:i~:=I',';~mw~~'::~. }~r1' '; ,i
.' '.'1 i, L. 'n-.:, :.,hmlm lit' L ..J...'...,.t::: __. . ~'f'
. .. '1l#i#iIlJill.'Ulttr.L- = ~--===-..l.'r---
I · l~lilm}tljjl1' ~ ~ .. I ......
.11~1..ii!r',! i~. ,~'v">'!!YI""'!"1 >
. ~ - ~~~tl_-=1~-l
;. 1'1 1 I
-"1'1. '0 II \
! /1,\ H \ II t. .
' I I,....~ '\; ,,/i I I f=-
-""'I'~"I'" -.::::....~; I L\
: .' . --1':::""- i
!II ------ ~.I
~ '\ " " f _ I . l ,.f! I
~.." "~,, ' ~- ~ ~ ,I l~ l;!!~:
.~"".",-...,. f- .. .'J
0."'-\. . . _ :
. '- '--
-'. "-
. . \., "~'"
" . --
. /
/
/
I
.L i1U
Ibl.ll _I ill __1-
~ .
I
I ::
,
, .'
, I
i.
!\r'l -r
! , , I II
! i\
, I I
1
, II I I
1 I' I,
I II
I
I +-
I \L
I ..
; . ., "
I .
--
. ,!
,I) I ,
. I I
. lq= I
. ~9~.~T. ~ I I .
I
'~r':':Ju!'T"" I I
; "] .JLlfJ ~if~] .
" TOLJJJL ..... J I
: fit;TI:-it:if:"'1
' ..~. .:1 iF-
<n~
u~q1L
ll1R~~r '__
"-~ --
..
;a~~:- ~_. .... ,~
' l.. ~ ..
. . . ., -
. "lLlJ _ .. .. ..., ,
u t!
~~ ~+
1:"<l" __
~ ;;:
'8
~~
~t
L~
r-
...
..........
'.
,,/'
/'
/
/
/
r"',
~
MEMORANDUM
VII d
FROM:
Mayor and City Council f\l~ ~
Amy Margerum, City Manager~~~ /
Diane Moore, city Planning Direc or
Kim Johnson, Planner
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
April 26, 1993
RE:
Text Amendment for Open Space and GMQS Exemption sections
of the Municipal Code Allowing Trellis Structures in
Required Open Spaces as a Planning Director Approval
Second Reading of Ordinance 9, Series 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning staff has revised the proposed text
amendments after its March 22, 1993 discussions with City Council.
At that meeting, staff presented al ternati ves to the proposed
amendments forwarded by the Planning and Zoning commission and the
Historic Preservation Committee. The Council agreed with the
concepts of calling these overhead outdoor structures "trellises",
limiting trellises to commercial restaurants on Historic Landmarks
or Historic Overlay parcels, and allowing Planning Director
approval of these structures upon HPC design approval.
Council asked for further clarification of the proposal by the
Parks Department. On April 1, George Robinson responded that "the
Parks Department rarely reviews or regulates amenities in private
open space". Staff also checked with the Building Department
regarding snow-loading regulations for trellises in hopes of
finding a cut-off point for limiting structural coverage. The
Uniform Building Code only addresses agricultural shade structures,
and applies snow load requirements for plastic covered structures,
ie. greenhouses. Due to the lack of regulatory or empirical data,
staff decided to look at snow loading and trellis coverage as a
maintenance issue. One of the proposed criteria requires "design
and maintenance "so that snow does not accumulate to form a closed
roof-like cover."
First reading of ordinance 9, 1993 was approved on April 12, 1993.
BACKGROUND: The text amendment is being proposed by the chitwood
Plaza Company, on behalf of The cantina Restaurant. proj ect
representative is Bob Hughes. In 1992 the Cantina experienced a
severe aphid infestation in the trees on the dining patio next to
the building. They decided to remove the trees rather than
continue battling the problem given the horticultural constraints
of the site. In place of trees in the. courtyard, the cantina would
like to erect an trellis structure to provide visual interest to
1
/
.r"",.
.,.-,
the space and to allow for intermittent rain protection in the
summer.
The Land Use Code definition is very specific in its current
language prohibiting this type of structure in "Open Space":
" . . . any portion of a parcel or area of land or water
which is ooen or unobstructed from the ground to the skv
(with the exception of permitted architectural
projections, such as building eaves, above ground level)
and shall include areas maintained in a natural or
undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools,
plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar
areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings."
Currently, the code allows the P&Z to approve reductions in open
space through Special Review and cash-in-lieu payment.
The applicant submitted new language
definition of "Open Space", section 3-101.
would read:
for inclusion in the
This text as proposed
"open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections,
such as building eaves, above ground level and trellis-like
structures approved for use in connection with a commercial
restaurant under Subsection J, below.) and shall include areas
maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
Subsection J of 3-101 would be changed to read:
"J. Commercial Restaurant Use. ...required open space may be
used for commercial restaurant use if, the commission shall
determine that such use is compatible with or enhances the
purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained.
Additionally, following application and approval under the
provision of Section 7-401, et seq. and, as applicable in the
case of historic bJlildings, review and approval by the HPC,
trellis or similar overhead structures with supporting members
designed to give some protection from the elements may be
installed in required open space in conjunction with
commercial restaurant uses where the effect thereof (1) does
not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the
street at the pedestrian level, (2) maintains visual relief
from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (3) does not
2
r'\
ro...
otherwise adversely affect the pUblic's enjoyment of the open
space."
CURRENT ISSUES: The proposed text amendment will only affect
commercial restaurants on parcels which have Historic Landmark
designation or are within an Historic Overlay (the Main street
Historic overlay and the Commercial Core Historic overlay are the
predominate areas of applicability).
Depending on the size, location, and impact of a trellis, the HPC
would review any proposal as a Minor review (one-step) or a
Significant review (two step with public hearing). The criteria
used by the HPC in considering trellis development include
character compatibility with the historic structure or neighboring
structures, enhancement of cultural value of the subject parcel or
adjacent parcels, and enhancement of the architectural integrity
of the historic structure.
The HPC and the Planning and Zoning commission believe that the new
text should apply to any open space, not only commercial outdoor
dining. However, as a conservative measure, only commercial
restaurants should be able to utilize trellises in open space, at
least to start.
It is important to emphasize that required open space is not
required to be occupied by the general public. The main goal of
open spaces per the code is to provide relief from the mass of
buildings, and to provide opportunities for landscaping and other
streetscape amenities.
Staff and the commission find that the review standards for text
amendments are met by this proposal. Complete review criteria and
responses are attached as Exhibit "B". Referral comments from
Engineering, HPC and Parks are attached as Exhibit "C".
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None are anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Councils discussions with staff and
the Applicant, the proposed code text changes are:
section 3-101. "Definitions" as used in this chapter.
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or .unobstructed from the ground to the sky
with the exception of permitted architectural projections such
as building eaves or trellis structures as further described
in subparagraph "J" below, and shall include areas maintained
in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation
areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and
similar areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings."
3
~
'-'.
[Subparagraphs A. through J. are unchanged.]
J. Commercial Restaurant Use. The provisions of subparagraph
I above notwithstanding, required open space my be used for
commercial restaurant use if the commission shall determine
that such use is compatible with or enhances the purposes of
the open space requirements and that adequate pedestrian and
emergency vehicle access will be maintained. Trellis
structures shall only be proposed in conjunction with
commercial restaurant uses on a designated Historic Landmark
or within (HI Historic overlay zones and must be approved by
the Historic Preservation committee pursuant to review
requirements contained in Article 7, Division 6 of Chapter 24
of the Aspen Munioipal Code and the Planning Director pursuant
to Section 24-8-104 A.1.a. (1). Such approved structures shall
not be considered additional floor area ratio (FAR) or reduoe
open space on the parcel.
Section 8-104.A.1.a.(I) "GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director"
A. Exemption by planning director.
1. General. Development which the planning director shall
exempt shall be as follows:
a. Remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of
existing building.
(1) The remodeling, restoration, or
reconstruction of an existing commercial, lodge
or mUlti-family building or the addition of a
trellis structure to a commercial restaurant
use which does not expand commercial or office
floor area or create additional dwelling, hotel
or lodge units or involve a change in use. No
bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored or
reconstructed unless it has first been
legalized pursuant to section 5-510. To obtain
approval to recohstruct demolished commercial
or office floor area, the applicant shall
demonstrate that affordable housing and parking
is provided for the reconstructed floor area
as if it were newly constructed space. When
a trellis structure is proposed within an open
space area, it shall be demonstrated that the
structure: a) is not enclosed by walls,
screens, windows or other enolosures; and b)
shall maintain 50% of the overhead structure
open to the sky; and c) is designed and
maintained so that snow does not accumulate to
form a closed roof-like cover.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to deny the proposal, alter
4
~.
r'\
.
the review criteria, or allow these structures in more or fewer
locations.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on second reading ordinance
9, Series 1993 amending the definition of open space (Section 24-
3-101) and GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director (Section 24-8-
104.A.l.a.(I) to allow trellis structures in required open spaces
for commercial restaurants on a Designated Historic Landmark or in
an Historic Overlay zone."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance 9, Series 1993
"A" - Application
"B" - Review criteria / Responses for Text Amendments
"c" - Referral Comments
5
~,
~ty Council hhfhft A-
Approved , 11
By Ordinance
CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY
106 S. Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-
March 9, 1993
"
Aspen City Council
130 So. Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Proposed Text Amendment to Dermition of "Open Space"
Dear Councilmembers:
Following last evening's "informal" Council discussion on our proposed textual
change to the definition of .open space" and in advanCe of the first reading of the ordinance
scheduled for Monday, March 22, please remember and consider that:
First, .open space" as used in.the code is primarily an architectural or design
concept to assure visual relief from the mass. of buildings and. an open view to and from the
street at the pedestrian level. To this extent, open space is distinguished from other
requirements imposed in connection with land use approvals for buildings, such as parks which,
although they, too, provide visual relief from the mass of buildings, serve primarily a public
recreational, as opposed to architectural design, function. Parks belong to the public but there
is nothing in the code that prohibits the private .use of privately-owned open space. Under
certain circumstances, restaurants are entitled to extend their operations into the open space.
Second, in practical effect the only thing we are seeking to do by the proposed
amendment is to adjust the existing constraint in the. code that open space must be open or
unobstn<<:tedfrom the ground to the sky. Nothing by the proposed amendment would affect in
any manner whatsoever the essential qualitative features of open space - i. e., providing visual
relief from the mass of buildings and being open to view to and from the street at the pedestrian
level. The proposed amendment makes this expressly clear. Indeed, the entire thought behind
our proposal is that the requirement of UlWbstn<<:ted from the ground to the sky is artificially and
unduly stifling in that, while it doubtless assures a break in the mass of buildings and an open
view from the street at the pedestrian level, it admits of no other landscaping techniques which,
not only could be equally as successful at breaking the mass of buildings and preserving an open
view, but have the potential of making the public's perception of the open space area far more
enjoyable. The fact that such techniques might also serve to allow the open space to function
~.
~
legalized pursuant to section 5-510. To obtain
approval to reconstruct demolished commercial
or office floor area, the applicant shall
demonstrate that affordable housing and parking
is provided for the reconstructed floor area
as if it were newly constructed space. When
a trellis structure is proposed within an open
space area, it shall be demonstrated that the
structure: a) is not enclosed by walls,
screens, windows or other enclosures; and b)
shall maintain 50% of the overhead structure
open to the sky; and c) is designed and
maintained so that snow does not accumulate to
form a closed roof-like cover.
section 3:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or. amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
section 5:
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held on the
day of
1993 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen city
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing
of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by'
4
^
r'\
better for the benefit of the property owner only makes the situation olle of "win-win." In the
case of a restaurartt, there is just so much one can do creatively or functionally with umbrellas.
Third, with regard to the concern with the "looseness" of the language in the
proposed amendment - e.g. what is meant by a "landscape structure?" and shouldn't we better
describe or identify what we mean? etc. - our thinking is that so 10llg as what is proposed to be
incorporated into the open space serves to break the mass of bUildings, ~sures an open view to
and from the street at the pedestrian level, and does not partake of the features of an enclosed
artificially lit room while, at the same time, enhancing the public's enjoyment of the open space
through more creative landscaping, etc., who cares what it is called? In our view, the more
labels and standards that get set the greater the danger of. retarding creative thought. Once
again, so long as the end product functions as open space by breaking the mass of buildings and
preserving an open view for the pedestrian public, do we really need more standards?
Fourth, with regar~ to the concern for streamlining governmental processes, it is
noteworthy that in their very affirmative endorsement of the proposed amendment, the HPC
members all were anxious for the opportunity to participate in the review process. Similarly, in
its unanimous approval of the amendment, the P & Z membership (with the exception of one
member who preferred review only at the staff level) also wanted actively to participate in the
review. There simply was no grumbling at these levels of an already "too full plate." From
the standpoint of the public's perspective, the proposed amendment does not contemplate adding
another layer of governmental review to an already permitted activity for which, undoubtedly,
there would be numerous complaints; rather, under the prop<>sed amendment, no one is exposed
to governmental review who has not first made the conscious decision to do something new and
not currently permitted with his or her open space. If streamlining is to be the objective, that
can always be accomplished through other legislative techniques without "killing" the whole
concept - i.e. a limitation on the number of applications that can be made in .a given period,
deadlines for applying, etc. Needless to say, we would have no objection were the decision
made to require review of a given application only at the staff level. However, it would be
disingenuous of us not to mention at the same time that the P & Z and HPC members seemed
genuinely interested in participating in the review of any such applications.
We urge a favorable first reading of the proposed ordinance so that public uebate
on the matter might then occur. We strongly believe that this proposal carries with it a great
opportunity, to the benefit of all, for the creative and talented architects that we have in this
town to do really exciting things with an under-utilized feature of the architecture of our newer
constructed or renovated buildings. .
Thank you for your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Chitwood Plaza Company _
BY~) u~
Donald J. Fleisl%r
,-'
1'""'\.
LAW. OFFICES OF
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
T"'U~O FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA 8UILDING
Le:ONAftP . "':0"" TES
ftoeER'TW. HaCHES
RteHARO A. KNEZEVICH
533 EAST HOp:KINS AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 816n
AREA GaDE 303
TELEPHONE $20"700
TELECOPleR .:20'11:21
TED O. GAftOE:NSWARTZ
November 24, 1992
Otr COti"'SE~
~NN ToHOMAS KELLY
AspenlPitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen,CO 81611
Attention: Kim Johnson
Re: Request for Textual Change to Def'mition of Open Space
Dear Kim:
We herewith submit the following to supplement the application for the. above-
referenced request:
Request
This application requests the following textual amendments to the land use
regulations of the City of Aspen:
First, add to the end of the parenthetical in the second and third line of the
definition of open space in Section 3-lOlon page 1588 of the Land Use Regulations of the City
of Aspen (Land Use Code), the following:
* * * and trellis-like structures approved for use in
connection with a commercial restaurant under
Subsection J, below.
Second, add to the end of Subsection 1 to the definition of open space in Section
3-101 on page 1589 of the Land Use Code, the following:
Additionally, following application and approval
under the provisions of Section 7-401, et seq. and,
as applicable in the case of historic buildings,
review and approval by the HPC, trellis or similar
overhead structures with supporting members
designed to give some protection from the elements
r'\
,-."
OATES. HUGHES 8: KNEZEVICH, P. C.
AspenIPitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim 10hnson
Page 2
December 4, 1992
may be installed in required open space in
conjunction with commercial restaurant uses where
the effect thereof (1) does not appreciably impact the
view into the open space from the street at the
pedes~ level, (ii) maintains visua].relief from the
mass of adj~nt buildings, and (iii) does not
otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoymeJlt of
the open space. .
Background
This request is made on behalf of The Chitwood Plaza Company, a Colorado
geJleral partnership, the owner of The Cantina Restaurant located at 411 East Main Street,
Aspen. .
The Cantina Restaurant contains approximately 4,207 square feet of indoor space
and 759 square feet in a courtyard between the restaurant and the .walkway that affords acceSs
to and egress from the Pour La France restaurant next door.' The indoor capacity of the
restaurant, disbursed among 34 tables, is 130 people. The courtyard accommodates 7 tables
with seating for 30 individuals.
Presently, during the summer months only, the courtyard is used to accommodate
diners, This use of the courtyard has never resulted in an actual increase in the number of
dining patrons. Rather, when weather pennits, diners tend to fill up the courtyard first and,
thereafter, begin seating inside. . Never in the history of the restaurant operation have both the
courtyard and the inside seating been filled to capacity.
Initially, shade from the sun in the courtyard area was afforded through several
large potted trees. These proved to be unworkable because of aphid infestation and were
replaced with umbrellas. . A trellis-like iapparatus, along the lines of that shown on the
accompanying drawings, in place of the umbrellas would not only accommodate and preserve
the essential qualities of open space but will result in far preferable aesthetics from the
pedestrian level than the several umbrellas. An umbrella is just that - an umbrella. Its use is
essentially restricted to function. . As the accompanying drawings show, a trellis or similar
apparatus can be made architecturally far more compatible with surrounding buildings, can better
accommodate a. more sophisticated landscape plan and can, thus, enhance the open space
experience for the public. .
,-,
,"-'
OATES. HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P; G.
AspenlPitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 3
November 24, 1992
Review Standards
The review standards set forth in the Land Use Code for map or textual
amendments to Chapter 24 appear to relate primarily to map amendments. In any event, with
. respxt to those review standards' we offer the following:
a. Whether the propo~ amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portion of Chapter 24;
Response: The proposed amendment seeks to expand features that might
be incorporated into required open space and, to that extent, conflicts with
existing provisions (i.e. Section 3-101, definition of oPen space, subpart
J thereof) in this regard. We have been unable to find any other portions
or provisions of Chapter 24 withwhich the proposed amendment conflicts.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Yes
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and
neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The proposed amendment contemplates review and approval
under Section 7-401, et seq. of the Land Use Code which will insure
compatibility of any use proposal with existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics. '
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Response: The proposed amendment seeks only to expand features that
might be incorporated into required open space, not to eliminate open
space, and only after special review approval. The proposed amendment
would not appear to have any impact whatsoever on traffic generation, and
.-.,
.1"'"'\
OATES. HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. c.
Aspen!Pitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 4
November 24, 1992
any effect upon road safety in a given instance could be addressed during
special review.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed lUllendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to
which the proposed lUllendment 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 proposed amendment would not result in any increased
demands upon public facilities.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed lUllendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Response: The proposed amendment seeks only to expand features that
might be incorporated into required open space within building improved
environments, as opposed to the natural environment; Moreover, the
proposed amendment would facilitate more ambitious landscape plans
within required open space and conduce the incorporation of more natural
and vegetative materials into the building environment - a highly desirable
objective.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character and the City of Aspen. .
Response: The proposed amendment, particularly given the requirement
of special review and, as applicable HPC review, would,not foster any
inconsistencies with the community character of the City. And, because
of the increased landscaping flexibility the proposed amendment would
foster, the public's open space experience ought to be enhanced.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment. .
r'\
r'\
OATES. HUGHES & KNfi:ZEVIGH, P. C.
AspenlPitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Iohnson
Page 5
November 24, 1992
Response: Not applicable.
. i. Whether the proPosed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
(bapter; ..
Response: The proposed amendment is drafted Such that the qualitative
features of open space (i.e. view from pedestrian level) must be preserved.
To this extent there would n.ot appear to be any conflict with the public
interest.
We look forward to discussing this request with the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council at the earliest possible agentja times.
Accompanying this letter are:
a. The completed Land Use Application Form;
b. The check of the applicant in the amount of $1,002.00 to
cover the filing fee;
c. A disclosure of ownership of the property on which The
Cantina Restaurant is situate; and
d. . An 8-1/2 X 11 vicinity map locating The Cantina restaurant
parcel within the City of Aspen.
e. The letter of the Applicant confirming its representatives
authorized to act on its behalf in connection with the
application.
Let us know if there is anything further with which we might supply you.
~.
OATES, H VG. HE& ai(lfEZEvICH, P. C.
,'(,- .,' ,-
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
Attention: Kim Johnson
Page 6
November 24, 1992
Thank you for your assistance.
RWH/tu
Enclosures
clUtwood\planoffi..1tr
,'-"',
Sincerely,
,HU
&
ICH, P.C.
r'\
..-..,
--. mf
._.sl"---~-.~
- .
c:. . .
.:V"'j:. .--
,-..-----
~ ---
: L -
,:- ~ ::.\ ~1---,;~~~~;:--- f
,_'. 1'- rl+--'---- '--J -.
: '.j' r---=---==c- I
Il'--l~"- .._'..-~. ~.:.-:...---
-- ~- ~-
~ ; a _u_ ...
~-': ..:.=--~~--~ --.
~ ~'..:..c. "":f.:.-'.'_.
f . l ' i~
~ ..,. .. J-
~-- -.:' .n:------~~~-
. F~::- ~
~ . ' - ,!Il.l- ~--..:-= - ~
<.---..- -' , '
.- ~'lr/l. ____u___ \t
. ,. 11 ..-----'. . .~=
..- \\)
c=:JLL -
I~
~t:jcill
tJllC~
f
~
<:I '"'
,.. <:i--
0\ 7.':
I\. Ci .
.-- -,
-' \
.~ -~ !
4,7
\_ ID'
'1 ;) .
- i\Y- .
\S ,0
ill \,-- .;.c
.,_ ;~ .I.
. - ~i ~,
1:- II'-::!
; "I I
.,1', "
;i' !il :1
i! Iii I!
L__-
r_ ~rit,jC't-~I~~~I--I~ -~l ilf
li______IIE__. ~~411__ 111
,tTIillI
: [:J[~J ~
PD!
~
, II!
~DI-"-ij 1
-1='=
[=---
--'... '....................
~. . .
__ __'~~ - ;~_ _____h____ "
[0
..!
i
.j
,
'1l
I
--.-..-
l___
r~-
\--
.~,. . ."-
- ---". .~----_._,
-:r.
=
1
,.
~ .'
it1
1
[---
--'
r'\
\ I .---
~) ___....__ I
.,.-".-.,. .-.._--
C-- J
w_ ,n__ f
~- ' ; "[,=-=~;:.~ -- ~~~
; 1 . .
~ -- \
I(, , .(i,. I
CI.'- IT:
~-: .-----
t:: _........,...."..._.,._._
g ) - -~ i---=::-;:
;, L---~------
TI-) ,-~:-::_~:~
r"\ _0
I
~. ~\
h ~..
t -L t~
- () -I.'
<(F'
1;,~
h a~
~ ii~_
:t: 0
!\J' Iii '~+
I: {)'"
lil I: ~
ill i:
,-
.'
.'
. ,
. - ~
" .
"
;. .
,. -,
.':': '-~'~_:"~"'-'
tl
'"
.A!~
. ,
r'\
'-jE"" ..'-Ai.... ft. ......-_!-:. .j .,<-;;:~:l;;
_ _ --- .' ....-_....- .-.---.\-------- -- :",;on\: .
_ _ _.' _ /\ '.;..:t'j.t::
'- >' "-- / . J.f.
.' .,-'-' ==-- ,:::'
, ,
j
i:
~
~
it
,:-"7
t
let
,,:
~
'X
\'1
(
;
,
:\
...--_._.1.
~
l.
i
I
il
'2.
~_.
~
l
"-
"
t
~
.".
""
'f
- '1- -'--"-'~'-l. --
l ."
...-
g
ri
'"
'J
~
-'.
./'.
.'
c,,"
r==
.,
.'---'-'-
....
./
+:
~):~i~/
"';'.
-
r->~ ..
'.
.'
L-.o.
r..-- .. .;
.-
j / .
'. Ftl:'~-~-~' L. n
_ 0.__.___ Jf'}~~:~
'.gl-...t
't
" "- i
. ...... ~
..
,.
.,
H
"
:;
:j
I
a ~
~;~
('L1: -\.L
;!
<( .;
1:.;; I,.
\~ ::
'1e.:' :.
~ ".0'
:; "~:1
ir~.:.l
ii, M H
.
)
'.\-,
"
/
. ,
..-. '"
.. ----=::::-
r'\
,-"
c....ty Council R1rhfhlt
~ec:l ,
By Ordinance
13
It
-
Text Amendment for Trellises in Open Space
Review standards
Section 24-7-1102 of .the Aspen' Municipal Code establishes the
review criteria for text amendments:
1) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the
zoning regulations, but is'an expansion of the regulations.
'2) Whether the 'proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: This proposed 'amendment will provide for flexibility
within the code, while allowing appropriate staff and the HPC to
review any proposals. This amendment will add a certain level of
visual interest or vitality to the streets cape , in agreement with
the new AACP.
3) Whether. the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: As proposed, the amendment would apply only to
commercial restaurant uses at a Designated Historic Landmark, or
on a parcel within an Historic Overlay district. Each proposal
would receive individual design consideration through HPC review
standards before being submitted to the Planning Director. Yard
setback requirements per each zone district must still be met with
any proposal.
4) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: No impacts are anticipated.
5) 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: No impacts are anticipated.
6)
Whether and the extent to
result in significantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
1""""\
~.
Response: The structures will
buildings, and should have
groundforms or vegetation.
be used in conjunction with existing
very limited impacts on existing
7) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the city of Aspen.
Response: The HPC felt a scattering of these structures in the
city would be a visual and functional addition to the streetscape
or yard areas in town. They believe that these type of structures
would be fairly easily moved or replaced (rather than permanent
walled-in affairs) which would allow for more creativity.
8) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: As this applies to many different locations in town, any
specific conditions cannot be pinpointed. However, as addressed
above, the new AACP touches upon recapturing a certain "vitality"
in town which this amendment can actualize in a small way.
9) 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 proposal does not conflict with public interest.
It should enhance the conditions of those areas which require
certain amounts of open space.
~
~. I
L -1 counci
Approved
By Ordinance
f!yhthit c..-
, 19
Historic Preservation: On January 13, 1993, the HPC discussed the
proposal to provide referral comments to the Planning Office. The
BOard was overwhelmingly in support Of the concept. The following
individual statements were made:
'.
1. Umbrellas are difficult shade protectors - either you're in full
shade or in full sun. A varied approach to dealing with the sun
should be SOUght.
2. Rain can cause problems with dining - allow detachable canvas
covers to be used with the framework. Be flexible to enhance
function and creativity.
3. The structure itself must be arChitecturally exciting on its
own.
4. Under the old parachute at the Epicure, (now the Cantina)\"as the
most delightful space' ,to sit and eat. structures should be non-
permanent (a reversible situation can add to flexibility and
changing creativity). Use of glass/plastic tops should be allowed.
5. We want to see these type of structures used in any application,
not just al fresco dining.
6. operative words are "open-sided", "translucent (light.
emitting)",. "landscape & garden, oriented structure". Avoid the
noun "trellis", or town will be invaded with inappropriate
trellises.
.1
;-."
.--..
MESSAGE DISPLAY
..
TO Kim Johnson'
From: Rebecca Baker
Postmark: Apr 01,93 9:31 AM
Acting for: George Robinson
Subject: Trellis' in open space
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:. .
George's comments regarding the amending the code for trellis' in
private open space is that we rarely review or regulate amenities in
private open space.
-------~=======x========-------
f
.",.......,.
.,-.,
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer (112-
Date: January 15, 1993
Re: Text Amendment to Open Space
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
The Engineering Department has no objection to the text amendment proposal. As we
discussed, we would be concerned at the time of Special Review about snow and rarn
being drained onto the public rights-of-way. We would want to be certain that no
encroachment into the public rights-of-way is involved.
In the apparent spirit of open space, it might be preferable for the patio shade covering
to be limited to open, "trellis-like" or lattice framing rather than a solid covering such as
canvas. On the other hand, canvas type structures might be employed more on a seasonal
basis, being in place for only the 90 days of the summer season, with the open space truly
open for the remainder of the year.
In any event, I am sure that details of particular situations can be worked out during the
Special Review process.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
:vl<<\.I"
^
1""\.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and city council
Amy Margerum, City Manager ~ @.
Diane Moore, City Planning Dire 0
Kim Johnson, Planner
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
April 12, 1993
RE:
Text Amendment for Open Space and GMQS Exemption sections
of the Municipal Code Allowing Trellis Structures in
Required Open Spaces as a P9anning Director Approval -
First Reading of Ordinance , Series 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning staff has revised the proposed text
amendments after its March 22, 1993 discussions with City Council.
At that meeting, staff presented al ternati ves to the proposed
amendments forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Historic Preservation Committee. The Council agreed with the
concepts of calling these overhead outdoor structures "trellises",
limiting trellises to commercial restaurants on Historic Landmarks
or Historic Overlay parcels, and allowing ~lanning Director
approval of these structures upon HPC design approval.
Council asked for further clarification of the proposal by the
Parks Department. On April 1, George Robinson responded that "the
Parks Department rarely reviews or regulates amenities in private
open space". Staff also checked with the Building Department
regarding snow-loading regulations for trellises in hopes of
finding a cut-off point for limiting structural coverage. The
Uniform Building Code only addresses agricultural shade structures,
and applies snow load requirements for plastic covered structures,
ie. greenhouses. Due to the lack of regulatory or empirical data,
staff decided to look at snow loading and trellis coverage as a
maintenance issue. One of the proposed criteria requires "design
and maintenance "so that snow does not accumulate to form a closed
roof-like cover."
BACKGROUND: The text amendment is being proposed by the Chitwood
Plaza Company, on behalf of The cantina Restaurant. proj ect
representative is Bob Hughes. In 1992 the cantina experienced a
severe aphid infestation in the trees on the dining patio next to
the building. They decided to remove the trees rather than
continue battling the problem given the horticultural constraints
of the site. In place of trees in the courtyard, the cantina would
like to erect an trellis structure to provide visual interest to
the space and to allow for intermittent rain protection in the
summer.
1
1""'\
f"""\
The Land Use Code definition is very specific in its current
language prohibiting this type of structure in "Open space":
" . . . any portion of a parcel or area of land or water
which is open or unobstructed from the qround to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural
projections, such as building eaves, above ground level)
and shall include areas maintained in a natural or
undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools,
plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar
areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings."
Currently, the code allows the P&Z to approve reductions in open
space through Special Review and cash-in-lieu payment.
The applicant submitted new language
definition of "Open Space", Section 3-101-
would read:
for inclusion in the
This text as proposed
"open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections,
such as building eaves, above ground level and trellis-like
structures approved for use in connection with a commercial
restaurant under Subsection J, below.) and shall include areas
maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
Subsection J of 3-101 would be changed to read:
"J. Commercial Restaurant Use. ...required open space may be
used for commercial restaurant use if, the commission shall
determine that such use is compatible with or enhances the
purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained.
Additionally, following application and approval under the
provision of Section 7-401, et seq. and, as applicable in the
case of historic buildings, review and approval by the HPC,
trellis or similar overhead struotures with supporting members
designed to give some protection from the elements may be
installed in required open space in conjunction with
commeroial restaurant uses where the effect thereof (1) does
not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the
street at the pedestrian level, (2) maintains visual relief
from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (3) does not
otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of the open
space." .
2
~
i~
CURRENT ISSUES: The proposed text amendment will only affect
commercial restaurants on parcels which have Historic Landmark
designation or are within an Historic Overlay (the Main Street
Historic overlay and the Commercial Core Historic overlay are the
predominate areas of applicability).
Depending on the size, location, and impact of a trellis, the HPC
would review any proposal as a Minor review (one-step) or a
Significant review (two step with public hearing). The criteria
used by the HPC in considering trellis development include
character compatibility with the historic structure or neighboring
structures, enhancement of cultural value of the sUbject parcel or
adjacent parcels, and enhancement of the architectural integrity
of the historic structure.
The HPC and the Planning and Zoning Commission believe that the new
text should apply to any open space, not only commercial outdoor
dining. However, as a conservati ve measure, only commercial
restaurants should be able to utilize trellises in open space, at
least to start.
It is important to emphasize that required open space is not
required to be occupied by the general public. The main goal of
open spaces per the code is to provide relief from the mass of
buildings, and to provide opportunities for landscaping and other
streetscape amenities.
Staff and the commission find that the review standards for text
amendments are met by this proposal. Complete review criteria and
responses are attached as Exhibit "B". Referral comments from
Engineering, HPC .and Parks are attached as Exhibit "C".
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None are anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Councils discussions with staff and
the Applicant, the proposed code text changes are:
Section 3-101. "Definitions" as used in this Chapter.
"open Space means any portion Of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
with the exception of permitted architectural projections such
as building eaves or trellis structures as further described
in subparagraph "J" below, and shall include areas maintained
in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as recreation
areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and
similar areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings."
[Subparagraphs A. through J. are unchanged.]
3
r'\.
,-".
J. Commercial Restaurant Use. The provisions of subparagraph
I above notwithstanding, required open space my be used for
commercial restaurant use if the commission shall determine
that such use is compatible with or enhances the purposes of
the open space requirements and that adequate pedestrian and
emergency vehicle access will be maintained. Trellis
structures shall only ~e proposed in conjunction with
commercial restaurant uses on a designated Historic Landmark
or within (H) Historic overlay zones and must be approved ~y
the Historic Preservation committee pursuant to review
requirements contained in Article 7, Division 6,of Chapter 24
of the Aspen Municipal Code and the Planning Director pursuant
to section 24-8-104 A.1.a. (1). Such approved structures shall
not be considered additional floor area ratio (FAR) or reduce
open space on the parcel.
section S-104.A.1.a.(I) "GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director"
A. Exemption by planning director.
1. General. Development which the planning director shall
exempt shall be as follows: .
a. Remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of
existing building.
(1) The remodeling, restoration, or
reconstruction of an existing commercial, lodge
or multi-family building or the addition of a
trellis structure to a commercial restaurant
use which does not expand commercial or office
floor area or create additional dwelling, hotel
or lodge units or involve a change in use. No
bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored or
reconstructed unless it has first been
legalized pursuant to section 5-51:0. To obtain
approval to reconstruct demolished commercial
or office floor area, the applicant shall
demonstrate that affordable housing and parking
is provided for the reconstructed floor area
as if it were newly constructed space. When
a trellis structure is proposed within an open
space area, it shall ~e demonstrated that the
structure: a) is not enclosed ~y walls,
screens, windows or other enclosures; and b)
shall maintain 50% of the overhead structure
open to the sky; and c) is designed and
maintained so that snow does not accumulate to
form a closed roof-like cover.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council could elect to deny the proposal, alter
the review criteria, or allow these structures in more or fewer
locations.
4
r'\
.~.
PWPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance
~, Series 1993 amending the definition of open space (Section
24-3-101) and GMQS Exemption by the Planning Director (Section 24-
8-104.A.l.a.(I) to allow trellis structures in required open spaces
for commerQial restaurants on a Designated Historic Landmark or in
an Historic Overlay zone."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXhibits:
Ordinance ~, series 1993
"A" - Application
"B" - Review criteria / Responses for Text Amendments
"C" - Referral Comments
5
.
/ti
· jlW
1!1~
TO:
FROM:
II . Pc- fU. . ~ ~
. 'It zj, . MEMORANDUM -t-:. oM I ~, } tl.
Mayor and city council l~'rf f!trw-Aw. l'_ tt
Amy Margerum, City Manager yvwv~ ~\
Diane Moore, City Planning Directc;> ~ r ~ 1
Kim Johnson, Planner CJ;l:o.(t " . ,"",if" 1 ~'JJ
March 8, 1993 ~ ~ ~l~-"'Tl
Text Amendment for open Space and speci~w Sections
of the Municipal Code Allowing Overhead Landscape
structures in Required Open spaces Via Special Review -
First Reading of Ordinance ___, Series 1993
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
RE:
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning commission and the Historic
Preservation Committee recommends approval of a tex~ amendment
which will allOW. overhead landscape structures in required open .. tt
spaces upon ap~roval of Special Review by the Planning and Zoning ..~
commission.. jt,~-A / .cJC.'hjJ~?:rt' ec...~vi.p ~~. -
91,$ 11M- ~ J'i. ~.. k:~&i'J)-ev-r /I.fVr)~
BACKGROUND: he proposed text: a ~~ent . will affect zC:nes ~ l1
districts in the city which have open space requirements 'I f).
established by the Land Use Code. These zones are: R/MF 0
(Residential/Multi-Family), R/MF-A, AH (Affordable Housing), CC IN Ifpc"
(Commercial Core) , C-l (commercial), S/C/I (Service commercial.:..-------.
Industrial), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), L/TR (Lodge Tourist - ,
Residential), CL (Commercial Lodge), and LP (Lodge Preservation).
Open space requirements in these zones range from 25% to 35% of the
parcel.
The text amendment is being proposed by the Chitwood Plaza Company,
on behalf of The cantina Restaurant. Project representative is Bob
Hughes. In 1992 the cantina experienced a severe aphid infestation
in the trees on the dining patio next to the building. They
decided to remove the trees rather than continue battling the
problem given the horticultural constraints of the site. In place
of trees in the courtyard, the cantina would like to. erect an
overhead garden structure to provide visual interest to the space
and to allow for intermittent rain protection in the summer.
The Land Use Code definition is very specific in its current
language prohibiting this type of structure in ~'Open Space":
" . . . any portion of a parcel or area of land or water
which is ooen or unobstructed from the around to the skv
(with the exception of permitted architectural
projections, such as building eaves, above ground level)
and shall include areas maintained in a natural or
1
~..
.,-.,
,
undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools,
plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar
areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings." .
Currently, the code allows the P&Z to approve reductions in open
space through Special Review and cash-in-lieu payment.
The applicant submitted new language
definition of "Open Space", section 3-101.
would read:
for inclusion in the
This text as proposed
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections,
such as building eaves, above ground level and trellis-like
structures approved for use in. connection with a commercial
restaurant under Subsection J, below.) and shall include areas
maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and silr.i1ar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
Subsection J of 3-101 would be changed to read:
"J. Commercial Restaurant Use. ...required open space may be
used for commercial restaurant use if, the commission shall
determine that such uSe is compatible with or enhances the
purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained.
Additionally, following application and approval under the
provision of Section 7-401, et seq. and, as applicable in the
case of historic buildings, review and approval by the HPC,
trellis or similar overhead structures with supporting members
designed to give some protection from the elements may be
installed in required open space in conjunction with
commercial restaurant uses where the effect thereof (1) does
not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the
street at the pedestrian level, (2) maintains visual relief
from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (3) does not
otherwise advers~ly affect the pUblic's enjoyment of the open
space."
CURRENT rSSUES: The HPC, the Planning and Zoning Commission and
Planning staff believe that the new text should apply to any open
space, not only commercial outdoor dining. Small seating areas
facing south would be likely candidates for such "landscape /
garden-oriented" shade structures. Both the HPC and the P&Z
objected to using the word "trellis" as it evokes a specific image
of a flimsy wood or plastic support for vines. The wording of the
proposed amendment allows the ~ommission to evaluate designs to
2
~.
.r'\
insure that overhead structures not become roof-like, totally
obscuring view of the sky or mountains, or otherwise negatively
impact the open airiness of the spaces. It is, important to
emphasize that required open. space is not required to be occupied
by the general pUblic. The main goal of open spaces per the code
is to provide relief from the mass of buildings, and to provide
opportunities for landscaping and other streetscape amenities.
. The amendment calls for P&Z Special Review approval for any
proposed structures. HPe review is automatically required for
historic parcels or within historic overlay districts, and their
referral comments would be forwarded to the Commission. There was
brief discussion about having HPC review all proposed structures
in open space because of design related issues. However, the HPC
declined this concept. .
Staff and the Commission find that the review standards for text
amendments are met by this proposal. Complete review criteria and
responses are attached' as Exhibit "B".
Referral comments from Engineering, HPC and Parks are attached as
Exhibit "C".
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None are anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION: Both the HPC and P&Z wished to broaden the
applicability of the amendment, allowing any required open space
the opportunity for Special Review of this type of architectural
embellishment. The proposed code text changes are:
Section 3-101 (definitions):
"open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
, .owater which is open or unobstructed from the ground to .the sky'
~'o' twith the exception. of permitted architectural projections
. . such as building eaves, abe-.-€: ljJreURB. level or overhead
~ / V' landscape structures as further described in subsection "K"
QJt'\ 01' ',_ below) and shall include areas maintained in a natural or
1V undisturbed state,as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas,
k/~~. pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which
~~~, ~.~ provide visual relief from the mass of the buildings."
~\~ [Subsections A. through J. are unchanged.]
~~ 'V
/ - ~.r~ V\. K. OVerhead Landscape struoture. Any proposed overhead
~/ ~ landsoape structure shall be approved by Special Review
~. ,< .'1.. pursuant to Section 24-7-404 A.1-3. . Such approved structures
~I shall not be oonsidered additional floor area ratio (FAR) or
reduced open space on the parcel.
~ ectioo_ 7;c:. ;~:zt?~~Z~w~""",
~ ~-Q~ ~-a .
f.J,l-~-k~4", .,f1(A~I,_'0F1~ ~ r~+
~~~~~kvv'u\r.l~'1~
.1"'"'\
1"'"'\
"A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever' the dimensional
requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, the development application shall only be approved if the
following conditions are met. .
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development
are designed in such manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking
or blocking of a designated viewplane.
"" MilS or ....''''';(''''('
3. When.Am- overhead landscape structure is proposed within an
open space area, it shall be demonstrated that the structure
a) does not appreciably impact the view into the open
space from the street at the pedestrian level,
b) maintains visual relief from the mass of adjacent
buildings, and .
c) does not otherwise adversely affect the public's
enjoyment of the open space.
~4. For the reduction of required open space in the
Commercial Core (CC) zone district only, the applicant
demonstrates that the provision of less than the required
amount of open space on-site will be more consistent with the
character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision
of open space according to the standard.
As general guidelines, the applicant shall take into account
the following. It may be appropriate to have open space on
the site when the. building is located on a street corner, or
the open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian
amenities, or the open space provides relief intended to
maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic landmark, or
the open space is intended for a particular functional
purpose, such as dining or the protection of' an existing tree.
It may be inappropriate to have open space on the site when
other buildings along the street front are built to the
property line, especially along public malls, or when the open
space is configured in such a manner as to serve no public
purpose.
When the Commission determines open space is inappropriate on
the site, it may reduce or waive the requirement if the
applicant shall make a payment-in-lieu according to the
following formula:
4
.1"""'\
.~
"Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by the
percentage of the site required to be open space which is to
be developed, equals value of payment." .
The appraised value of the property shall be determined by the
submission of a current appraisal performed by a qualified
professional real estate appraiser. .
The payment-in-lieu of open space shall be due and payable at
the time of issuance of a building permit. All funds
collected shall be transferred by the building inspector to
the finance director, for deposit in a separate interest
bearing account. Monies in the account shall be used solely
for the purposes within or adjacent to the Commercial Core
(CC) zone district.
Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the
then present owner of property for which' a fee was paid,
including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent
within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless
the council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on
a specific project, in which case the council may extend the
time period by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a
refund, the presE!nt owner must submit a petition to ,the
fi.nance director within one (1) year following the end of the
seventh (7) year from the date payment was received.
For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be
deemed spent on the basis of the first payment in shall be
the first payment out. Any payment made for a project for
which a building permit is cancelled, due to non-commencement
of construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is
submitted to the finance director within three (3) months of
the date of the cancellation of the building permit. All
petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement
that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and
by a copy of the date. receipt issued for payment of the fee.
When the HPC approves the on-site relocation of an Historic
Landmark into required open space, such that the amount of
open space on-site is reduced below that required by this
code, the requirements of this section shall be waived.
+05. For the Residential/Multi-Family. (R/MF) zone district
only, increases in external floor area shall only be permitted
on sites subject to the requirements of Article 5, Division
7, 'Replacement Housing Program. To obtain the increase, the
applicant shall demonstrate a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of
the additional floor area allowed is used to increase the size
of the affordable housing units beyond the minimum size
standards of the city's housing designee and the development
complies with the standards of section 7-404 A.l. and 2.
. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could retain the language as submitted
by the Applicant limiting overhead structures to restaurant uses
only in the CC zone. The Council could elect to deny the proposal.
5
P~OPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on first reading ordinance
, series 1993 amending the definition of open space (Section
24-3-101.) and special Review criteria (Section 24-7-404) to allow
overhead landscape structures in required open spaces pursuant to
special Review."
~
Exhibits:
Ordinance ~, Series 1993
"A" - Application
"B" - Review criteria / Responses for Text Amendments
"C" - Referral Comments
6
~.
.I'"""j
~---
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on first reading Ordinance
, Series 1993 amending the definition of open space (Section
24-3~101) and special Review criteria (Section 24-7-404) to allow
overhead landscape structures in required open spaces pursuant to
Special Review."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance ~, Series 1993
"A" - Application
"B" Review Criteria I Responses for Text Amendments
"c" - Referral Comments
6
~
r-"\
~ ;-...
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manage~
Diane Moore, City planning Director
TO:
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
THRU:
DATE:
March 22, 1993
RE:
continued Discussion on Allowing Trellises in Open spaces
SUMMARY: This item was first presented on March 8, 1993 when
Council and staff discussed concerns about the amendment as
forwarded from the Planning and Zoning commission. Staff has since
met with the Applicant and made revisions to the general concepts
of the text amendments. Staff proposes that Council consider the
following changes:
1) Instead of creating a definition for "overhead landscape
structure", staff and the Applicant agree to promote the term
"trellis". This word is easily understood by the general public
and is found in any dictionary. Webster's II defines "trellis" as:
"A frame supporting open latticework, used for training vines and
other climbing plants." Staff is fine-tuning specific measurable
criteria to insure that these structures remain open, airy, and
not roof-like. So far, two criteria have been discussed:
- at least 50% of the roof area shall be open to the sky
- the structure may be
not be enclosed by
enclosures.
supported by posts or columns but may
walls, screens, windows, or other
2) Rather than allowing all parcels to apply for a trellis in
required open space, staff proposes to limit trellises to
commercial restaurant uses on parcels within the Commercial core
Historic overlay District or the Main street Historic Overlay
District. By limiting such structures to these locations two
things are accomplished: the HPC will have automatic design
authority (the HPC currently reviews all exterior additions in
these Historic Overlay areas already); and the number of affected
properties is limited so the city can experiment with the trellis
concept in a" somewhat narrower context.
As an alternative, council could expand the use of trellises to
commercial restaurants into other areas. HPC would then be removed
from the review process, placing staff in a design review position.
1
r"\
r-,
.
3) In an effort to streamline the review process, staff and the
Applicant support Planning Director approval for trellis
structures. When coupled with the requirement for parcels to be
within the Commercial Core or Main street Historic Overlay
Districts, the HPC would be involved for design approval of any
trellis addition.
The Planning Commission recommends that any proposed trellis be
reviewed by them as a Special Review.
Staff wants Council's feedback on the above concepts before
additional time is spent redrafting an ordinance for consideration.
Staff can prepare a revised ordinance for first reading at the next
Council meeting.
Attached is a March 9, 1993 letter from the Applicant regarding the
proposed amendment.
2
~ ~~~ ~~~ -f~~~
(\~d 1~1~;U/s~Jc .
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Kim JOhnson,Planning
RE:
Text Amendment to Allow Overhead structures in Approved
Open Space - continued public hearing
DATE:
February 16, 1993
========~====================================================
SUMMARY: The public hearing for this case was opened on February
2 and tabled until after a February 9 joint HPC workshop to discuss
the issues involved in this amendment. Based on discussions
between P&Z and HPC, the Planning Office proposes language which
establishes review by Special Review (with HPC referral on any
parcel with an historic overlay or with an historic district) and
minimum design requirements.
APPLICANT: This text amendment is being proposed by the chitwood
Plaza Company, on behalf of The cantina Restaurant. Proj ect
representative is Bob Hughes.
LOCATION: This will affect zones districts in the city which have
open space requirements established by the Land Use Code. These
zones are: R/MF (Residential/Multi-Family), R/MF-A, AH (Affordable
Housing), CC (Commercial Core), C-l (commercial), S/C/I (service
Commercial Industrial), NC (NeighborhoOd Commercial), L/TR (Lodge
Tourist Residential), CL (Commercial Lodge), and LP (Lodge
Preservation). Open space requirements in these zones range from
25% to 35% of the parcel.
BACKGROUND: In 1992 the cantina experienced a severe aphid
infestation in the trees on the dining patio next to the building.
They decided to remove the.trees rather than continue battling the
problem given the horticultural constraints of the site. In place
of trees in the courtyard, the cantina would like to erect an
overhead garden structure to provide visual interest to the space
and to allow for intermittent rain protection in the summer.
The Land Use Code definition is very specific in its current
language prohibiting this type of structure in "Open Space":
". . . any portion of a parcel or area of land or water
which is open or unobstructed from the oround to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural
projections, such as.. building eaves, above ground level)
and shall include areas maintained in a natural or
undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools,
plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar
1
~.
~.
areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings."
Currently, the code allows the P&Z to approve reductions in open
space through Special Review / cash-in-lieu approval.
The cantina decided to propose a code amendment which will allow
"trellis" structures in open spaces, specifically for commercial
restaurant users. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the application
text and sketches.
PRoPOSAL: The applicant
the definition of "open
proposed would read:
submitted new language for inclusion in
Space", section 3-101. This text as
, .___I/j~~~M,
"Open Sp<'ice means any portIon of --"a parc~~ 'or "area of land or
water which is open or unob tfUcted from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of rmitted architectu~~rojections,
such as building eave, 0 e g ::::an-a trellis-like
structures approved or use in connection with a commercial
restaurant under Subsection J, below.) and shall include areas
maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
Subsection J of 3-101 would be changed to read:
"J. Commercial Restaurant Use. ...required open space may be
used for commercial restaurant use if, the commission shall
determine that such use is compatible with or enhances the
purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained.
Additionally, following application and approval under the
provision of Section 7-401,et seq. and, as applicable in the
case of historic buildings, review and approval by the HPC,
trellis or similar overhead structures with supporting members
designed to give some protection from the elements may be
installed in required open space in conjunct~9np with
commercial restaurant uses where t;he effect thereof)~) does
not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the
street at the pedestrian level, 'en: maintains visual relief
from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (3) does not
otherwl.,::;E!.adversely affect the pUblic'senjoymeht'of the open
space. " ,.. .
The Applicant is agreeable to the concept discussed by the P&Z and
HPC of allowing these structures in any open space or zone.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: A summary of City Engineer and Parks Department
comment is as follows. Complete memos are attached as Exhibit "B",
2
.r'\
,"""""
Enqin~erinq: Engineering would have some concern about snow and
rain drainage into pUblic rights-of-way. No encroachments shall
be involved. Open framing is preferable shade than canvas, but
canvas coverings may be employed for 90 days during the summer.
Special Review is appropriate place for consideration of these type
of details.
Parks: Umbrellas are more suitable for shade because they are
isolated to tables and are removable. They also provide better
rain protection than an open trellis structure. A trellis with
vines may invite the same insect problem as the trees at the
cantina location. staff sees no benefit to the proposed amendment.
Historic Preservation: On January 13, 1993, the HPC discussed the
proposal to provide referral comments to the Planning Office. The
Board was overwhelmingly in support of the concept. The following
individual statements were made:
1. Umbrellas are difficult shade protectors - either you're in full
shade or in full sun. A varied approach to dealing with the sun
should be sought.
2. Rain can cause problems with dining -
covers to be used with the framework.
function and creativity.
allow detachable canvas
Be flexible to enhance
3. The structure itself must be architecturally exciting on its
own.
4. Under the old parachute at the Epicure (now the Cantina) was the
most delightful space to sit and eat. structures should be non-
permanent (a reversible situation can add to flexibility and
changing creativity). Use of glass/plastic tops should be allowed.
5. We want to see these type of structures used in any application,
not just al fresco dining.
6. Operative words are "open-sided", "translucent (light
emitting)", "landscape & garden oriented structure". Avoid the
noun "trellis", or town will be invaded with inappropriate
trellises.
PROCESS: An amendment to the Land Use regulations in the Municipal
Code requires a two-step review: recommendation by the Planning
commission and final adoption via ordinance adoption by the City
Council.
The Commission believes that review of proposed structures be
handled under Special Review by the commission. To save the
Applicant some processing time, special Review for the Cantina's
proposal could occur at this time concurrent with commission review
3
~
r'\.
of the text amendment (contingent on final council approval of the
amendment) . However, at the time of wri ting ~his memo, the
Applicant has not had the opportunity to respond to the proposed
subsection "K" language or the Special Review standards, which are
attached as Exhibit "C". Tabling the amendment for one meeting
would allow the Applicant the opportunity to provide additional
information necessary for Special Review under the pending code
language. The Applicant supports the tabling proposal.
STAFF COMMENTS: staff, HPC and the majority of the commission
believe that the new .text apply to any open space, not only
commercial outdoor dining. Small seating areas facing south would
be likely candidates for such "landscape / garden-oriented" shade
structures.
The Commission majority opinion wants P&Z Special Review approval
for any proposed structures rather than administrative through
Engineering, Planning and zoning staff. HPC review is
automatically required for historic parcels or within historic
overlay districts, and their referral comments would be forwarded
to the commission. There was brief discussion about having HPC
review all proposed structures in open space because of design
related issues and the HPC's design review experience. However,
the HPC declined this concept.
Any Special Review for dimensional requirements (within which open
space is considered) must consider :
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development
are designed in such manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including bu not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking
or blocking of a designated viewplane.
At the workshop session, Roger Hunt urged the text amendment to
address minimum design criteria to insure that overhead structures
not become roof-like, obscuring view of the sky or mountains. To
address this concern, staff proposes adding a new subsection to the
Open Space definition reinforcing this idea. Language added since
February 2 is in capital letters.
section 3-101 (definitions):
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
4
1'"""\. vM ,.-.."
I(r~ ~~0 ~rr~~,p
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections
a];>SYll grol11~Q ll.vel suoh as building eaves, and light-
penetrating Ian . ented structures AS- FURTJIER
DESCRIBED IN UBSECTION "K" BEL ) and shall include areas
maintained in a or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
K. OVERHEAD COVERAGE. ANY PROPOSED OVERHEAD LANDSCAPE
STRUCTURE SHALL BE APPROVED BY SPECIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
SECTION 24.-7-404 A.l. AND 2.f.3MININUI'I 'lUl'AL UPk:NING ...E~NT
THROtJGH 1:IIE DTRUC'PURE ~II.".LL NOT BE LESS 'fMAN '7'5%. .'];'.HE
(STRUCTURE SHALL ~REVER<::TllLE.. f11?( ~4 ptft. n f1~ (71/ ?c:::
section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special R~view)" r r
"A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional
requirements of a proposed development. are subject to special
review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed
within an open space are.a, the development application shall
only be approved if the following conditions are met.
"-
I. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open
space, landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed development
are designed in such manner which is compatible with or
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development
will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will
mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the
effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking
or blocking of a designated viewplane."
Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the
review criteria for text amendments:
1) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the
zoning regulations, but is an expansion of the regulations.
2) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: This proposed amendment will provide for flexibility
within the code, while allowing appropriate staff and the P&Z/HPC
to review any proposals. This amendment will add a certain level
5
r'\
/~
of visual interest or vitality to the streetscape, in agreement
with the new AACP.
3) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: As proposed, .the amendment would apply to the downtown
area and multi-family areas surrounding the center of town. Each
proposal would receive individual consideration through Special
Review (and HPC where required) before an owner could receive a
building permit. Yard setback requirements per each zone district
must still be met with any proposal.
4) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: No impacts are anticipated.
5) 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: No impacts are anticipated.
6)
Whether and the extent to
result in significantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
Response: The structures will
buildings, and should have
groundforms or vegetation.
be used in conjunction with existing
very limited impacts on existing
7) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the city .of Aspen.
Response: The HPC felt a scattering of these structures in the
city would be a visual and functional addition to the streets cape
or yard areas in town. They believe that these type of structures
would be fairly easily moved or replaced (rather than permanent
walled-in affairs) which would allow for more creativity.
8) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: As this applies to many different zone districts, any
specific conditions cannot be pinpointed. However, as addressed
above, the new AACP touches upon recapturing a certain "vitality"
6
~.
~
in town which this amendment can actualize in a small way.
9) 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 proposal does not conflict with public interest.
It should enhance the conditions of those areas which require
certain amounts of open space.
OTHER DISCUSSION: At the February 9 workshop, there was a certain
level of discomfort with the idea that two reviews (HPC and P&Z)
for parcels in the commercial Core and those with historic overlay.
One suggestion was that if HPC is required to review a proposal,
HPC would have final review authority and the P&Z would not be
involved. However, the p'!ra:nningCdmmissi6n is seen as being the
best review body to consider landiUse andjor functional aspects of
a development. staff recommends that, as with all other Special
Review proposals, both the HPC and P&Z be called upon to consider
the merit of a plan. The HPC shall focus on design issues and
visual compatibility. The P&Z shall consider the functional
aspects of proposals. One ClJ;~a()f poten~ial conflict with the
Clpove scenario is that the0HPc<may . grant setback variances . on
parcels they .review. It has been determined that JiPC' va:riances
~lJpersede P&Z col1d.itiohS. This situation may conflict with
recommendations of the City Engineer or Planning Staff.
There was also discussion'!J)et. leasablia" area within the context
of this application, and whether or not overhead structures would
create new net leasable area. Net Leasable Commercial and Office
Space is defined in the Land Use Code as:
"those areas within a commercial or office building which are
or which are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied
for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any area
dedicated to bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors.
mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants on
the site"
$taff believes that deVelopment of overhead structures does not
. create net leasable area. The Land Use Code requires that any
restaurant seeking to utilize open space for dining must go through
Conditional Use Review by the Commission. At that time, evaluation
of employee generation, trash generation, impacts to circulation,
etc. is made, and mitigation requirements become conditions of
approval.
RECOMMENDATION: The' Planning staff recommends
language for text amendments to the open space and
sections of the Land Use Code:
the proposed
special review
7
,~
~
Section 3-101 (definitions):
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections
~ ~~}:~ such as building eaves, and light-
penetrating landscape or garden-oriented structures AS FURTHER
DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION "K" BELOWJ$and shall include,areas
maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
K. OVERHEAD COVERAGE. ANY PROPOSED OVERHEAD LANDSCAPE
STRUCTURE SHALL BE APPROVED BY SPECIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
SECTION 24-7-404 A.1. AND 2. PH1HMUM 'fO'f.AL OPENH1C:>: TJUW8"Gll
0& ~ 'fll", s'rRUCTURJ;; c-A.H1W'f DD LE83 .'HlUI 7 s %-. C THE STRUCTURE SHALL
I r BE REVERSIBLE. ,~*.?>~ ~A__.D;:;""'U~l ~~ ~
P2AM I) z)-sJ 1'" ':7} . .JT- '. 1hl~~~o..<:J
Section 7-404.A. (review standards f9r special Re~iew)
"A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional
requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed within
an open space area, the development application shall only be
approved if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configJlration, amount of open space,
landscaping, and setbacks of the proposed. development are designed
in such manner which is compatible with or enhances the character
of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the
underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will
not have adverse impacts on surrounding land uses or will mitigate
those impacts', including' bu not limited to the effects of shading,
excess traffic, availability of parking or blocking of a designated
viewplane."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information and Graphics
"B" - Referral Memos
"c" - Review criteria for Special Review - Section 24-7-404,A.l-
4 .
~
~/o
e~ ~~Vj
aw~/O
p~~~ ltfc ~/~ ]
trellis. text. memo
~~1D~
~ ~ ~-?~~
~
r'\
PLANNIN( . ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT ~17n , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office I~
George Robinson, Parks Directo~
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
January 5, 1993
Text Amendment for Open Space as Requested by the
Cantina Restaurant/Chitwood Plaza Company
Upon review of the request for a textual change to the definition
of open space as detailed in the Aspen Land Use Code, chapter 24,
section 3-101, I would recommend against any change to the
definition. As stated in the code, open space is defined as "any
portion of a parcel or area of land or water which is open or
unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of
permitted architectural projections, such as building eaves, above
ground level),..". The request to include trellis-like structures
in the definition, as requested by the Chitwood Plaza Company,
significantly alters the original intent of the definition of
"unobstructed from ground to sky". Additionally, an eave only
projects a maximum of 1-2 feet into an open space area, whereas
the trellis would cover the entire area of open space. A trellis
is also a permanent structure. Umbrellas are much more suitable
and compatible with the open space of the Cantina outdoor seating
because they are isolated with the individual tables and are
removable structureS. Additionally, a trellis would most likely
provide less protection from the elements due to the open slats
between the frame structure. An umbrella provides at least some
protection during a light rain. I do not see the landscape benefit
of the trellis to the open space. If the intent of the trellis is
to grow vines, then the Cantina may be setting up the same type of
problem they had with the trees, insect infestation.
This request can set an unnecessary precedent for permanent
structures in open space. While a trellis can allow for an open
feeling to the outdoor seating, I would recommend against amending
the code for trellis-like structures in open space. I do not see
the benefits of the structure to warrant an amendment to the code.
t""""\ r-,
FLANNI. & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT "/:-' " , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
LAND USE REGULATIONS - ~ 7-404
See, 7-403, Applicability.
Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special
review in Article 5, Divisions 2 and 3.
Sec. 7-404. Review standards for. special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the commiSSIOn
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and
requirements seUorth below.
..A. Dimen,sional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of.a proposed
development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be
approved if the following conditions are met.
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compat-
ible with or enhances the character of sunounding land uses and is consistent
with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including 'but not
limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane.
3. For the reduction of required open space in the Commercial Core (CC) zone
district only, the applicant demonstrates that the provision of less than the
required amount of open space on.site will be more consistent with the character
of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of open space according to
the standard.
As general guidelines, the applicant shall take into account the following. It may
be appropriate to have open space on the site when the building is located on a
street corner, or the open space can be linked to neighboring pedestrian ameni-
ties, or the open space provides relief intended to maintain the prominence of an
adjacent historic landmark, or the open space is intended for a particular func-
tional purpose, such as dining or the protection of an existing tree. It may be
inappropriate to have open space on the site when other buildings along the
street front are built to the property line, especially along public malls, or when
the open space is configured in such a manner as to serve no public purpose.
When the commission determines open space is inappropriate on the site, it may
reduce or waive the requirement if the applicant shall make a payment-in-lieu
according to the following formula:
"Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by the percentage of the
site required to be open space which is to be developed, equals value of payment."
The appraised value of the property shall be determined by the submission of a
current appraisal performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser.
The payment-in-lieu of open space shall be due and payable at the time of
Supp. No.1
1697
1"""'\,
.r-,
~ 7404
ASPEN CODE
issuance of a building permit. All funds collected shall be transferred by the
building inspector to the finance director, for deposit in a separate interest
bearing account. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the purchase or
development ofland for open space, pedestrian or recreational purposes within or
adjacent to the Commercial Core (CC) zone district.
Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present
owner of property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the
fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid,
unless the council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific
project, in which case the council may extend the time period by up to three (3)
more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the
finance director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year
from the date payment was received.
For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the
basis of the'first payment in shall be the first payment out. Any payment made
for a project for which a building permit is cancelled, due to noncommencement
of construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the
finance director within three (3) months of the date of the cancellation of the
building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn state-
ment that the petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the
dated receipt issued for payment of the fee.
When the HPC approves the on-site relocation of an Histor!c Landmark into
required open space, such that the amount of open space on-site is reduced below
that required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be waived.
4. For the Residential/Multi.Family (R/MF) zone district only, increases in external
floor area shall only be permitted on sites subject to the requirements of Article
5, Division 7, Replacement Housing Program. To obtain the increase, the appli-
cant shall demonstrate a minimum of two.thirds (2/3) of the additional floor area
allowed is used to increase the size of the affordable housing units beyond the
minimum size standards of the city's housing designee and the development
complies with the standards of Section 7-404 AI. and 2.
B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever the off.street parking requirements of a
proposed development are subject to establishment or reduction by special review,
the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are
met.
1. In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-ll, Office (0), Commercial Lodge
(CL) or Lodge/Tourist -Residential (LiTR) zone districts, the applicant shall make
a one-time only payment.in.lieu of parking to the city, in the amount of fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per space required, based on the cost for such spaces
stated in the report entitled "Physical and Financial Conceptual Design for Two
Parking Facilities for the City of Aspen" prepared by RNL Facilities Corporation.
Approval of the payment-in-lieu shall be at the option of the commission. In
Supp. No.1
1698
~
--f
I""'.
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and zoning commission
FROM:
Kim JOhnson,Plan.ning
RE:
Text Amendment to Allow Overhead structures in Approved
Open Space - public hearing
DATE:
February 2, 1.993
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that discussion of this
text amendment to the definition of "Open Space" be opened and
continued to the HPC/P&Z workshop meeting scheduled for February
9, 1993. The proposed amendment will allow overhead trellis-like
structures in required open space. Staff would like the Commission
and HPC to consider the most appropriate review process for such
overhead structures.
APPLICANT:. This text amendment is being proposed by the Chitwood
Plaza Company, on behalf of The cantina Restaurant. Project
representative is Bob Hughes.
LOCATION: This will affect zones districts in the city which have
open space requirements established by the Land Use Code. These
zones are: R/MF (Residential/Multi-Family), R/MF-A, AH (Affordable
Housing), CC (Commercial Core), C-l (Commercial), S/C/I (Service
Commercial Industrial), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), L/TR (Lodge
Tourist Residential), CL (Commercial Lodge), and LP (Lodge
preservation). Open space requirements in these zones range from
25% to 35% of the parcel.
BACKGROUND: In 1992 the Cantina experienced a severe aphid
infestation in the trees on the dining patio next to the building.
They decided to remove the trees rather than continue battling the
prOblem given the horticultural constraints of the site. In place
of trees in the courtyard, the cantina would like to erect an
overhead garden structure to provide visual interest to the space
and to allow for intermittent rain protection in the summer.
The Land Use Code definition is very specific in its current
language prohibiting this type of structure in "Open space":
". . . any portion of a parcel or area of land or water
which is open or unobstructed from the qround to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural
projections, such as building eaves, above ground level)
and shall include areas maintained in a natural or
undisturbed state, as well as recreation areas, pools,
plazas, pathways, fountains, landscaping, and similar
1
,
1""\
,-,
areas which provide visual relief from the mass of the
buildings."
currently, the code allows the P&Z to approve reductions in open
space through Special Review / cash-in-lieu approval.
The cantina decided to propose a code amendment which will allow
"trellis" structures in open spaces, specifically for commercial
restaurant users. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the application
text and sketches.
PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted new language for inclusion in
the definition of "Open Space" i section 3-101. This text as
proposed would read:
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections,
such as building eaves, above ground level and trellis-like
structures approved for use in connection with a commercial
restaurant under subsection J, below.) and shall include areas
maintained in a natural or undisturbed state, as well as
recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways, fountains,
landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual relief
from the mass of the buildings."
Subsection J of 3-101 would be changed to read:
"J. Commercial Restaurant Use. ...required open space may be
used for commercial restaurant use if, the commission shall
determine that such use is compatible with or enhances the
purposes of these open space requirements and that adequate
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access will be maintained.
Additionally, following application and approval under the
provision of section 7-401, et seg. and, as applicable in the
case of historic buildings, review and approval by the HPC,
trellis or similar overhead structures lq'ith supporting members
designed to give some protection from the elements may be
installed in required open space in conjunction with
commercial restaurant uses where the effect thereof (1) does
not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the
street at the pedestrian level, (2) maintains visual relief
from the mass of adjacent buildings, and (3) does not
otherwise adversely affect the pUblic's enjoyment of the open
space."
However, staff forwards different language based, in part, on
referral comments from the HPC. Also, staff seeks input from the
Commission and the HPC regarding which review body is appropriate
in which situations. Please see Staff Comments section below.
2
,,,,,,",,,
,-.
ltEFERRAL COMMEN'l'S: A summary of City Engineer and Parks Department
comment is as follows. complete memos are attached as Exhibit "B".
Enqineerinq: Engineering would have some concern about snow and
rain drainage into pUblic rights-of-way. No encroachments shall
be involved. Open framing is preferable shade than canvas, but
canvas coverings may be employed for 90 days during the summer.
Special Review is appropriate place for consideration of these type
of details.
Parks: Umbrellas are more suitable for shade because they are
isolated to tables and are removable. They also provide better
rain protection than an open trellis structure. A trellis with
vines may invite the same insect problem as the trees at the
cantina location. staff sees no benefit to the proposed amendment.
Historic Preservation: On January 13, 1993, the HPC discussed the
proposal to provide referral comments to the Planning Office. The
Board was overwhelmingly in support of the concept. The following
individual statements were made:
1. Umbrellas are difficult shade protectors - either you're in full
shade or in full sun. A varied approach to dealing with the sun
should be sought.
2. Rain can cause problems with dining -
covers to be used with the framework.
function and creativity.
allow detachable canvas
Be flexible to enhance
3. The structure itself must be architecturally exciting on its
own.
4. Under the old parachute at the Epicure (now the cantina) was the
most delightful space to sit and eat. structures should be non-
permanent (a reversible situation can add to flexibility and
changing creativity). Use of glass/plastic tops should be allowed.
5. We want to see these type of structures used in any application,
not just al fresco dining.
6. Operative words are "open--sided", "translucent (light
emitting)", "landscape & garden oriented structure". Avoid the
noun "trellis", or town will be invaded with inappropriate
trellises.
PROCESS: An amendment to the Land Use regulations in the Municipal
Code requires a two-step review: recommendation by the Planning
commission and final adoption via ordinance adoption by the City
Council.
If the Commission determines that review of proposed structures
should be handled under Special Review by the Commission, staff
3
f""""\
1"""'\
recommends that Special Review for the Cantina's proposal occur at
this time. special Review standards are attached as Exhibit "C".
Implementation of the approval would become effective upon final
adoption of the text amendments by City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff and the HPC recommend that the new text
apply to any open space, not only commercial outdoor dining. Small
seating areas facing south would be likely candidates for such
"landscape I garden-oriented" shade structures. The most likely
types of review for these structures are: administrative - through
Engineering, Planning and Zoning staff; HPC for historic parcels
or within historic overlay districts; HPC, becuase of the design
related issues, for parcles that are not within historic overlay
districts or historic parcels; or P&Z via Special Review, such as
reviews for restaurant use in open space. In addition to
architectural design, any review must consider operational
characteristics such as drainage, snow shedding, encroachments, and
shading.
Keeping with the efforts to streamline application processes and
reduce case load for the P&Z, staff proposes that administrative
review is adequate except for the historic parcels or overlays.
However, staff is not particularly able to make difficult design
decisions. Projects within an Historic overlay area would still
require HPC approval. As an alternative, staff could elicit
referral comments from the HPC on design issues for administrative
reviews. If an applicant opposed conditions imposed by an
administrative approval, a logical appeal process would be through
the P&Z. These alternatives should be discussed by both the P&Z
and HPC.
In light of HPC's comments, the Planning office forwards the
following language for consideration:
Section 3-101 (definitions):
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(with the exception of permitted architectural projections
above ground level such as building eaves, and light-
penetrating landscape or garden-oriented structures) and shall
include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state,
as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways,
fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual
relief from the mass of the buildings."
section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special Review)"
"A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional
requirements of a proposed development are subject to special
4
,-...
.
,-..
review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed
within an open space area, the development application shall
only be approved if the following conditions are met."
section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the
review criteria for text amendments:
1) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the
zoning regulations, but is an expansion of the regulations.
2) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: This proposed amendment will provid~ for flexibility
within the code, while allowing appropriate staff and the P&ZjHPC
to review any proposals. This amendment will add a certain level
of visual interest or vitality to the streetscape, in agreement
with the new AACP.
3) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: As proposed, the amendment would apply to the downtown
area and multi-family areas surrounding the center of town. Each
proposal would receive individual consideration through Special
Review (and HPC where required) before an owner could receive a
building permit. Yard setback requirements per each zone district
must still be met with any proposal.
4) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: No impacts are anticipated.
5) 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: No impacts are anticipated.
6)
Whether and the extent to
result in significantly
environment.
which the proposed amendment would
adverse impacts on the natural
5
",.....,
,-"
Response: The structures will
buildings, and should have
groundforms or vegetation.
be used in conjunction with existing
very limited impacts on existing
7) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The HPC felt a scattering of these structures in the
city would be a visual and functional addition to the streetscape
or yard areas in town. They believe that these type of structures
would be fairly easily moved or replaced (rather than permanent
walled-in affairs) which would allow for more creativity.
8) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: As this applies to many different zone districts, any
specific conditions cannot be pinpointed. However, as addressed
above, the new AACP touches upon recapturing a certain "vitality"
in town which this amendment can actualize in a small way.
9) 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 proposal does not conflict with public interest.
It should enhance the conditions of those areas which require
certain amounts of open space.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends that the P&Z and HPC
gather to discuss the proposed language and process alternatives
at the February 8, 1993 joint worksession.
possible text amendments at this point are:
section 3-101 (definitions):
"Open Space means any portion of a parcel or area of land or
water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky
(wi th the exception of permitted architectural proj ections
above ground level such as building eaves, and light-
penetrating landscape or garden-oriented structures) and shall
include areas maintained in a natural or undisturbed state,
as well as recreation areas, pools, plazas, pathways,
fountains, landscaping, and similar areas which provide visual
relief from the mass of the buildings."
section 7-404.A. (review standards for Special Review)"
6
1"""'\
,-,
"A. Dimensional Requirements. Whenever the dimensional
requirements of a proposed development are sUbject to special
review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed
within an open space area, the development application shall
only be approved if the following conditions are met."
Exhibits:
"A" - Application Information and Graphics
"B" - Referral Memos
"c" - Review criteria for Special Review - section 24-7-404.A.l-
4.
trellis.text.memo
7
1"""'\
PENG
EX IBI
1 BY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Kim Johnson, planning Office ,~
George Robinson, parks Directoif-/
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
January 5, 1993
Text Amendment for open Space as Requested Py the
Cantina Restaurant/Chitwood Plaza Company
Upon review of the request for a textual change to the definition
of open space as detailed in the Aspen Land Use Code, chapter 24,
section 3-101, I would recommend against any change to the
definition. As stated in the code, open space is defined as "any
portion of a parcel or area of land or water' which is open or
unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of
permitted architectural projections, such as building eaves, above
ground level)..... The request to include trellis-like structures
in the definition, as requested py the Chitwood Plaza Company,
significantly alters the original intent of the definition of
.unobstructed from ground to sky.. Additionally, an eave only
projects a maximum of 1-2 feet into an open space area, whereas
the trellis would cover the entire area of open space. A trellis
is also a permanent structure. umbrellas are much more suitable
and compatible with the open space of the Cantina outdoor seating
because they are isolated with the individual tables and are
removable structures. Additionally, a trellis would most likely
provide less protection from the elements due to the open slats
between the frame structure. An umbrella provides at least some
protection during a light rain. I do not see the landscape benefit
of the trellis to the open space. If the intent of the trellis is
to grow vines, then the Cantina may be setting up the same type of
problem they had with the trees, insect infestation.
This request can set an unnecessary precedent for permanent
structures in open space. While a trellis can allow for an open
feeling to the outdoor seating, I would recommend against amending
the code for trellis-like structures in open space. I do not see
the benefits of the structure to warrant an amendment to the code.
MEMORANDUM
11
hl-4 - Gn- kfi- ~<-<-l
\ r (j fA ~ '1b --P(SCc.JS'S
~ T1c..-<- C6k1Z- Up,
.r"'\
-- GtU Cv--
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From:
Chuck Roth, City Engineer C!-1Z
January 26, 1993
Date:
Re:
Cantina. Special Review for Patio Covering
This memo is written in order to supplement my memo of January 15 which addressed
the proposed text amendment. This amendment is intended primarily to address the
specific request of the Cantina as a special review or conditional use.
1. Regarding discussions about the usefulness of open space in general, the Aspen
streetscape would be much less aesthetic if Mephisto, Volk, and other downtown buildings
were built out to the property lines. Similarly, it might not be appropriate to put a roof
or canopy over an entire open space. Open space has until now been open from the
ground to the sky. Some of the openness of open space will be lost when it is roofed
over, even if the roof has holes in it. Perhaps a good parameter would be to permit 50%
of the open space area to be covered.
2. For the Cantina proposal, it appears that there will be no snow shed onto the public
right-of.way. The slope of the open lattice covering should be away from the sidewalk to
further assist in maintaining melting snow and rain runoff on site. Again, limiting the
covering to 50% of the open space area might be beneficial to preserving some of the
open space sense created by openness from the ground to the sky.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M9~.2~
1)
2)
1'"\ ATTI\CHMENl' 1
~>l'ID USE APPLICATION F1JRM
Project: Name .........0 <:aREL", Rea1!a"ll~a"t . - T-e.r-f~j 1 ~jJe+- r
Project: Location 411 E. Main St.. Aspen. CO
..-."
, _/;/.
" :~<:.;::'
T.o.t~A. .R.~ C: & n~, RloC'.kB7. Citv :::Inn 'l'm..in~irp. of A!c;pjQn
(in::licate street adclI:ess, lot & blOCk IltIIIiler, legal description where
~riate)
3)
5)
Present Zon.i.ng C C
4) rot Size 12,000 Square feet
Applicant's N<lme, l\dkess & Rlone if
Chitwood Plaza Company
6)' Representative's Name, l\dkess & Rlone if Robert W. Hughes. Oates. Hughes &
.Knezevich, P.C., 533 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-1700
7)
. Type of Application (please check all that apply) :
- .
Con::litional Use
_ 0:>ncepbJal SPA
Final SPA
_ 0:lncepbJa.l Historic Oev.
_ Special Review
8040 Greenline
_ stream. Mal:gin
Final Historic Oev.
.'
_ 0:>ncepbJal roD
Final roD
Minor Historic Oev.
Historic Denolition
Molmtain view Plane
.
Sul:xlivision
_ Historic Designation
_ <nn::iaminiumization ---X.. 'J.'eXtIMaI,T Amendment
_ QQS AllobDerrt:
_ QQS ExeIption
.
_ rot SplitjIDt Line
Mjusbnent
8)
Description
approximate
pJ:bperty) .
of Existing Uses (IUIiJer arxi type of ex:i.sl:irg- sb::ucl::ures;
sq. ft.; IUIiJer of bedrocms; arT;{ previous approvals granted to the
~~A ~rr~~hAn lpfrpr
9) Description of Develcpnent Application
See attached letter.
10) Have you attached the foU=:i.:ng?
-1L- Response to Attachment 2, Mini.Jwm S,,!-m;<:<:iOll Corrt:ents
-1L- Response to Attachmerrt: 3, Specific SnhnksiOll Corrt:ents
-L Response to AttachmerIt 4, Review sta.rdards fol:'. YOUl:' Application
.~.
~
THE CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY
200 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2122
November 24, 1992
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Request for Textual Change to Defmition of Open Space
To Whom It May Concern:
This will confirm that the following named individuals have been authorized to
act on behalf of The Chitwood Plaza Company in connection with the above-referenced request:
Donald J. Fleisher
200 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2122
Robert W. Hughes
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C.
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-1700
Sincerely,
THE CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY,
a Colorado general partnership
By:/i-d~ ~
Donald J. Fle'slier, General Partner
'"
1"""'\.
.~
MEMORANDUM OF OWNERSHIP-ACCOMMODATION NO LIABILITY
FOR THE SOLE USE OF:
OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH
533 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
ATTN: BOB HUGHES
PLEASE DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE TO:
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
ATTN: VINCENT J. HIGENS
601 E. HOPKINS AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-1766 FAX (303) 925-6527
DESCRIPTION:
LOTS A, BAND C, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
GRANTEE IN THE LAST INSTRUMENT APPARENTLY TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP:
CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
TRUST DEEDS AND MORTGAGES APPARENTLY UNRELEASED:
Deed of Trust from : CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY, A COLORADO GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of COMMERCE REALTY CORP.
to secure $2,700,000.00
dated FEBRUARY 1, 1988
recorded FEBRUARY 4, 1988 IN BOOK 556 AT PAGE 333
reception no. 297133
Financing Statement given in connection with the above Deed of Trust
recorded in Book 556 at page 355.
Assignment of Leases and Rents given in connection with the above Deed
of Trust recorded in Book 556 at Page 358.
Modification and Renewal Agreement recorded in Book 637 at page 474 and
Book 637 at Page 485.
Deed of Trust from: CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY, A COLORADO GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of WALZEM SERVICE CORPORATION
to secure $1,000,000.00
dated FEBRUARY 2, 1988
recorded FEBRUARY 4, 1988 IN BOOK 556 AT PAGE 365
reception no. 297136
----CONTINUED----
'"
r--,
r--,
Above Deed of Trust Assigned to Citisavings and Loan Association
by instrument recorded October 24, 1988 in Book 576 at Page 552.
Financing Statement given in connection with the above Deed of Trust
recorded in Book 556 at Page 394.
Assignment of Lease given in connection with the above Deed of Trust
recorded in Book 556 at Page 397 and in Book 556 at Page 401.
Financing Statement given in connection with the above Deed of Trust
recorded in Book 556 at Page 412.
Financing Statement given in connection with the above Deed of Trust
recorded in Book 556 at Page 414.
Deed of Trust from : CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of COMMERCE REALTY CORP.
to secure AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
dated JULY 19, 1989
recorded JULY 27, 1989 IN BOOK 598 AT PAGE 112
reception no. 313633
Deed of Trust from
CHITWOOD PLAZA COMPANY, A COLORADO GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of LEON C. WULFE, JR.
to secure $225,000.00 & OTHER MATTERS(REFER TO RECORDED DEED
OF TRUST)
JULY 24, 1989
AUGUST 24, 1989 IN BOOK 600 AT PAGE 284
314461
no.
dated
recorded
reception
LIENS AND JUDGEMENTS (AGAINST LAST GRANTEE) APPARENTLY UNRELEASED:
NONE
THIS INFORMATION IS FOR YOUR SOLE USE AND BENEFIT AND IS FURNISHED AS
AN ACCOMMODATION.
THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM OUR TRACT INDICES, WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO, OR EXAMINATION OF, INSTRUMENTS WHICH PURPORTS TO AFFECT
THE REAL PROPERTY.
----CONTINUED----
)"
,<;l, '.'_
.'
.r'\
'-,
THE INFORMATION IS NEITHER GUARANTEED NOR CERTIFIED, AND IS NOT AN
ABSTRACT OF TITLE, OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND OUR
LIABILITY IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES.
CERTIFIED TO: NOVEMBER 2, 1992 @ 8:30 A.M.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
!
By: i
1"""'\
1"""'\.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE
. REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, February 2, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
city Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, colorado, amending the definition
of "open space" in section 3-101 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code to permit trellises and similar structures in required open
space in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses. For further
information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, Colorado 920-5090
s/Jasmine Tvare. Chairman
Planninq and Zoninq Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on January 15, 1993.
-----------------------------------------------~-----------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aspen Account
r-,
,~
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone (303)920.5090 FAX #(303)920.5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Zoning
Parks Department
Historic Preservation Commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE:
Text Amendment for Open Space
DATE:
December 28, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by The
,
Cantina Restaurant/Chitwood Plaza Company.
Please return your comments to me no later than January 15, 1993.
Thanks.
1""'\.
,~
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-50'90 FAX# (303) 920-5197
December 21, 1992
Bob Hughes
Oates Hughes & Knezevich
533 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Text Amendment for Open Space
Case A90-92
Dear Bob,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned
application. We have determined that this application is complete, except
that the fee submitted' was for a one step application ($912), instead of for
a two step application ($1976). Please submit the difference, $1064, to the
Aspen Planning Office as soon as possible to insure that we will be able to
maintain the date noted below for the Planning and Zoning commission meeting.
We will not refer the application until we receive this fee.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, February 2, 1993
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)
daysprior 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 Kim Johnson, the planner assigned to
your case.
Sincerely,
S?:t:~::f~rlfri
Administrative Assistant