Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.HovesvenLotsR&S-Blk106.1978M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Hovdesven - PUD Exemption from N/C Bulk Regulations DATE: July 19, 1978 The attached application comes to you from Bayard Hovdesven who is represented by Bob Hughes. The letter of application requests exemption from the mandatory PUD requirements for property located in the N/C zone, Lots R and S, Block 106. This property is currently vacant on the corner between City Market and the Durant Mall and consists of a total of 6,000 square feet. A brief history of this lot is available in an attached planning memo by Hal Clark, dated June 23, 1977. Section 24-0.13 is the basis for this PUD exemption request. The section says, "All development shall proceed according to this Article VIII as a planned unit development unless the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine that the proposed development meets the objectives of planned unit development and therefore compliance with this article is not necessary." The question before you today is whether the building as proposed has acceptable setbacks and height. 'he applicant's architects have worked closely with Clayton Meyring on the plans. The building is designed on the basis of a 1:1 FAR as required in the N/C zone which resulted in a two- story 6,000 square foot structure with underground parking. Clayton has commented that this building is designed under the standards of the commercial district. He recommends approval of the setbacks, the two-story height and the PUD exemption as they are consistent with the Durant Mall. The only problem Clayton has is with the open space requirement for which the building is 632 square feet deficient. He will solve this with the applicants prior to the issuance of a building permit, according to his memo to the Planning Office dated June 29, 1978. Dave Ellis, City Engineer has two minor concerns which he feels should be addressed. His comments are as follows: "Although the electrical load for the building is unknown, it is almost certain that the necessary transformer will be too large for the six-foot aisle where it has been shown. This area is also an exit. Prior to providing electrical service, the electrical department will require an easement for placement of the trans- former. ^he second area of concern is in regard to the paved parking area at the rear of the building. Should this area be heated for snow melting purposes, we do not want snow melt entering the right of way, but rather handled on the site. Subject to these two minor concerns the Engineering Department recommends the granting of the exemption from PUD review." This application was reviewed by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 1978. At that time, the Aspen City Council July 19, 1978 Page 2 Commission recommends approval of the plan as presented for the PUD exemption, ]used conditionally upon the following: 1. Dedication of an easement for the placement of an electricity transformer as may be required by the City of Aspen Electric Department, as suggested by the City Engineer. 2. Should the paved parking area at the rear of the building be heated for snow melting purposes, a drainage plan for the snow melt should be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. 3. Alteration of the plan to conform with the open space requirements of the N/C zone prior to the issuance of a building permit. ZG:mc M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Rezoning from 1/1 to 0.5 F.A.R. Referral Comment From Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: June 23, 1977 As part of the general rezoning for the City of Aspen approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and now pending before the City Council (Ordinance #30), the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) is recommended for change from 1/1 to 0.5. As a practical matter, the 0.5 F.A.R. has been in effect for a year -and -a -half due to the fact that after the Planning and Zoning motion recommending a .5 F.A.R. For example, the Trueman project was reviewed and approved according to the .5 F.A.R. Mr. Bayard Hovdesven is the owner of Lots R and S, Block 106 Aspen Townsite which are the two undeveloped lots directly east and contiguous to the Durant Mall. Mr. Hovdesven has applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the .5 F.A.R. to allow a 1/1 F.A.R. on these two lots. The Board of Adjustment refused to act on the application and referred the matter back to the City Council to consider changing the F.A.R. back to 1/1. The City Council has tabled Second Reading of Ordinance 30 establishing the .5 F.A.R. for the NC Zone pending comment from the Planning and Zoning on the Hovdesven request. The Planning and Zoning Commission by unanimous vote on June 21, 1977, supports the retention of the "old" 1/1 F.A.R. for lots R and S, Block 106 and thereby recommends against the adoption of the .5 F.A.R. for the NC zone. This conclusion is based on the following reasons: 1. The Hovdesven lots are the only remaining undeveloped lots in the NC zone. The .5 F.A.R. would produce a one-story building of 3,000 square feet in size. The adjacent Durant Mall complex approved via Ordinance #19 has a 2.5 to 3.0 F.A.R. A small one-story structure adjacent to the Durant Mall would be significantly out of scale with the massive structure of the three story Durant Mall. Also, development in the immediate area exceeds a .5 F.A.R. 2. The Planning Office anticipates additional requests for rezoning to NC. At the time of these requests, wewill again analyze the appropriateness of the 1/1 F.A.R. 3. The NC zone is mandatory P.U.D. zone. Specific develop- ment review will be accomplished at the time of P.U.D. application. 4. The applicant has previously argued for a change of zoning from NC to C-1. We strongly support the retention of the NC zone for this property. lmk LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & tJOROAN F,00 EAST HOPK:NS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS DAVID G. EISENSTEIN May 19, 1978 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2eOO Re: Application for Exemption from Mandatory PUD Requirements Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: We represent Bayard Y. Hovdesven who is the owner of Lots R and S, Block 106, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lots R and S are situate on the northwest corner of Durant and Original. Streets, within the block that currently accommodates the Durant Mall (to the west), City Market (to the north), and the Viking Commerical Building. Across Durant Street to the south are the Chateaux Chaumont and Dumont Condominiums. The property is without any slope, zoned Neighborhood -Commercial (NC), and contains a building site of 6,000 square feet. Mr.Hovdesven wishes to construct a two-story commercial building on this site of approximately 6,000 square feet (i.e., approximately 3,300 square feet on the first level and 2,700 square feet on the second level). He seeks by this application exemption from the rather lengthy PUD review process that otherwise would apply by virtue of the PUD designation for the NC zone. Mr. Hovdesven's project would meet all use, area and bulk requirements of the code, and the City's off-street parking requirements. A copy of his project plans accompanies this application. Some of you may recall the relatively recent history surrounding Mr. Hovdesven's developmental plans. Last spring he had sought from the Board of Adjustment a variance from the reduction in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the NC and other zone districtsresulting from the peridancy of Ordinance 30 (series of 0 • DATES, AUSTM, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 19, 1978 Page Two 1977). At the time, Ordinance 30 proposed a reduction of the FAR in the NC Zone from 1:1 to 0.5:1. While the members of the Board of Adjustment were generally sympathetic to Mr. Hovdesven's plight the request was denied primarily on the ground that it exceeded the Board's variance authority. Ordinance 30 had not yet come before City Council for Second Reading, and upon the recommendation of both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the change in the FAR for the NC Zone was deleted from Ordinance 30 when ultimately it passed. This was done solely to accommodate Mr. Hovdesven's project given that 1) his property was the only remaining undeveloped property in the NC Zone, and, hence, the only property that would be affected by the change; and 2) the inclusion of the NC Zone in Ordinance 30 in the first instance was made so that larger -scale projects could be controlled and in anticipation of possible rezoning to the NC Zone of areas in the west end of town. Against the background, Mr. Hovdesven then set about to seek a means to accommodate the off-street parking requirements that would be required for a building of the approximate size proposed [see Section 24-4.5, Aspen Municipal Code]. He finally was able to negotiate for the use of the parking ramp servicing the Durant Mall in order that the square footage of the below - grade level of his proposed building could be devoted virtually exclusively to parking. The two buildings are to be joined at the basement and second story levels. The NC Zone, as you know, is a mandatory PUD Zone. We believe that in this particular case strict compliance with Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is not necessary and that PUD objectives adequately are addressed in Mr. Hovdesven's project plans. Block 106, which consists of the Durant Mall, City Market and the Viking Commercial Building, is exclusively of a commercial orientation. And given both the nature and size of the commercial uses in the block and the rather substantial residential condo- minium complexes to the south and east, a commercial project of the scale and dimension proposed by Mr. Hovdesven is perhaps the only compatible use conceivable and clearly a preferred use.. We have OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH S_ JORDA►V Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Three carefully reviewed the several objectives of mandatory PUD review and, considering the size of the site and the neighbor- hood, believe that this particular project does not fairly lend itself to or require extensive review under PUD criteria as would, for example, a site capable of accomodating both open space objectives and scale compatability with surrounding uses. As the accompanying plans show Mr. Hovdesven's project is keenly attuned to the neighborhood in terms of architectural character. Indeed, the project is, for all practical intents and purposes, but a logical and orderly extension of the Durant Mall, and quite tailored to the needs of the block, both aesthetically and practically. The City's off-street parking requirements have been fully addressed and met in terms of both above and below grade parking areas. There simply are no geologic hazards associated with the site, no problems in terms of the traffic circulation that would be generated by development and obviously no difficulties with respect to support and maintenance systems and services for the site. Mr. Hovdesven believes his proposed project contemplates clearly the most efficient and aesthetically pleasing use of the site imaginable. Mr. Hovdesven and his architect have worked closely with Clayton Meyering (whose assistance and further comment is appreciated and invited) on the project plans to insure that they meet all area and bulk requirements of the code. They do and, in the circumstances, we believe that it is these objectives and requirements that are best suited for consideration in the develop- ment of this particular site. Mr. Hovdesven naturally is anxious to begin work as soon as possible and, for this reason.alone, has sought to address your discretion under Section 24-8.13 to suspend in this case compliance with the .lengthy PUD process, which could not yield a structure more in harmony with its environs than the one he now proposes. Finally, we belive that the mandatory PUD designation of this particular site is, perhaps, as equally unintended as its having nearly been caught, also unintentionally, in the midst of the wholesale reductions in the FAR of several zone districts last year. The designation we feel, although entirely appropriate for large sites and bigger projects (such as the Trueman Project), does not serve a substantial purpose in this case. 6.. . OATES, AUSTIN, MGGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Four We will be happy to supply you with any further infor- mation you may require and to answer any questions you may have. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda.. Thank you for your consideration. RWH:jms cc: Mr. Bayard Y. Hovdesven Very truly yours, OATES, �kUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN MEMO TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING FROM: DAVE ELLIS ENGINEERIN6.3)j!!�. DATE: June 28, 1978 RE: PUD Exemption Lots R & S, Block 106, Original Aspen Townsite After reviewing the plans for this project the engineering department has only a couple of comments. The first is in regard to the proposed location of the electrical transformer. Although the electrical load for the building is unknown, it is almost certain that the necessary transformer will be too large for the six foot lisle whex ___jt,_has been sYiown , finis area is also an exit. Prior to providing electrical service the electric department will re- quire an easement for placement of the -'transformer. The _second area of concern 1.s jn reeard' to the pared' ppzking area at the rear of the building. Should this area be heated for snowmelting purposes we do not want. _sno _ n erina e rig -off-way; '�u i atFier "han- l�n site. Subject_to­these 'two minor`cof'i he engineering department recommends the granting of the exemption from PUD re- view. Other items such as curb and gutter and handicap ramps at the corner will be handled through the normal building permit pro- cess. jk • MEMO TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING FROM: CLAYTON MEYRING BUILDING DATE: June 29, 1978 0'+rm RE: Durant Original Building I have checked the new two story building proposed to be constructed on the NW corner of Durant and Original for compliance with the Area and Bulk Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The property where this building is proposed to be constructed is located in the NC (PUD) zoning district, The requirements for minimum lot width, minimum front yard, mini- mum side yard, minimum rear yard and maximum height of build- ing are set by the PUD development plan. The requirement for open space is 25 per cent the same in all zoning districts where open space is required. Unfortunately, this proposed building does not meet the open space requirement by 632 square feet. The requirement for external floor area ratio is 1:1. The proposed building meets this requirement. Since this is the last piece of property remaining to be developed in the block and all other properties have been developed under standards of the commercial districts, as far as yard setbacks, I would recommend the setbacks as presented be approved. jk 0 • MEMO TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING FROM: DAVE ELLIS ENGINEER IN�� v DATE: June 28, 1978 RE: PUD Exemption Lots It & S, Block 106, Original Aspen TOwnsit:e After reviewing the plans for this project the engineering department has only a couple of comments, The first is in regard to the proposed location of the electrical transformer. Although the electrical load for the building is unknown, it is almost certain that the necessary transformer will be too large for the six foot aisle where it has been shown. This area is also an exit. Prior to providing electrical service the electric department will re- quire an easement for placement of the -transformer. The second area of concern is in regard to the paved parking area at the rear of the building. Should this area be heated for snowmelting purposes we do not want snowmelt entering the right-of-way, but rather han- dled on site. Subject to these two minor concerns the engineering department recommends the granting of the exemption from PUD re- view. Other items such as curb and gutter and handicap ramps at the corner will be handled through the normal building permit pro- cess. jk r 0 • M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen Planning ,and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Hovdesven - PUD Exemption from N/C Bulk Regulations DATE: June 30, 1978 The attached application comes to you from Bayard Hovdesven who ate~ is represented by Bob Hughes. The letter of application requests exemption from the mandatory PUD Requirements for property loca- ted in the N/C zone, Lots R and S, Block 106. This property is currently vacant on the corner between City Market and the Durant Mall and consists of a total of 6000 square feet. S ,e A brief history of this lot is available in an attached planning memo by Hal Clark, dated June 23, 1977. ;:.. rs Section 24-8.13 is the basis for this PUD Exemption request. 11 The Section says, "all development shall proceed according to this Article VIII as a planned unit development unless the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission shall determine that the proposed development meets the objectives of planned unit development and therefore compliance with this article is not necessary." The decision which this commission needs to make today is whether the building as proposed has acceptable setbacks and height. The applicant's architects have worked closely with Clayton Meyring on the plans. The building is designed on the basis of a 1:1 FAR as required in the N/C zone which resulted in a two story 6,000 square foot structure with underground parking. Clayton has commented that this building is designed under the standards of the commercial districts. He recommends approval of the setbacks, the two story height and the PUD exemption as they are consistent with the Durant Mall. The only problem Clayton has is with the open -space requirement for which the building is 632 square feet deficient. He will solve this with the applicants prior to issuance of a building permit. Dave Ellis, City Engineer, has two minor concerns which he feels should be addressed. His comments are attached. Subject to the satisfaction of these concerns, he recommends approval of the exemption from PUD. The Planning Office recommends approval of the plan as presented for PUD Exemption, based conditionally upon the following: 1) Dedication of an easement for the placement of an electricity transformer as may be required by the City of Aspen Electric Department, as sug- gested by the City Engineer, 2) Should the paved parking area at the rear of the building be heated for snowmelting purposes, a drainage plan for the snowmelt to be approved by the City Engineer, and 3) Alteration of the plan to conform with the open space requirements of the N/C zone prior to the issuance of a building permit. ss LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R.JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS DAVID G. EISENSTEIN May 19, 1978 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Asp+gin 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 Re: Application for Exemption from Mandatory PUD Requirements Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: We represent Bayard Y. Hovdesven who is the owner of Lots R and S, Block 106, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lots R and S are situate on the northwest corner of Durant and Original Streets, within the block that currently accommodates the Durant Mall (to the west), City Market (to the north), and the Viking Commerical Building. Across Durant Street to the south are the Chateaux Chaumont and Dumont Condominiums. The property is without any slope, zoned Neighborhood -Commercial (NC), and contains a building site of 6,000 square feet. Mr.Hovdesven wishes to construct a two-story commercial building on this site of approximately 6,000 square feet (i.e., approximately 3,300 square feet on the first level and 2,700 square feet on the second level). He seeks by this application exemption from the rather lengthy PUD review process that otherwise would apply by virtue of the PUD designation for the NC zone. Mr. Hovdesven's project would meet all use, area and bulk requirements of the code, and the City's off-street parking requirements. A copy of his project plans accompanies this application. Some of you may recall the relatively recent history surrounding Mr. Hovdesven's developmental plans. Last spring he had sought from the Board of Adjustment a variance from the reduction in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the NC and other zone districts resulting from the pendancy of Ordinance 30 (series of 9 11 OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 19, 1978 Page Two 1977). At the time, Ordinance 30 proposed a reduction of the FAR in the NC Zone from 1:1 to 0.5:1. While the members of the Board of Adjustment were generally sympathetic to Mr. Hovdesven's plight the request was denied primarily on the ground that it exceeded the Board's variance authority. Ordinance 30 had not yet come before City Council for Second Reading, and upon the recommendation of both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the change in the FAR for the NC Zone was deleted from Ordinance 30 when ultimately it passed. This was done solely to accommodate Mr. Hovdesven's project given that 1) his property was the only remaining undeveloped property in the NC Zone, and, hence, the only property that would be affected by the change; and 2) the inclusion of the NC Zone in Ordinance 30 in the first instance was made so that larger -scale projects could be controlled and in anticipation of possible rezoning to the NC Zone of areas in the west end of town. Against the background, Mr. Hovdesven then set about to seek a means to accommodate the off-street parking requirements that would be required for a building of the approximate size proposed [see Section 24-4.5, Aspen Municipal Code]. He finally was able to negotiate for the use of the parking ramp servicing the Durant Mall in order that the square footage of the below - grade level of his proposed building could be devoted virtually exclusively to parking. The two buildings are to be joined at the basement and second story levels. The NC Zone, as you know, is a mandatory PUD Zone. We believe that in this particular case strict compliance with Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is not necessary and that PUD objectives adequately are addressed in Mr. Hovdesven's project plans. Block 106, which consists of the Durant Mall, City Market and the Viking Commercial Building, is exclusively of a commercial orientation. And given both the nature and size of the commercial uses in the block and the rather substantial residential condo- minium complexes to the south and east, a commercial project of the scale and dimension proposed by Mr. Hovdesven is perhaps the only compatible use conceivable and clearly a preferred use. We have 0 0 OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Three carefully reviewed the several objectives of mandatory PUD review and, considering the size of the site and the neighbor- hood, believe that this particular project does not fairly lend itself to or require extensive review under PUD criteria as would, for example, a site capable of accomodating both open space objectives and scale compatability with surrounding uses. As the accompanying plans show Mr. Hovdesven's project is keenly attuned to the neighborhood in terms of architectural character. Indeed, the project is, for all practical intents and purposes, but a logical and orderly extension of the Durant Mall, and quite tailored to the needs of the block, both aesthetically and practically. The City's off-street parking requirements have been fully addressed and met in terms of both above and below grade parking areas. There simply are no geologic hazards associated with the site, no problems in terms of the traffic circulation that would be generated by development and obviously no difficulties with respect to support and maintenance systems and services for the site. Mr. Hovdesven believes his proposed project contemplates clearly the most efficient and aesthetically pleasing use of the site imaginable. Mr. Hovdesven and his architect have worked closely with Clayton Meyering (whose assistance and further comment is appreciated and invited) on the project plans to insure that they meet all area and bulk requirements of the code. They do and, in the circumstances, we believe that it is these objectives and requirements that are best suited for consideration in the develop- ment of this particular site. Mr. Hovdesven naturally is anxious to begin work as soon as possible and, for this reason alone, has sought to address your discretion under Section 24-8.13 to suspend in this case compliance with the lengthy PUD process, which could not yield a structure more in harmony with its environs than the one he now proposes. Finally, we belive that the mandatory PUD designation of this particular site is, perhaps, as equally unintended as its having nearly been caught, also unintentionally, in the midst of the wholesale reductions in the FAR of several zone districts last year. The designation we feel, although entirely appropriate for large sites and bigger projects (such as the Trueman Project), does not serve a substantial -purpose in this case. OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Four We will be happy to supply you with any further infor- mation you may require and to answer any questions you may have. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, OATES, 4b�USTIN, MCCRATH & JORDAN J; I By , ( %V. obert W. Hug RWH:jms cc: Mr. Bayard Y. Hovdesven LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AU 5T,N J. NICHOLAS McGRATH. JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III AREA CODE 303 RORERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 BARRY D. EDWARDS DAVID G.EISENSTEIN *rt (� (, May 19, 1978 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application for Exemption from Mandatory PUD Requirements Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: We represent Bayard Y. Hovdesven who is the owner of Lots R and S, Block 106, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lots R and S are situate on the northwest corner of Durant and Original Streets, within the block that currently accommodates the Durant Mall (to the west), City Market (to the north), and the Viking Conffne.rical Building. Across Durant Street to the south are the Chateaux Chaumont and Dumont Condominiums. 'The property is without any slope, zoned Neighborhood -Commercial (NC), and contains a building site of 6,000 square feet. Mr.Hovdesven wishes to construct a two-story commercial building on this site of approximately 6,000 square feet (i.e., approximately 3,300 square feet on the first level and 2,700 square feet on the second level). He seeks by this application exemption from the rather lengthy PUD review process that otherwise would apply by virtue of the PUD designation for the NC zone. Mr. Hovdesven's project would meet all use, area and bulk requirements of the code, and the City's off-street parking requirements. A copy of his project plans accompanies this application. Some of you may recall the relatively recent history surrounding Mr. Hovdesven's developmental plans. Last spring he had sought from the Board of Adjustment a variance from the reduction in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the NC and other zone districtsresulting from the pendancy of Ordinance 30 (series of OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 19, 1978 Page Two 1977). At the time, Ordinance 30 proposed a reduction of the FAR in the NC Zone from 1:1 to 0.5:1. While the members of the Board of Adjustment were generally sympathetic to Mr. Hovdesven's plight the request was denied primarily on the ground that it exceeded the Board's variance authority. Ordinance 30 had not yet come before City Council for Second Reading, and upon the recommendation of both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the change in the FAR for the NC Zone was deleted from Ordinance 30 when ultimately it passed. This was done solely to accommodate Mr. Hovdesven's project given that 1) his property was the only remaining undeveloped property in the NC Zone, and, hence, the only property that would be affected by the change; and 2) the inclusion of the NC Zone in Ordinance 30 in the first instance was made so that larger -scale projects could be controlled and in anticipation of possible rezoning to the NC Zone of areas in the west end of town. Against the background, Mr. Hovdesven then set about to seek a means to accommodate the off-street parking requirements that would be required for a building of the approximate size proposed [see Section 24-4.5, Aspen Municipal Code]. He finally was able to negotiate for the use of the parking ramp servicing the Durant Mall in order that the square footage of the below - grade level of his proposed building could be devoted virtually exclusively to parking. The two buildings are to be joined at the basement and second story levels. The NC Zone, as you know, is a mandatory PUD Zone. We believe that in this particular case strict compliance with Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is not necessary and that PUD objectives adequately are addressed in Mr. Hovdesven's project plans. Block 106, which consists of the Durant Mall, City Market and the Viking Commercial Building, is exclusively of a commercial orientation. And given both the nature and size of the. commercial uses in the block and the rather substantial residential condo- minium complexes to the south and east, a commercial project of the scale and dimension proposed by Mr. Hovdesven is perhaps the only compatible use conceivable and clearly a preferred use. We have 9 0 OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Three carefully reviewed the several objectives of mandatory PUD review and, considering the size of the site and the neighbor- hood, believe that this particular project does not fairly lend itself to or require extensive review under PUD criteria as would, for example, a site capable of accomodating both open space objectives and scale compatability with surrounding uses. As the accompanying plans show Mr. Hovdesven's project is keenly attuned to the neighborhood in terms of architectural character. Indeed, the project is, for all practical intents and purposes, but a logical and orderly extension of the Durant Mall, and quite tailored to the needs of the block, both aesthetically and practically. The City's off-street parking requirements have been fully addressed and met in terms of both above and below grade parking areas. There simply are no geologic hazards associated with the site, no problems in terms of the traffic circulation that would be generated by development and obviously no difficulties with respect to support and maintenance systems and services for the site. Mr. Hovdesven believes.his proposed project contemplates clearly the most efficient and aesthetically pleasing use of the site imaginable. I4r..Hovdesven and his architect have worked closely with Clayton IyMeyering (whose assistance and further comment is appreciated and invited) on the project plans to insure that they meet all area and bulk requirements of the code. They do and, in the circumstances, we believe that it is these objectives and requirements that are best suited for consideration in the develop- ment of this particular site. Mr. Hovdesven naturally is anxious to begin work as soon as possible and, for this reason alone, has sought to address your discretion under Section 24-8.13 to suspend in this case compliance with the lengthy PUD process, which could not yield a structure more in harmony with its environs than the one he now proposes. Finally, we belive that the mandatory PUD designation of this particular site is, perhaps, as equally unintended as its having nearly been caught, also unintentionally, in the midst of the wholesale reductions in the FAR of several zone districts last year. The designation we feel, although entirely appropriate for large sites and bigger projects (such as the Trueman Project), does not serve a substantial purpose in this case. OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Four We will be happy.to supply you with any further infor- mation you may require and to answer any questions you may have. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, OATES, AUSTIN, MCCRATH & JORDAN M RWH : jms cc: Mr. Bayard Y. Hovdesven LAW OFFICES DATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES _ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS IACGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS DAVID G. EISENSTEIN May 19, 1978 Planning and Zoning ConLTnission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 92S-2600 Re: Application for Exemption from Mandatory PUD Requirements Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: We represent Bayard Y. Hovdesven who is the owner of Lots R and S, Block 106, City and Townsite of Aspen. Lots R and S are situate on the northwest corner of Durant and Original Streets, within the block that currently accommodates the Durant Mall (to the west), City Market (to the north), and the Viking Commerical Building. Across Durant Street to the south are the Chateaux Chaumont and Dumont Condominiums- The property is without any slope, zoned Neighborhood -Commercial (NC), and contains a building site of 6,000 square feet. Mr.Hovdesven wishes to construct a two-story commercial building on this site of approximately 6,000 square feet (i.e., approximately 3,300 square feet on the first level and 2,700 square feet on the second level). He seeks by this application exemption from the rather lengthy PUD review process that otherwise would apply by virtue of the PUD designation for the NC zone. Mr. Hovdesven's project would meet all use, area and bulk requirements of the code, and the City's off-street parking requirements. A copy of his project plans.accompanies this application. Some of you may recall the relatively recent history surrounding Mr. Hovdesven's developmental plans. Last spring he had sought from the Board of Adjustment a variance from the reduction in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the NC and other zone districtsresulting from the pendancy of Ordinance 30 (series of OATES, AUSTM, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office May 19, 1978 Page Two 1977). At the time, Ordinance 30 proposed a reduction of the FAR in the NC Zone from 1:1 to 0.5:1. While the members of the Board of Adjustment were generally sympathetic to Mr. Hovdesven's plight the request was denied primarily on the ground that it exceeded the Board's variance authority. Ordinance 30 had not yet come before City Council for Second Reading, and upon the recommendation of both the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the change in the FAR for the NC Zone was deleted from Ordinance 30 when ultimately it passed. This was done solely to accommodate Mr. Hovdesven's project given that 1) his property was the only remaining undeveloped property in the NC Zone, and, hence, the only property that would be affected by the change; and 2) the inclusion of the NC Zone in Ordinance 30 in the first instance was made so that larger -scale projects could be controlled and in anticipation of possible rezoning to the NC Zone of areas in the west end of town. Against the background, Mr. Hovdesven then set about to seek a means to accommodate the off-street parking requirements that would be required for a building of the approximate size proposed [see Section 24-4.5, Aspen Municipal Code]. He finally was able to negotiate for the use of the parking ramp servicing the Durant Mall in order that the square footage of the below - grade level of his proposed building could be devoted virtually exclusively to parking. The two buildings are to be joined at the basement and second story levels. The NC Zone, as you know, is a mandatory PUD Zone. We believe that in this particular, case strict compliance with Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is not necessary and that PUD objectives adequately are addressed in Mr. Hovdesven's project plans. Block 106, which consists of the Durant Mall, City Market and the Viking Commercial Building, is exclusively of a commercial orientation. And given both the nature and size of the commercial uses in the block and the rather substantial residential condo- minium complexes to the south and east, a commercial project of the scale and dimension proposed by Mr. Hovdesven is perhaps the only compatible use conceivable and clearly a preferred use. We have OATEs, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Three carefully reviewed the several objectives of mandatory PUD review and, considering the size of the site and the neighbor- hood, believe that this particular project does not fairly lend itself to or require extensive review under PUD criteria as would, for example, a site capable of accomodating both open space objectives and scale compatability with surrounding uses. As the accompanying plans show Mr. Hovdesven's project is keenly attuned to the neighborhood in terms of architectural character. Indeed, the project is, for all practical intents and purposes, but a logical and orderly extension of the Durant Mall, and quite tailored to the needs of the block, both aesthetically and practically. The City's off-street parking requirements have been fully addressed and met in terms of both above and below grade parking areas. There simply are no geologic hazards associated with the site, no problems in terms of the traffic circulation that would be generated by development and obviously no difficulties with respect to support and maintenance systems and services for the site. Mr. Hovdesven believes his proposed project contemplates clearly the most efficient and aesthetically pleasing use of the site imaginable. Mr. Hovdesven.and his architect have worked closely with Clayton Meyering (whose assistance and further comment is appreciated and invited) on the project plans to insure that they meet all area and bulk requirements of the code. They do and, in the circumstances, we believe that it is these objectives and requirements that are best suited for consideration in the develop- m.ent of this particular site. Mr. Hovdesven naturally is anxious to.begin work as soon as possible and, for this reason alone, has sought to address your discretion under Section 24-8.13 to suspend in this case compliance with the lengthy PUD process, which could not yield a structure more in harmony with its environs than the one he now proposes. Finally, we belive that the mandatory PUD designation of this particular site is, perhaps, as equally unintended as its having nearly been caught, also unintentionally, in the midst of the wholesale reductions in the FAR of several zone districts last year. The designation we feel, although entirely appropriate for large sites and bigger projects (such as the Trueman Project), does not serve a substantial purpose in this case. OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Offices May 19, 1978 Page Four We will be happy to supply you with any further infor- mation you may require and to answer any questions you may have. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By RWH : j ms cc: Mr. Bayard Y. Hovdesven a 6 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer Jim Markalunas, Water Department Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector Dorothy Nuttall, City Attorney FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: P.U.D. Exemption for Lots R & S, Block 106 (Northwest corner of Durant and Original) DATE: June 1, 1978 This property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and has a mandatory P.U.D. overlay. The application, which is attached, seeks exemption from the P.U.D. requirement. This item is tentatively scheduled for the July 6th City P & Z meeting. Could I please have your comments by June 28? Thanks.