Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.225 N Mill St.1976-CU-3MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Conditional Use - Financial Institution (Aspen Savings & Loan) in Neighborhood /Commercial Zone DATE: July 16, 1976 This is a public hearing to consider the request by Aspen Savings & Loan for the conditional use of a Financial Institution in the Neighborhood /Commercial zone located on Lots D, E, F, G, H and I of Block 78, Aspen, which is more generally known as the "Bennett" property immediately south of the Trueman grocery store. The property is zoned N/C with a Specially Planned District overlay zone. Business and professional offices are allowed as a conditional use in the N/C zone. It is the opinion of the Planning Office upon examining the P & Z minutes of the July 1, 1975 meeting that the P & Z has determined that a financial institution is a business office. Therefore we have advised the applicant to apply for conditional use approval. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. The zoning contiguous to the south boundary of this property is 0- Office. The Aspen Savings & Loan has previously received approval as a conditional use in the Office zone (without drive -up window) at the Park Central East Building site. 2. We agree with the applicants that this site is well located vis a vis other neighborhood and banking facilities, i.e., the proposed grocery store, and post office, the First National Bank and the Bank of Aspen. This would encourage a one -stop local shopping service. 3. We have certain concerns regarding vehicle and pedestrain access planning for the site, therefore we wish to reserve these considerations for review upon submittal of a plan for the site pursuant to the S.P.A. require- ments. 4. We cannot on courage a drive-up window facility to facilitate automobile use of the facility. The Planning Office recommends approval of the conditional use request conditioned upon the above considerations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rww w <. r. xorceci e. e. a i, co. Regular Meetina Planning and Zonin Commission July 15, 1975 80/40, cont'd problem is not severe. Mojo also noted that applicant does have a parking lot but has agreed to convey it to the condominiums below. Mojo asked that if approval is given, three provisions be included: 1) transfer to the Durant Condominiums the parking lot in fee simple; 2) there be a trail easement dedication; 3) that applicant be the ultimate developer on the lot. Hibberd noted that he has an emergency access but it is closed off during the winter. It is a 40% slope but the ground is stable and he has had Chin and Associates investigate to make sure. Jenkins asked Ellis to comment but Ellis said he had not seen the property but engineering -wise he felt it was possible to build on the slope. Abbott asked how the volunteer fire department felt about it and Hibberd said that Chief Clapper felt it wouldn't be any harder than getting to the 5th Avenue's. Mojo said that what they had to look at was: sufficient water pressure, were there adequate roads for fire, road maintenance, etc. Mojo said they probably should get some imput from the Fire Marshall on that. Also they should look at suitability of ground (mud flows, avalanche potential), watershed problems and accessibility. Jenkins said that they had done an on -site inspection before and feelings had been at the time that it was too steep. Hibberd said that they would have exits on all levels with adequate water access to the house. He noted that he had been cut back by the zoning code and at 16 units, Chief Clapper had said it wouldn't be a problem. Goodheim was concerned over the snow provided for skis and Hibberd noted that the road would be on the north side where there would be a buildup of snow. Motion Hunt moved to approve the review conditional that Soil erosion and vegetation replacement be restored to the present or better condition, the property that is a parking lot be given to the Durant Condominiums in fee simple, trail easement dedication be given, this be the ultimate development on the property and no impediments on the ski trail. Collins seconded. All in favor, except for Abbott, who voted nay. Motion carried. Aspen Savings &Kane reminded members that at last meeting they had discussed the Loan appropriateness of a Savings and Loan as a permitted use in the commercial zone. Since then they have received a letter from Dick Meeker withdrawing the request to have a drive up window. Jenkins explained that they did approve Real Estate offices as permitted but left S & L's as conditional. O- office designation does permit Real Estate offices by right but S & L is conditional and they have to be reviewed by P & Z. This is also for conceptual! subdivision. Goodheim asked if this would be a condominium unit also with Kane replying in the affirmative. Jenkins said that their hesitation was with generating more autos into the core area but they had either been zoned or malled out of most areas. Kane noted that their major objection had been the full service with it more retail in character but with their withdrawal of the request for the drive up window, the Planning office was satisfied. Kotion Hunt moved to "recommend to Council" that they grant Aspen Savings and Loan conceptual subdivision and that the P & Z grant condition- al use for them. Goodheim seconded. All in favor, motion carried. �allahan PUD Architects Fritz Benedict and Pat Maddalone represented the request. Kane noted that this was for Outline Development Plan and conceptual subdivision. Kane said it would be a mixed use on the Benedict property. Kane felt it inappropriate for the P & Z to discuss until the two properties whose annexation peti- tions had been submitted to Council, were accepted by Council. Last night's Council had tabled the petitions because no one had been there to represent the project. Kane also related that the -3- Hunt asked what the difference is between financial institutioi and office space. Mojo said that that's for the Planning and Zoning to determine. Hunt said that it doesn't matter if they are financial institutions, real estate offices, or insurance companies; they are offices. Jenkins said that the problem is in the zoning code; there are conditional uses and permitted uses but this is not under either one, they are listed under commercial core. Mojo replied that financial institutions are a listed use in commercial core but not in office space, so it's up to the board to determine whether they are a permitted or conditional use in the zone. Jenkins suggested that issue #3 be discussed first since it is a conditional use and that means that it has to be reviewed. The intent is to look at each individual application and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation is to give no blanket permission for all conditional uses. The P & Z would like to look at every use that goes into the building. Issue #1 which questions if a financial institution is a conditional use or permitted use in O Office zone. By having a drive up window or an auto oriented office the Planning Department doesn't think that that should be in O Office zone. The P &Z feels that that isn't compatible with O Office zone; it isn't within the intent of the zone to have this kind of orientation. Financial instituions are allowed in commercial core for this reason. They operate as a retail function and have all the good and bad points of a retail function and for this reason the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that financial institutions do not be permitted for conditional use in O Office Zone. The arguments for having a drive up window for the Aspen Savings and Loan were that this type of institution is a low key operation, and since the institution is in an automobile oriented area that by not having a drive up window they would be doubling up on automobiles in that area. Jenkins felt that if this was approved without the drive up window thei later they may feel that they aren't being treated the same as the other facilities and feel that they can't compete satisfactorily because they don't have the drive up window. Jenkins also mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission has created the situation where a car oriented business cannot be put downtown. Jenkins was not in favor of the drive up window because it creates a need for the automobile and instead of parking the car in one spot they will be able to drive around with it. Motion Hunt moved to include a financial institution as a conditional use under O Office Zone, seconded by Dobie. All in favor, motion carried. Mojo took the second issue which was that the request calls foi the same type of ruling for real estate offices. Real estate offices are not strictly a professional office they operate needing access to vehicles. Jenkins felt that as long as the parking meets with the code that he would have no objection to the use. -2- Planning and Zoning)Cbmmission 7/1/75 Use Determination Mojo presented the Aspen Savings and Loan project to the Aspen Savings and Planning and Zoning Commission. There are four considerations Loan those being 1) Use determination - a financial institution is not a listed conditional use and they are making an application to the Board to determine if this is a conditional use, 2) The request calls for the same type of ruling for a real estate office. It was questioned if a real estate office is a committed or conditioned use within the zones. 3) The request is for a blanket approval of the conditional uses that are in the office district and would they be allowed to own space in this particular building. 4) The issue is a conceptual subdivision Hunt asked what the difference is between financial institutioi and office space. Mojo said that that's for the Planning and Zoning to determine. Hunt said that it doesn't matter if they are financial institutions, real estate offices, or insurance companies; they are offices. Jenkins said that the problem is in the zoning code; there are conditional uses and permitted uses but this is not under either one, they are listed under commercial core. Mojo replied that financial institutions are a listed use in commercial core but not in office space, so it's up to the board to determine whether they are a permitted or conditional use in the zone. Jenkins suggested that issue #3 be discussed first since it is a conditional use and that means that it has to be reviewed. The intent is to look at each individual application and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation is to give no blanket permission for all conditional uses. The P & Z would like to look at every use that goes into the building. Issue #1 which questions if a financial institution is a conditional use or permitted use in O Office zone. By having a drive up window or an auto oriented office the Planning Department doesn't think that that should be in O Office zone. The P &Z feels that that isn't compatible with O Office zone; it isn't within the intent of the zone to have this kind of orientation. Financial instituions are allowed in commercial core for this reason. They operate as a retail function and have all the good and bad points of a retail function and for this reason the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that financial institutions do not be permitted for conditional use in O Office Zone. The arguments for having a drive up window for the Aspen Savings and Loan were that this type of institution is a low key operation, and since the institution is in an automobile oriented area that by not having a drive up window they would be doubling up on automobiles in that area. Jenkins felt that if this was approved without the drive up window thei later they may feel that they aren't being treated the same as the other facilities and feel that they can't compete satisfactorily because they don't have the drive up window. Jenkins also mentioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission has created the situation where a car oriented business cannot be put downtown. Jenkins was not in favor of the drive up window because it creates a need for the automobile and instead of parking the car in one spot they will be able to drive around with it. Motion Hunt moved to include a financial institution as a conditional use under O Office Zone, seconded by Dobie. All in favor, motion carried. Mojo took the second issue which was that the request calls foi the same type of ruling for real estate offices. Real estate offices are not strictly a professional office they operate needing access to vehicles. Jenkins felt that as long as the parking meets with the code that he would have no objection to the use. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves INMx C 1. eo[IX6 e. e.a 1. 10. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning July 1, 1975 Motion Hunt moved that real estate office be included in the permitter use of O Office Zone, Seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. , The third issue which is the conditional use of the Aspen Savings and Loan was discussed. Kane said that the philosophy of the O Office zone was that there should be off street parking and it is broadly long term parking. Office space has one hour or maybe two hour parking which attracts cars to park therefore it is low key low intensity automobile turnover use. Kane felt that a drive up window invites traffice and may cars, And that with a drive up window people would be taking their cars to the institution just for that reason, therefore creatii more cars in the downtown area. If the building has access by parking outside and walking inside then people think differently about the way they organize their trip and will spend the day downtown. A drive up facility would not encour- age that. Mojo felt that if Aspen Savings and Loan turned into a full scale commercial institution, like it might have the ability to do, people could have their savings and checking account in one place and may pull business away from the commercial banks and the customer would then have to use the window maybe for 10 minutes at a time. Pat Dalrymple, representing Aspen Savings and Loan, said that if the Planning and Zoning felt that the area already is an automobile oriented area; Jenkins said that they don't want the problem compounded. Motion Jenkins made a motion to approve the conditonal use of Savings and Loan in the O Office District in the particular Savings and Loan District but that they do not include or exclude the drive up facility and include in the parking requirements the specified zoning parking requiremetns for the use inthe area. Hunt said that he didn't like the idea of completely shutting them out; if the Commission decides only parking then inthe future that will shut out the possiblity of them ever having a drive up window. Mojo susggested that if the Commission votes down the condtional use of the building that Aspen Savings and Loan could come back and present another another design of the building and come back for another condtional /. use. Otte suggested that since the Planning and Zoning had two vacancies that this be tabled since they were tied pretty much on the decision. Motion \ Dobie made a motion to table the Aspen Savings and Loan project until the two vacancies were filled, seconded by Hunt. All in favor; Hunt was opposed. Motion Carried. Callahan Pat Maddalone originally requested that the Callahan Subdivisic Subdivision be put on the agenda for official conceptual Subdivision con- sideration. It wasn't possible because there are portions that are in the county; therefore, before any action is taken the entire area has to belong to the City until the petition for annexation has been initiated. Fritz Benedict presented the Callahan Subdivision and stated that all the land they are interested in was included in the project. The zoning is R -15, R -5 and R -20. He introduced Lee Brown who has suggested to Benedict the possibility of using the land for tennis courts, handball, squash, and steambath showers. Brown would like to see the facility used as a single type facility but still have it open to the public. -3- d PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on July 20, 1976 at 5:15 P.M. in City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a request for con- ditional use approval of the Aspen Savings & Loan office to be located on Lots D, E, F, G, H and I, Block 78, City of Aspen in the Neighborhood/ Commercial Zone District. A copy of the application may be examined in the office of the City /County Planner, City Hall during normal working hours. /s/ Kathryn S. Hauter City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times July 1, 1976 r 1;' July 18, 1976 Boulder, Colorado Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Dear Sir: Having received notice of the proposed conditional use approval of the Aspen Savings and Loan office, and being a property owner of a single - family residence in the immediate area, I would like to make the following statement for the record. I have no objection to the requested use, BUT ONLY because of the typography of the area. Were it not for the bluff above the project site, the use would be totally incompatible and unacceptable to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Thank you for your notice of my comments. Very truly yours, Mrs`. Joan E. Light 2,9 North Monarch, spen, Colorado DATE RECEIVED ASSIGNED TO DATE REPLIED ROUTE — — — July 13, 1976 F. du Pont Cornelius P.O. Box 758 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Cornelius: This is a brief response to your letter of July 10, 1976 concerning the Aspen Savings & Loan building conditional use request. From your letter it appears that you are not aware of the pending appli- cation on the Trueman property for a grocery store, service commer- cial uses, and a post office. The application has received con - cepAbal and preliminary plat approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. With these adjgcent property uses established the Aspen Savings & Loan building is following the land use pattern for this area, not setting a precedent. Normally specific building plans are not a part of a conditional use application. Please call me if you have questions in this matter. Very truly yours, Harold Clark, Jr. Land Use Administrator HC /bk F. duPONT CORNELIUS Laboratory for Conservation of Works of Art 2637 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 (513) 321 -1717 or 321 -3667 P.O.Box 758, Aspen, Colo. July 10,1976• Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Sire: We are in receipt of the notice of a public hearing to consider approval of use of lots D,E,F,G,H and I, Block 78 as location of an office building for the Aspen Savings and Loan. Before agreeing to the use of these six lots for purely commercial purposes we would have to know the size, height, precise location of proposed build- ing and use to which remainder of said lots is to be put. We are ,greatly alarmed at the possibility that approval of the proposed use may establish a precedent leading to encroachment of the commercial area on the residential area. We are strongly opposed to any such encroachment. We are cognizant of the fact that the existing topography of the land in this case , in itself, establishes a certain amount of separation between the neighboring commercial and residential areas, but as mentioned do not wish to establish a precedent. Sincerely yours, F.duPRnt Cornelius Adele H. Cornelius (Owners and part time residents of 252 East Bleeker Street) DA ....:�L �.1.- RCU E _ _ P. O. BOX 2121 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925 - 1474 -5 June 22, 1976 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: Aspen Savings is presently under contract to purchase Lots D,E, F,G,H and I. Block 78, City of Aspen. This land is being pur- chased for the purpose of constructing a building in which to conduct our business. This project is presently being planned, and we'd hope to con- struct it next summer; in the meantime, it's essential that we secure approval for such a business use. We note that the site is zoned neighborhood commercial, and therefore, we'd like to apply for a permitted use designation for the operation of a Savings and Loan Association. We feel that such a use is eminently compatible with the stated objectives of NC Zoning. Most significant is that 99% of our customers are full time Aspen residents, exactly the kind of peo- ple who will be patronizing the grocery store and post office slated for the adjacent property. Also, the subject site is just one block from the First National Bank, and two blocks from the Bank of Aspen, which would tend to create a natural financial core, which in turn could be a factor in decreasing resident traffic con- centration in the core area. We are enclosing the names and addresses of the neighboring prop- erty owners within a 300 foot radius, as is required by law. Thank you for considering our request any questions you may have. Sincerely, Patrick R. Dalrym e Executive Vice President PRD /eav Enclosure We'll be happy to answer S l y 2 DEPOSITS INSURED BY THE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION 0 h ���� `�/ ���� �I� 61i \�'� `J % i \\�,✓/ III (i\�V II�� ���/ w� \ l /�`. P. O. BOX 2121 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925- 1474 -5 June 8, 1976 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: Aspen Savings is in the process of purchasing the six lots, gener- ally known as the Bennett property, just south of the proposed Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. In connection with this purchase, we've examined the plans for the Trueman project, met with the Planning Office, and spoken to Mr. Trueman's architect. As a result_, we find ourselves concerned about the impact that Truensn's project, in its present form, will have on the area in general and specifically on the Bennett property, a rather large parcel of 18,000 square feet. Basically, we feel that the concept of the Trueman development is excellent; the location is ideal for a grocery store and post office. The project could go a long way to relieving vehicular pressure in the core area. We wholeheartedly support the ultimate construction of the Trueman Center. However, we are disturbed by its configuration. Quite simply, the present plan tekes no account of the adjoining Reanett Property, thereby creating a rather serious planning prob- lem when that property is inevitably developed. A reading of the zoning code, specifically Article VII- 24 -7.2C, indicates that a developer is required to file a "precise plan for the area which .. most contain a proposal for the entire area designated as a spe- cially planned area." It would appear this hasn't been done in the case at hand, and such an oversight could certainly be detrimental to the community's goal of establishing a functionally designed, es- thetically pleasing neighborhood shopping center. DEPOSITS INSURED BY THE FECERAL WOWS & LOAN 14SURANCE CUT ?QATION Flc;nri,�g and Zoning Commission --ine 8, 1976 city of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Page 2. For example, at the front of the property, certainly a critical de- sign point, the Trueman building is set back only four feet from the side lot line of the Bennett tract. The back of the structure runs cast and west virtually the entire length of the Bennett lots, making no allowance for the natural and inevitable flow of shoppers. Again, we must stress that we certainly voice no opposition to the ultimate creation of the facility planned by Mr. Trueman. Indeed, we support it and its objectives. Essentially, our sincere support prompts us to raise the preceding questions. Consequently, we're concerned by its final impact as relates to traffic flow and shop- per movement. The six lots presently being purchased by Aspen Savings will ideally be developed concurrently with the Trueman property. We hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will take this into consideration in their deliberations. Especially we feel attention should be fo- cussed on ways to better facilitate traffic and shopper flow between the two properties. Thank you. Sincerely, Patrick R. Dalrymple Executive Vice President PRD /eav i K2.NX URN 10 P. O. BOX 2121 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925- 1474 -5 June 2, 1976 MEMORANDUM TO: Hal Clark City Planning Office FROM: Pat Dalrymple Aspen Savings SUBJECT: Bennett Property As you know, Aspen Savings purchased the Bennett Property with the contingency that we be permitted to operate a Savings and Loan Asso- ciation on the site. As I mentioned in our conversation yesterday, the construction of the facility itself won't occur this summer, possibly not even next summer or the following year. We want to plan our project so that it relates properly to what is presently planned for the Trueman property, as well as tieing in with whatever improvements may be made to Mill Street. Consequently, we're seeking only to be assured that a savings and loan use would ultimately be permitted, assuming that the plans for the actual structure would be approved. Obviously our plans are quite nebulous. We do know that we require parking for our customers, and that we'd like some form of drive -up window. We feel, that given our present mode of operation and projected growth, our ultimate space need for our own operation would be around 3,000 square feet. Of course, should the Federal Financial Reform Act give S & L's checking account powers, we could find that competitive pressures could force us into this line of business, whereupon we'd need more space, but certainly not more than 6,000 feet. Again, we really have no idea as to what kind of building we'll final- ly have. We realize that we may formulate tentative plans only to re- adjust them after review by your department and the planning commis- sion. For instance, we may wish to construct a building large enough to provide additional rental space, or we might plan a structure which included employee housing units. Basically, we'll propose whatever will enable us to operate an attractive Savings and Loan Association DEPOSITS INSURED BY THE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION Page 2. in the most professional manner possible, while at the same time meshing with the needs and goals, both esthetic and functional, of the community and its government. Along this line, we'd like to seek the advice of you and your col- leagues. All too often, we feel, plans are made which ignore the community's long range planning. We feel that your input in these very preliminary planning stages, as well as during the progress of the project, can be vital to the ultimate success of whatever we do build. Please let me know if we can be of further help. Patrick R. Dalrymple Executive Vice President PRD /eav P. O. BOX 2121 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925- 1474 -5 May 24, 1976 Clayton Meyring Building Department City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Clayton: Aspen Savings has purchased Lots D,E,F,G,H and 1, Block 78, City of Aspen. (SEE attached plat.) We are buying this expressly as a site for a building to house Aspen Savings, and one of the con- ditions of our purchase is that we receive approval from the ap- propriate authorities to build such a structure. Presently, we understand the zoning designation is neighborhood commercial which, while it doesn't specifically mention Savings and Loan Associations, may be quite compatible with the use we propose. We would appreciate your reviewing this request, and routing it to the appropriate people in the planning department. Of course, we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Sincerely, Patrick R. Dalrymp Executive Vice President PRD /eav Enclosure DEPOSITS INSURED BY THE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION Owners of Property _thin 300' of lots D,E,F,f" Hand I. Block 78, Aspen Philip R. Hodgson Patricia A. Hodgson 212 N. Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 Robert G. Marsh Box 378 Aspen, Colorado 81611 David G. Sampson Box 1968 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Reinhard N. Elder Box 222 Aspen, Colorado 81611 John F. Gilmore Box J Hotel Jerome Aspen, Colorado 81611 Carl R. Bergman and Catherine M. Bergman Box 1365 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mountain States Communications, Inc. Box E Aspen, Colorado 81611 Charles A. Capper and Frances A. Capper Box 500 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ellsworth P. Scales, III c/o Aspen Public School District P.O. Box 300 Aspen, Colorado 81611 First National Bank of Grand Junction, Trustee for Mona Frost P.O. Box 608, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Fred D. Glidden and Florence Elder Glidden P.O. Box 356 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Charles B. Everest 551 W. Broadway Council Bluffs, Iowa 51501 Ferenc Berko and Mirte Berko P.O. Box 360 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Joan Enid Light 801 Baseline Road Boulder, Colorado 80302 i Page 2. Trustee William G. Brumder, Florida Land Trust First Wisconsin Trust Co., Box 2054 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 F. DuPont Cornelius and Adele H. Cornelius P.O. Box 758 Aspen, Colorado 81611 County of Pitkin 506 E. Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 John Crosby 325 S. Forest Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Louise H. Saurel 152 E. 81st Street New York, New York 10028 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 James R. Trueman 523 S. Third Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Rosa Gettman 325 S. Forest Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Ewald H. Crosby 4208 Rickover Drive Dallas, Texas 75234