The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.rz.MooreBuildingMoore Building Rezoning l Z'� CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 7- I?-&> DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: PROJ ECT NA APPLICANT: CAS E NO.� ' STAFF: 5 Applicant Address/Phone: /',�2y d�,��_, l;, C%.0 p.2E • 337 ::2 �01?7 REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address/Phone: Type of Application: I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission Preliminary Plat Final Plat II. SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission Preliminary Plat Final Plat III. EXCEPT ION/EXEMPT ION/REZ ON ING (2 step) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) Special Review Use Determination Conditional Use Other: ($2,730.00) ($1,640.00) ($ 820.00) ($1,900.00) ($1,220.00) ($ 820.00) (i�� ($ 680.00) ;P& CC MEETING DATE: 5e_r� 3 PUBLIC HEARING • YES NO DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: REFERRALS: City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric Fire Marshall / Bldg: Zo-nin2ZInspectn Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other: FINAL ROUTING: ----------------------- DATE ROUTED: ------------- INITIAL:-. City Atty City Engineer Building Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:^r!', Other: CASE DISPOSITION: rJ�� Reror.�ti�-3-�'> • Reviewed by: lie Z City Council P4,myMw /{�'s Cal0 4.d,, &4,e A/r 114 � ,4 .�i�L1N L a I " r, I IV vp 17Q � �i✓'.l'�n Ic? .� x�P�SZT.t,,. 1?�� rr�; r��4 �: � 1 ��5 (�'s� 4) P.eviewed By: Aspen P&Z--City Council Lt� j I I hereby certify that on this day of //,, L- 1982�, a true and correct copy of the attached Not ce Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail. first-class osi-aae nrPnai r3. to the adjacent PioperLy OWImis as indicated on t'iiea%t-cx%-leu iiSL vi adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice. 1 Na;JJ y cre1L' • OWNERS L,ls-+- u �.ofs cl ft�Aa E i C►►tVdtN P r-iDNNoR $oA 34 S (fSPE1 , C o- � I (-)I a E21NrQU aa► T�. MIM s+. 65PF-)J, Co 8lbl1 l 46 k 3 �- #IKAE W 4 co -Roll i -BUC4 SA-u m GIs kFo S 4.0,,B0x ►63G -PES MoalNE6, .lowt4 5o3o(, ? �C+ m RoN -Jd F.45h1►e)cY fi-4(Ng Rocs fT-- I t %x aoo -BieEo�wood I CA41fk-wA 9g6/3 Po. -Box 015PaN , Co. �i1(ol l o-�,s 12 A 5 T�E F�&cf—= p-a+nca6�ip T. o- Bo, 315 9 �pem , Co. 8/ 61 D�, Block '7 3 j,14sPE� 6ZAIMU I chukc � I 0oU A10, D r�"y #uC,,k t • o� Boy `�'1 I�S�N � Go . F�(�► � Lo�S r--, F- 4U Co. �DUI,Sr SAwQE ► s a. EAf 81 sf S-he �- �Ew YoRk N, Y. /ooaB 1- i L J � k.0 5 1� 'Sahli bft-v►j, ktlliy S4c2wW #-T�RF--sE-ou•s� � -�i0� Ise( Wft5b) lI R �I;.� �►c� Pl►�,� ao�, E?z>+ m�ij s� j�os�-vNI�l�ssAc.�,<as�� oa►3� f�s�N(� B►(�1/ 1,0+5 N 10 FF-a A=- O. Bob 53 0 u .-BIcdc -I3 coN+ 1'o -P $q O.coui5UuiIl iF I`PAwcas klNr=-4 aoo co Fit!-:+- mt sf �) , (so. 8 /(m �o+t-> R Is C�EV2oN10,S.A, TrvL �Ro 2%�1 It4-XSsdc�,u �•O. 3oX -7(-o I I ,6M FieA-A) sco) C, i,4 941 ao B Iock r- 5 jl 04-s f},8 4 c, tII w, •A otv cr !��K �55 CO S (goo soc, A fhs��N Sf►e.��' �ftp-,y i I)#ay -Bh66 I ►5o (nE-R(,►bj-WE -bil) +6 -BUI Idi N�- -DmI ►9-s i I i &-�A-s -75 a-0 N mac- rl i 3 E2c, m a PA4 kF-- VY16 ,-� tic, xpoaA-4wN off' &m Luc t4 qo CGS,' Cam( A 544�9.;)ua "6F--w-mA-ej O. 9 ox ) 365 • 0 G.o-E> L 1'y1 loin N S4�5 C )m #wp, COONS o E. �loc.IL 80 M i k I n-Us 4 L-,e 2-Pe ud ku k N �.o. aox 80 � L'O- s 8 , c. I b 511�A- f�r�Ps2��s 315 F-A5+, Mw,N Ste+ ApE)q p (-,o. Fl(ol l L, 0 4 ---> I✓ t r CvmI i CoAe oua �$ ,ec�-►�►� r� � o. of 13bs 1- 5 G)14 1;1 SVF,)4 PR.opb,A is 31 S E ftn�- M ibp As?c&) I Co . g 1(, 1 I G)IIII M-, 4 HORE(vCa -BE" /nol\f� i? c) Sox ��q5 -144diNE V4)IE/, ARv44 Gg4sn 0 a IL 80 co�j f' l- 1,uilli 3 o?X kpEA,C.O, �0+ }�•O. Box qO10 L O+S o ,bctn-PF i �� ZAp6o j lli(o F--. CWN4 RA ffVE. koEm yI #)Qizo/v4 850ao L,0{6 �,�,R#S 45peN'8NcOP..P )Iq so. mi)I S-F fi5pc,), (So, �161 Blcx—L 6 1 1446 R--4 a h5pEN h-Rc d el.�me. 3o i Elm ITo pk)' N5 145FeNi Co• S16i ) �ERNc i'►`)ip-�F- Boo j 1, o. 3oX 31-,0 CI of- ASPEN ISO So. Eu S� Co. a I(. 1 1 �o Vr `4-�'1-E I�t 8 5 � l � ► i.i � U N �3 s cs5 0 2s �- � o c,u I ► ,u a �0-s C rid TowNst4= o-= i6petj, 0 • PUBLIC NOTICE • RE: MOORE BDILDIi3 REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on September 3, 1985 at a meeting to be held at 5:00 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider a private application requesting the rezoning of Lots F, G, H & I Block 74, Main and Monarch (Moore Building) from Office zone to CC or Cl. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. smelt orL Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on August 15, 1985. City of Aspen Account. CITY/CCUN'ry "..".P:c,'7Wrw 4FFICwt ASPEN. COj:tMDj-Zp 91 d 11 �� 0 ,ETIigNEO ^� TO SENDER ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN auc+rss % � _ I, `-.22 pp � COL . _... FM �— • :s ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen City Council THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Moore Rezoning DATE: October 21, 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission recommend rezoning of the subject property to C-1, subject to a deed -restriction being filed restricting the area and bulk requirements to those requirements of the 0 - Office zone district. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On September 30, 1985 Council passed first reading of the requested rezoning. LOCATION: 103 and 165 S. Monarch, 229, 231 and 239 E. Main Street, Lots F, G, H and I, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ZONING: 0 - Office PROPOSED ZONING: Commercial CC or Cl. ADJACENT LAND USES: To the west of the Gypsy Woman on Main Street is Explore Bookseller, also in a Victorian Miner's Cottage converted to a commercial use. To the east, across Monarch, are two small houses from the mining era. On the south side of the alley along Monarch Street is a three story office building. Finally, across Main Street are the Chevron Station and Cortina Lodge. SURROUNDING ZONES: The Office Zone currently extends west on both sides of Main Street, with the exception of the Cortina Lodge zoned L- 3, and north along Monarch Street. The Commercial Core District is directly east of the subject property and includes a portion of Block 79, the Hotel Jerome, on Main Street (see zoning map attached). BACKGROUND: The Moore property has historically been used for commercial purposes. Prior to 1975 the property had been zoned C-1. Since the Moore property was rezoned to Office in the last citywide rezoning of the 1970's, many of the uses proposed and permitted have been non -conforming to the district. This has been a problem for the Building Department, Planning Office, owner and perspective tenants. In 1982 former City Manager Wayne Chapman wrote a letter stating that as long as new businesses locating in the Moore Building had similar uses to the businesses they were replacing, then they would be approved. (This letter cannot be located) . Chapman's statement was intended to "grandfather" in the existing uses, precluding the need for conditional use determinations or variances at every change in business. Nonetheless, the situation has still not been easy to deal with. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the structure is non -conforming as to its set -backs. Main Street was rezoned to the Office Zone in the City wide rezoning of 1975 for purposes of (a) defining and bolstering the commercial core and (b) discouraging strip commercial development. This rezoning encouraged a softer transition from the Main Street arterial, lined with a mix of residential and relatively low -intensity lodge and commercial uses to the residential neighborhoods north and south of Main Street. In addition, the Clain Street Historic Overlay District was created, making new structures and changes to the exterior of existing buildings subject to architectural review by the HPC with the objective of preserving the basic historic character and aesthetics of our principal entrance to town. In the 1973 Aspen Area General Plan, the future land use map included Block 74 in the "Central Area" category. The plan states: "Ordered yet diversified land uses, such as resident related commercial, residential, and professional office uses, should be located on the fringe of the central area." APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE: Section 24-12.5 (d) states the criteria by which the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider rezoning applications by private landowners, as follows: 1. "Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone district and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk requirements, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on -site character- istics. 2. Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability of on -and off-street parking and ability to provide utility service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment of the fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed rezoning. 3. Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water quality in the vicinity of the site. 4. Analysis of the community need for the proposed rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the rezoning proposal to the goal of the overall community balance. 5. Compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended. 6. Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the health, 2 safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen." Section 24-12.8 states City Council Is responsibility to "...make finding's adequate to apprise the applicant of the reasons for approval or denial and the specif is grounds rel. ied on for such action." REFERRAL COMMENTS: A. Engineering Department: In a memorandum dated August 13, 1985, the City Engineer made the following comments: 1. From the standpoint of rezoning the existing structure we have no particular problems with the request. The structure is effectively in use as commercial space and rezoning to remove it's non -conformity would not affect parking or utility usage. 2. We have some concern over the rezoning request as it relates to redevelopment potential. Rezoning to CC would eliminate parking and setback requirements for a new structure on the parcel and would result in a building and usage difference from the remainder of the block. B. Building Department: In a discussion with the Zoning Adminis- trator on August 28, 1985 it was stated that the Moore property has been a problem due to the non -conforming uses, and rezoning to Commercial would alleviate the problem. C. City Attorney: On August 16, 1985 the Assistant City Attorney stated that as long as the basic criteria of rezoning are met and the requirements for rezoning stated in Section 24-12.5 through 24-12.8 are followed, the City Attorney has no problem with this request . STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Moore's letter of application did not specify whether the zone CC or C-1 is desired. The immediate intention of Mr. Moore is to make valid the existing structure and uses, which are currently non -conforming. Either CC or C-1 would accomplish that objective. During the Planning Commission discussion of this item on September 3, 1985, the applicant agreed to amend his application to request C-1 zoning. Presented below is a comparison between selected requirements in Office and C-1 Commercial Zone Districts taken from Section 24-3.2, 2 4-3 .4 and 24- 4.5 : 3 0 • O-Off ice Zone Intention To provide for the establishment of offices and associ- ated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of formerly residen- tial areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas and along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. F.A.R. Open Space Maximum Height Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Parking C-1 Commercial Zone To provide for the establishment of commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards serving the population. .75:1 with additional 1:1 with additional .25:1 bonus .5:1 bonus N. R. 25 feet 10 f eet 5 f eet 15 f eet 3/1000 sq.ft. for non-res. uses 25% 40 feet N. R. N. R. N. F. N. R. for non-res. use s It should be pointed out that the F.A.R. of the existing building (Lots F, G, H & I) has been calculated at 0.47:1 considerably lower than the basic allowable external F.A.R. of 0.75 :1 in the Office Zone, and significantly below that permitted in the C-1 zone. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The following discussion presents the major issues involved in this rezoning application. 1. Traditional and Existing Uses: The site has traditionally been used for commercial purposes; and all of the existing uses would be permitted uses in the C-1 zone. 2. Prior C-1 Zoning: The Moore property had a C-1 zoning in the past, and was down -zoned to 0-Office in an effort to promote office and commercial uses that would preserve the visual scale and character of Main Street. It can be argued that given its proximity to downtown it is unavoidable that this property ►,J would take on a commercial character which resembles that of other downtown developments. 3. Appropriateness of Permitted Uses: It is questionable that the most appropriate and beneficial uses of this site are the permitted uses in the Office Zone, consisting of residences and professional and business offices. On the other hand, some permitted uses in the C-1 zone, such as parking garages, may be clearly inappropriate for this site. In either zone,- conditional use reviews would be conducted for certain stated uses that may be inappropriate for the property. 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Zone Districts and Land Uses: The present structure and uses are generally compatible with the surrounding zones and land uses. Rezoning would not necessarily bring new uses that are incompatible, although it would allow a greater variety of commercial uses than occur at present. It should be noted that the present C-1 zone district is on the east side between the CC and 0 zone districts. This rezoning would create a similar scheme of zone transition on the west side of downtown. 5. Traffic Generation and Availability of Parking: The site has very good pedestrian access from downtown and nearby residential neighborhoods; and it is assumed that this factor would tend to reduce traffic impacts. There is presently parallel parking on Main Street and angled parking on [Monarch Street in front of Moore's building. 6. Expansion of the Central Commercial Area: If the central commercial area should be expanded, then this is a logical parcel to be included in the expansion. It is probably more appropriate to expand the district where it is already in existing commercial use than to encroach into residential or lodge districts. If this property is rezoned then the direction of expansion should be conceived as in the direction south along Monarch Street, adjacent to the CC zone, rather than in the direction west on Fain Street, and we suggest that Council make a specific finding to this effect if the rezoning is to be supported. However, it can be argued that the commercial area is large enough and should not be expanded; and furthermore, that this rezoning could set a dangerous precedent for commercializing Main Street. 7. Additional Allowable Bulk and Height: The present buildings are under the allowable F.A.R. for either zone, and a proposal for redevelopment could certainly be made for a larger structure. It should be noted that the open space requirement in the C-1 zone is 25% of the property's area and this may make for a more sensitive site plan with regards to the visual impacts on Main Street. The train Street viewplane intersects a portion of the property and would introduce a special review process if a new building were over 25-30 feet in height, based on an approximate 5 calculation by the Engineering Department. 8. Impact on the Character of Main Street: Because this property is in the Main Street Historic Overlay District, any proposal for redevelopment would require review by the Historic Preservation Committee, considering such factors as the scale, bulk and architectural details in relation to the historic character of Main Street. 9. Aspen Area General Plan: As discussed above, the proposed rezoning is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966 with regards to the fringe area of the "Central Area" future land use category. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On September 3, 1985, the Planning Commis- sion voted unanimously to recommend City Council approve rezoning the Moore Property from 0 - Office to C-1 Commercial based upon Mr. Moore's stated willingness to file a deed -restriction limiting the development of the property to those requirements of the 0 - Office zone district. The Commission based its recommendation upon specific findings with regards to issues 1 through 10 of the September 3, 1985 Planning Office memorandum. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commis- sion recommend in favor of rezoning Lots F, G, H, and I of Block 74 to C-1. The C-1 zone is an appropriate transition zone for the fringe of the central commercial area, as it is perceived to extend south from Main Street along Monarch Street. The Planning Office is concerned with potential visual impacts and use conflicts of a new structure on the parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission special reviews and HPC review should allow the City to address most of the concerns at the time of a redevelopment proposal. In addition, limiting the development rights of the property to the area and bulk requirements of the 0 - Office zone district, as willingly agreed to by the applicant, would require that any proposal for new construction honor the present, lesser area and bulk require- ments of the 0 - Office zone district, felt to be more appropriate for this site on Main Street than the greater bulk normally allowed in the C-1 zone. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to approve Ordinance No. 58, Series of 1985 on second reading. SB . 3 4 • James E. Moore 303-925-3377 or 925-7779 Moore Realty MEMBER ASPEN BOARD OF REALTORS Box 707, Main and Monarch ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 July 16, 1085 Thomas A. Moore 303-925-3377 or 925-2889 Alan Richman Re: Lots F. G, H & I, City and County Planning Board Block 74, City and 130 So. Galena Street Townsite of Aspen. Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Alan, At your request of a few days ago I'm writing you this letter asking that you present it to Council with recommendation that the above property be changed back to my previous zoning of commercial. It has been used as such almost from the time we bought it in 1940. At the start of World War II I moved my barbershop over from the hotel Jerome. I then remodeled for a motel when the war was over and -Aie started Aspen in as a Ski Resort. I have a picture of the corner building showing my barber pole and the motel signs. In about 1964 we remodeled again and started renting the places for sir.all businesses. I believe our first renter was 'The Gypsy Woman' which is now in the little Victorian house located on Lot F. At the time they had rezoned us to commercial and the line went through the middle of Lot E. (They later changed that to in elude all of lot E where is now the Bookstore). Finally, in 1968, 169 & 70 we remodeled the properties as they now exist. We than rented to Aspen Jewelry, The Pet Shop, The Leather shop, The music shop, Kartaran Clothing; where is now the Frame Shop. (we had a fire in that part of the Bldg. and that triggered the last remodeling job.) One of the first was the 'in & Out' sandwich shop. It is still there and is popular from the start. I had Richard ',.'right as a contractor and Chick Collins for the structural engineering. Wright paid for the building per- mit and the extra for the Commercial Tap -on fees. Both for water and sewer. I've paid 'Commercial' Taxes since then and also water and sewer fees. The certificate of occupancy was Issued on Jan. 28, 1970 under building permit 7A-180, 1960. The property was down -zoned to 'Office in about 1976 and placed in the 'Historic Overlay'. I was, nevertheless, to inherit a 'Grandfather Clause' whereby my commercial zoning was to con- tinue. 'In sufference' I assume. There was never any reason to change the zoning unless for the convenience of designating a straight line up Monarch Street for the break between Commercial and office & tourist. We have been greatly harrr_ed by this zoning downgrade. We have lost thousands of dollars in rentals because of new people being in the building permit office not being familiar with our. 'Grandfathering'. Time and again they have refused business permits to people who have agreed to leases to move in and begin their operation. Too many times that has happened when we are out of town in the winter time. I met Mr. Schilling and spoke to hit-, and Paul Taddune about this situation last Jan. and thought they had assured me that this would not happen again. but it did and worse than ever this last spring. Maybe the potential renters spoke to the wrong people again. This is very disconcerting to us, and very expensive the way costs of operating a build - in Aspen have esculated recently. Why should we be placed on the 'non -conforming' list after nearly 49 years in Aspen? Why should the Commercial Zone have been extended only to the East including land which housed the little old victorian houses far away from what we always considered the best location for the center of the commercial sectiom? Ile used to think of the ;Iotel Jerome as being the 'hub'. We feel this will again be so after the present remodeling. We have been disastrously 'down -zoned' with every property we've been able to accumulate over all these years. The people responsible for this are no longer in Aspen, for the most part. I remember one gal who worked in the City Plann- ing Dept several years ago stating that things were gettin-z too crowded in Aspen and that she was returning to Los Angeles. You agreed the other day while we were talking about this situation that the property should be commercial. We hope that this time we have gotten in our request under the dead- line. We hope for quick action on this request. ?ale certainly didn't remodel for anything but commercial. The space is all well located ground spece. There is far too much office zoning in the town as most of the commercial space in the big new buildings in town by out of town developers is done with an extra 2 story plan plus a full basement level. This is causing our parking glut in Aspen. I asked you if there was an application blank to enhance this request. Since there isn't, please let me know any other information you might need for Council' decision. Ve y truly yours e_�' oore and Alberta L. Moore 0 M P-1 t �/\ 0 v A, ". c h S -r t?,C. r 7' KttJ of Moor. Plrsf-t.('+y °I,I Ial°1312 /� uloscl Z T 2 o � S PA) Z O O 1 I I I I * 8 4 E -T1 7 O -T11 i 5� N 4d `} V� I_L HCA U cn cr O a 0 I M I w _ !� a JI I a I 1 SPA RIO GRANDE PLAYING FIELD h PARKING LOT N a z w J Q 0 0 H / n MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council j THRJ : Hal Schilling, City Manag FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Of ice 1, RE: Moore Rezoning DATE: September 30, 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Off ice and Planning Commission recommend rezoning of the subject property to C-1, subject to a deed -restriction being filed restricting the area and bulk requirements to those requirements of the 0 - Office zone district. LOCATION: 103 and 165 S. Monarch, 229, 231 and 239 E. Main Street, Lots F, G, H and I, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ZONING: 0 - Office PROPOSED ZONING: Commercial CC or Cl. ADJACENT LAND USES: To the west of the Gypsy Woman on Main Street is Explore Bookseller, also in a Victorian Miner's Cottage converted to a commercial use. To the east, across Monarch, are two small houses from the mining era. On the south side of the alley along Fonarch Street is a three story office building. Finally, across Main Street are the Chevron Station and Cortina Lodge. SURROUNDING ZONES: The Office Zone currently extends west on both sides of Main Street, with the exception of the Cortina Lodge zoned L- 3, and north along Monarch Street. The Commercial Core District is directly east of the subject property and includes a portion of Block 79, the Hotel Jerome, on Main Street (see zoning map attached) . BACKGROUND: The Moore property has historically been used for commercial purposes. Prior to 1975 the property had been zoned C-1. Since the Moore property was rezoned to Office in the last citywide rezoning of the 1970's, many of the uses proposed and permitted have been non -conforming to the district. This has been a problem for the Building Department, Planning Office, owner and perspective tenants. In 1982 former City Manager Wayne Chapman wrote a letter stating that as long as new businesses locating in the Moore Building had similar uses to the businesses they were replacing, then they would be approved. (This letter cannot be located) . Chapman's statement was intended to "grandfather" in the existing uses, precluding the need for conditional use determinations or variances at every change in business. Nonetheless, the situation has still not been easy to deal with. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the structure is non -conforming as to its set -backs. Main Street was rezoned to the Office Zone in the City wide rezoning of 1975 for purposes of (a) defining and bolstering the commercial core and (b) discouraging strip commercial development. This rezoning encouraged a softer transition from the Main Street arterial, lined with a mix of residential and relatively low -intensity lodge and commercial uses to the residential neighborhoods north and south of Main Street. In addition, the Main Street Historic Overlay District was created, making new structures and changes to the exterior of existing buildings subject to architectural review by the HPC with the objective of preserving the basic historic character and ae,-,thetics of our princifxal Entrance to town. In the 1973 Aspen Area General Plan, the future land use map included Block 74 in the "Central Area" category. The plan states: "Ordered yet diversified land uses, such as resident related commercial, residential, and professional office uses, should be located on the fringe of the central area." APPLICABLE SECTION OF ZONING CODE: Section 24-12.5 (d) states the criteria by which the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider rezoning applications by private landowners, as follows: 1. Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone district and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk requirements, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on -site character- istics. 2. Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability of on and off-street parking and ability to provide utility service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment of the fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed rezoning. 3. Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water quality in the vicinity of the site. 4. Analysis of the community need for the proposed rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the rezoning proposal to the goal of the overall community balance. 5. Compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended.. 6. Whether the proposed rezoning, will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen. 2 The Code further states that the Commission need only make findings and provide a report to City Council on the criteria which most closely apply to the applicant's request, rather than the entire list. REFERRAL COMMENTS: A. Engineering Department: In a memorandum dated August 13 1985, the City Engineer made the following comments: 1. From the standpoint of rezoning the existing structure we have no particular problems with the request. The structure is effectively in use as commercial space and rezoning to remove it's non -conformity would not affect parking or utility usage. 2. We have some concern over the rezoning request as it relates to redevelopment potential. Rezoning to CC would eliminate parking and setback requirements for a new structure on the parcel and would result in a building and usage difference from the remainder of the block. B. Building Department: In a discussion with the Zoning Adminis- trator on August 28, 1985 it was stated that the Moore property has been a problem due to the non -conforming uses, and rezoning to Commercial would alleviate the problem. C. City Attorney: On August 16, 1985 the Assistant. City Attorney stated that as long as the basic criteria of rezoning are met and the requirements for rezoning stated in Section 24-12.5 through 24-12.8 are followed, the City Attorney has no problem with this request. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Moore's letter of application did not specify whether the zone CC or C-1 is desired. The immediate intention of Mr. Moore is to make valid the existing, structure and uses, which are currently non -conforming. Either CC or C-1 would accomplish that objective. During the Planning Commission discussion of this item on September 3, 1985, the applicant agreed to amend his application to request C-1 zoning. Presented below is a comparison between selected requirements in Office and C-1 Commercial Zone Districts taken from Section 24-3.2, 2 4-3 .4 and 2 4- 4.5 : O-Office Zone C-1 Commercial Zone Intention To proviete fc,r the To provide for the establishment of establishment of offices and associ- commercial uses ated commercial uses which are not 3 E • F.A.R. Open Space Maximum Height Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Parking in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of formerly residen- tial areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas and along Fain Street and other high volume thoroughfares. primarily oriented towards serving the population. .75:1 with additional 1:1 with additional .25:1 bonus .5:1 bonus N. R. 25 feet 10 f eet 5 f eet 15 feet 3/1000 sa,.ft. for non-res. uses 2.5% 40 feet N. R. F". F. a" N.P. for non-res. use s It should be pointed out that the F.A.R. of the existing building (Lots F, G, H & I) has been calculated at 0.47:1 considerably lower than the basic allowable external F.A.R. of 0.75 :1 in the Office zone, and significantly below that permitted in. the C-1 zone. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The following discussion presents the major issues involved in this rezoning application. 1. Traditional and Existing Uses: The site has traditionally been used for commercial purposes; and all of the existing uses would be permitted uses in the C-1 zone. 2. Prior C-1 Zoning: The Moore property had a C-1 zoning in the Fast, and was down -zoned to O-Office in an effort to promote office and commercial uses that would preserve the visual scale and character of Fair Street. It can be argued that given its proximity to downtown it is unavoidable that this property would take on a commercial character which reassembles that of other downtown developments. 3. Appropriateness of Permitted Uses: It is questionable that the most appropriate and beneficial uses of this site are the permitted uses in the Office Zone, consisting of residences and 4 professional and business offices. On the other hand, some permitted uses in the C-1 zone, such as parking garages, may be clearly inappropriate for this site. In either zone, conditional use reviews would be conducted for certain stated uses that may be inappropriate for the property. 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Zone Districts and Land Uses: ThE present structure and uses are generally compatible with the surrounding zones and land uses. Rezoning would not necessarily bring new uses that are incompatible, although it would allow a greater variety of commercial uses than occur at present. 5. Traffic Generation and Availability of Parking: The site has very good pedestrian access from downtown and nearby residential neighborhoods; and it is assumed that this factor would tend to reduce traffic impacts. There is presently parallel parking on Main Street and perpendicular parking on Monarch Street in front of Moore's buildin,j. 6. Expansion of the Central Commercial Area: If the central commercial area should be expanded, then this is a logical parcel to be included in the expansion. It is probably more appropriate to expand the district where it is already in existing commercial use than to encroach into residential or lodge districts. If this property is rezoned then the direction of expansion should be con_ceivec, as in the direction south along Monarch Street, adjacent to the CC zone, rather than in the direction west on Main Street, and we suggest that Council make a specific finding to this effect if the rezoning is to be supported. However, it can be argued that the commercial area is large enough and should not be expanded; and furthermore, that this rezoning could set a dangerous precedent for commercializing Main Street. 7. Additional Allowable Bulk and Height: The present buildings are under the allowable F.A.R. for either zone, and a proposal for redevelopment could certainly be made for a larger structure. It should be noted that the open space requirement in the C-1 zone is 25% of the property's area and this may make for a more sensitive site plan with regards to the visual impacts on Main Street. The Main Street viewplane intersects a portion of the property and would introduce a special review process if a new building were over 25-30 feet in height, based on an approximate calculation by the Engineering Department. 8. Impact on the Character of Main Street: FEcause this property is in the Main Street Historic Overlay District, any proposal for redevelopment would require review by the Historic Preservation Committee, considering such factors as the scale, bulk and architectural details in relation to the historic character of Main Street. 61 0 • 9. Aspen Area General Plan: As discussed above, the proposed rezoning is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966 with regards to the fringe e.rea of the "Central Area" future land use category. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On September 3, 1985, the Planning Commis- sion voted unanimously to recommend City Council approve rezoning the Moore Property from 0 - Office to C-1 Commercial based upon Mr. Moore's stated willingness to file a deed -restriction limiting the development of the property to those requirements of the 0 - Office zone district. The Commission based its recommendation upon specific findings with regards to issues 1 through 10 of the September 3, 1985 Planning Office memorandum. RECOMMENDAT ION : The Pl ar_ni r o Office and Planning and Zoning Commis- sion recommend in favor of rezoning Lots F, G, H, and I of Block 74 to C-1. The C-1 zone is an appropriate transition zone for the fringe of the central commercial area, as it is perceived to extend south from Main Street along Monarch Street. The Planning Office is concerned with potential visual impacts and use conflicts of a new structure on the parcel. ThE� Flan_ning and Zoning Commission special reviews and HPC review should allow the City to address most of the concerns at the time of a redevelopment proposal. In addition, limiting the development rights of the property to the area and bulk requirements of the 0 - Office zone district, as willingly agreed to by the applicant, would require that any propo_<al for new construction honor the present, lesser area and bulk require- ments of the 0 - Office zone district, felt to be more appropriate for this site on Main Street than the greater bulk normally allowed in the C-1 zone. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance No. , Series of 1985." "Move to approve Ordinance No. _59 , Series of 1985 on f it st reading. SB.34 I 1 vr�� Ih -rO 42— 14C,4 A i 1 or .c _. : eo �4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS inn 1Paggs_ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, REZONING LOTS F, G, H AND 1, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE MOORE PROPERTY, FROM THE 0, OFFICE TO THE C-1, COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHEREAS, James E. Moore and Alberta L. Moore, owners of the real property described as Lots F, G, H and I, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, did file a private application for a rezoning on June 16, 1985, pursuant to Section 24-12.5(b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the private rezoning application submitted by James E. Moore did request a rezoning of the subject property to a Commercial zone district designation; and WHEREAS, James E. Moore, as an inducement to the City to accept his rezoning request, did amend his rezoning application to include a request to rezone the subject property to C-1 and to include a voluntary deed -restriction limiting the development rights of the property to the area and bulk requirements of the 0 - Office zone district as stated in Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on September 3, 1985, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend to the Aspen City Council that the Moore Property be rezoned to C-1 Commercial with the requested deed -restriction on the property limiting the area and bulk requirements to those requirements of the 0 - Office zone district; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado has considered the recommendation of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and has determines; that the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE BY IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS w^� . 1 nQ 1 ea Section 1 That Section 24-2.2 of the Municipal Code entitled "Zoning District Map" is hereby amended by rezoning Lots F, G, H and I, Block 74, the City and original Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, as C-1, conditioned upon the filing of a deed -re- striction by the owners, or their successors and assigns, restricting the area and bulk requirements to those requirements, of the O - Office zone district, as described in Section 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer be author- ize(', and directed to amend said Map to reflect said rezoning at such time as the deed restriction is filed in the office of the City Attorney. Section 3 That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion is for any reason held invalid or unconstitu- tional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such Portion shall be deemed a veparate, elistinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of ,, 1985, at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (J5) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 leaves INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 1985. ATT EST : Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, ----------------- William L. Stirling, Mayor passed and approved this day of , 1985. William I,. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SB.30 • 0 ME MORANDU M TO: Aspen Planning and Zonina Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planninq Office RE: Moore Rezoninq DATE: September 3, 1985 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION: 103 and 165 S. rionarch, 229, 231 and 239 E. Main Street, Lots F, G, fI and I, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ZONING: 0 - Office; 229 E. Main Street has, in addition, H- Historic Designation. PROPOSED ZONING: Commercial CC or Cl. APPLICANTS REQUEST: The applicant, James E. Moore requests to rezone the subject property from the 0 - Office Zone to Commercial. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Monarch Building/Frank Meyer Building on the corner of r`onarch and Main Streets was built around 1887 as the Vienna Bakery and has been remodeled and sandblasted. Several additions were built in the 1940's and 1960's, bringing the complex to it's present size. The present uses are photo shop, video shop, leather shop, music shop, pet shop, the "In and Out" Sandwich Shop, Toklat II Gallery and Moore Realty. On Lot F, adjacent to this complex is the "Gypsy Woman" shop and gallery in a Victorian Miner's Cottage, also owned by Mr. Moore and part of the rezoning request. ADJACENT LAND USES: To the west of the Gypsy Woman on fain Street is Explore Bookseller, also in a Victorian Miner's Cottage converted to a commercial use. To the east, across Monarch, are two small houses from the mining era. On the south side of the alley along monarch Street is a three story office building. Finally, across Main Street are the Chevron Station and Cortina Lodge. SURROUNDING ZONES: The Office Zone currently extends west on both sides of Main Street, with the exception of the Cortina Lodge zoned L- 3, and north along Monarch Street. The Commercial Core District is directly east of the subject property and includes a portion of Block 79, the Hotel Jerome, on Main Street (see zoning map attached). BACKGROUND: The Moore property has historically been used for commercial purposes. Prior to 1976 the property had been zoned C-1. Since the Hoore property was rezoned to Office, many of the uses proposed and permitted have been non -conforming to the district. This has been a problem for the Building Department, Planning Office, owner and perspective tenants. In 1982 former City Manager Wayne Chapman wrote a letter stating that as long as new businesses had similar uses to the businesses they were replacing, then they would be approved. (This letter cannot be located). Chapman's statement was intended to "grandfather" in the existing uses, precluding the need for condi- tional use determinations or variances at every change in business. Nonetheless .. the situation has still not been easy to deal with. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the structure is non- conforming as to it's set -backs. Main Street was rezoned to the Office Zone in the City wide rezoning of 1975 for purposes of (a) defining and bolstering the commercial core and (b) discouraging strip commercial development. This rezoning encouraged a softer transition from the Main Street arterial, lined with a mix of residential and relatively low -intensity lodge and commercial uses to the residential neighborhoods north and south of Main Street. In addition, the Main Street Historic Overlay District was created, making new structures and changes to the exterior of existing buildings subject to architectural review by the IIPC with the objective of preserving the basic historic character and aesthetics of our principal entrance to town. In the 1973 Aspen Area General Plan, the future land use map included Block 74 in the "Central Area" category. The plan states: "Ordered yet diversified land uses, such as resident related commercial, residential, and professional office uses, should be located on the fringe of the central area." APPLICABLE SECTION OF ZONING CODE: Section 24-12.5 (d) states the criteria by which the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider rezoning applications by private landowners, as follows: 1. Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone district and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk requirements, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on -site character- istics. 2. Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability of on and off-street parking and ability to provide utility service in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment of the fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed rezoning. 3. Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water quality in the vicinity of the site. 4. Analysis of the community need for the proposed rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the rezoning proposal to the goal of the overall community balance. 5. Compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended. 6. Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen. The Code further states that the Commission need only make findings relative to the applicable criteria, not the entire list. The Zoning Use Table is presented in Section 24-3.2 and the Area and Bulk Reouirements for each zone district are stated in Section 24-3.4 of the f^unici pal Code. REFERRAL COMMENTS: A. Engineering Department: In a memorandum dated August 13, 1985, the Citv Enaineer made the following comments: 1. From the standpoint of rezoning_ the existing_ structure we have no particular problems with the request. The structure is effectively in use as commercial space and rezoning to remove it's non -conformity would not affect parking or utility usage. 2. We have some concern over the rezoning request as it relates: to redevelopment potential. Rezoning to CC would eliminate parking and setback requirements for a new structure on the parcel and would result in a building and usage difference from the remainder of the block. B. Building Department: In a discussion with the Zonina Adminis- trator on August 28, 1985 it was stated that the rloore property has been a problem due to the non -conforming uses; and rezoning to Commercial would alleviate the problem. C. City Attorney: On August 16, 1985 the Assistant City Attorney stated that as long as the basic criteria of rezoning are met and K, the requirements for rezoning stated in Section 24-12.5 thrcugh 24-12.8 are followed, the City Attorney has no problem with this req ue st . STAFF COMMENTS: This application has not specified whether the zone CC or C-1 is desired. The immediate intention of Mr. Moore is to make valid the existing_ structure and uses, which are currently non- conforming. Either CC or C-1 would accomplish that objective. Of course, it is also important to look ahead to the possibility that the property will be redeveloped. The Pl anni nq Off ice believes that the C-1 zone should receive more serious consideration, as will be discussed later in this memorandum. Presented below is a comparison between selected requirements in Office and C-1 Commercial Zone Districts taken from Section 24-3.2, 24-3.4 and 24-4.5: Intention F.A.R. O-Of f ice Zone Commercial '10 provide for the establishment c_7 offices and associ- C-1 ated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and character of formerly residen- tial areas that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas and along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. Open Space Maximum Height Front Yard Setback Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Parking C-1 Commercial Zone To provide for the stablishment of commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards serving_ the population. .75:1 with additional 1:1 with additional .25:1 bonus .5:1 bonus r1. R . 25 feet 10 feet 5 feet 15 f eet 3/1000 sq.ft. for non-res. uses 250 40 feet N. R. N. R. N. R. N. R. for non-res. use s it should be pointed out that the F.A.R. of the existing building (Lots F, G, II & I) has been calculated at 0.47:1 considerably lower than the basic allowable external F.A.R. of 0.75 :1 in the Office Zone, and significantly below that permitted in the C-1 zone. The following discussion is an attempt to present the major issues involved in this rezoning application. 1. Traditional and Existing Uses: The site has traditionally been used for commercial purposes; and all of the existing_ uses would be permitted uses in the C-1 zone. 2. Prior C-1 Zoning: The Moore property had a C-1 zoning in the past, and was down -zoned to 0-Office in an effort to promote office and commercial uses that would preserve the visual scale and character of [Main Street. It can be argued that in such proximity to downtown it is unavoidable that this property would take on a commercial character closer in 3 0 • nature to downtown. 3. Appropriateness of Permitted Uses: It is questionable that the most appropriate and beneficial uses of this site are the permitted uses in the Office Zone consisting of resi- dences and professional and business offices. On the other hand, some permitted uses in the C-1 zone, such as parking garages, may be clearly inappropriate for this site. In either zone, conditional use reviews would be conducted for certain stated uses that may be inappropriate for the property. 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Zone Districts and Land Uses: The present structure and uses are generally compatible with the surrounding zones and land uses. Rezonina would not necessarily bring new uses that are incompatible, although it would allow a greater variety of commercial uses than occur at present. 5. Traffic Generation and Availability of Parking: The site has very good pedestrian access from downtown and nearby residential neighborhoods; and it is assumed that this factor would tend to reduce traffic impacts. There is presently parallel parking on Pain Street and perpendicular parking on Monarch Street in front of Moore's building. 6. Expansion of the Central Commercial Area: If the central commercial area should be expanded► then this is a logical parcel to be included in the expansion. It is probably more appropriate to exrand the district where it is already in existing commercial use than to encroach into residential or lodge districts. If this property is rezoned then the direction of expansion should be conceived as in the direction south along_ Monarch Street, adjacent to the CC zone, rather than in the direction west on rain Street, and we suggest that P&Z make a specific finding to this effect if the rezoning is to be supported. However, it can be argued that the commercial area is large enough and should not be expanded; and furthermore, that this rezoning could set a dangerous precedent for commercializing Main Street. 7. Additional Allowable Bulk and Height: The present build- ings are under the allowable F.A.R. for either zone, and a proposal for redevelopment could certainly be made for a larger structure. It should be noted that the open space requirement in the C-1 zone is 25% of the property's area and this may make for a more sensitive site plan with regards to the visual impacts on Main Street. The Main Street viewplane intersects a portion of the property and would introduce a special review process if a new building were over 25-30 feet in height, based on an approximate calculation by the Engineering Department. 8. Impact on the Character of Main Street: Because this property is in the Main Street Historic Overlay District, any proposal for redevelopment would require review by the Historic Preservation Committee, considering such factors as the scale, bulk and architectural details in relation to the historic character of Main Street. 9. Status of Lot F and the "Gypsy Woman" House: The Gypsy Uoman is a separate structure and currently in conformance with the Office Zone (Historic Designated Structure) . If this lot were rezoned, then it could be argued that the C-1 district is indeed moving west on (lain Street, while serving no immediate purpose as regards current use problems. 10. Aspen Area General Plan: As discussed above, the proposed rezoning is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966 with regards to the fringe area of the "Central Area" 4 future land use category. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends in favor of rezo ing Lots G, H, and I to C-1. The C-1 zone is an appropriate transition zone for the fringe of the central commercial area, as it is perceived to extend south from Plain Street along Monarch Street. Lot F should not be rezoned to C-1 as such an act would move the commercial zonina district in the westerly direction along Plain Street and may encourage strip commercial development. Most of the uses in the C-1 Zone would be appropriate on this site; however, a parking garage would be particularly inappropriate. It would be inconsistent with the Office Zone prohibition of parking lots and structures abutting Plain Street as recently amended. However, it would also be appropriate if there were an off -site parking requirement of 3 spaces/1000 sq. ft. of non-residential space as is the case for the office zone. The Plannina Office recom- mends that these two problems be addressed at the Plannina_ Commission meeti na. The Planning Office is concerned with potential visual impacts and use conflicts of a new structure on the parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission special reviews and HPC review should allow the City to address most of the concerns at the time of a redevelopment proposal. SB . 3 5 f CITY A� 130 sout galena street aspen, colorado 81611 July 23, 1976 James & Alberta Moore P. O. Box 707 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RL; Lots=Lots F,r,H,I, Block: Block 74 Dear Property Owner: The Historical Preservation Committee (HPC) acting in the interest of the City, wants to preserve those buildings along Main Street which have historical meaning for Aspen and that establish the Victorian character along the west entrance to town. The method by which Main Street's historical character can be preserved is through the establishment of a historic district. Boundary linits of the proposed historic district are those half blocks that front on Main Street between Monarch Street and Seventh Street and including all of Paepcke Park. Procedures for establishment of a historic district as stated in the Zoning Code provides that the HPC must make an inves- tigation of each subject property to determine its historical significance; then the HPC must contact all owners of property within the proposed district and secure their consent if possible. The Committee then pases a resolution stating their intention to establish a district and reports the results at acquiring property owner's consents. The HPC presents their findings to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) at a regular meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission either approves or disapproves the designation recommendation. With approval the P & Z establishes a public hearing date with the HPC and each property owner will be notified by mail of the hearing. Thus, each property owner not only has the consent forms as a means to express himself buy may also avail himself of the public forum. As for the "effects" on properties in a historic district the Zoning Code states that physical alterations requiring a building permit shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC. A more specific discussion of the effects of designation are included with this letter along with a map of the proposed district and a consent request form. • Page Two In addition to designations of Main Street as a historic district the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission are proposing an amendment to the O-Office Zone District to permit a broader range of uses than presently allowed in order to provide greater economic incentives to preserve and protect historic structures along Main Street. The present proposal is to allow in designated historic structures, antique -stores, furniture stores, bookstores, florist shops, visual arts galleries, music stores, for the primary sale of musical instruments, nursery day care centers, art, dance and music studios, professional and business offices and funeral homes by conditional use. The conditional use requires review and approval by the P & Z of the nature and extent of the above uses to insure their appropriateness from a planning standpoint - namely adequate parking facilities and amount of traffic generation. Please review the additional enclosed information, fill-in the consent request form and return it in the stamped, self- addressed envelope. If you have any questions, please call or visit John Stanford in the Planning Office at City Hall, 925-2020, extension 56. Sincerely, Lary Groen., Chairman Historical Preservation rormnittoe • MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Zoning Enforcement Officer FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Moore Building Rezoning DATE: August 2, 1985 Attached for your review and comment is an application submitted by James and Alberta Moore requesting rezoning of his building located on Lots F, G, H & I Block 74, Main and Monarch from Office zone to CC or Cl. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than August 19, 1985 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before City P&Z on September 3, 1985. Thank you. 74 NorE. R,E ye (3IST Oc FOS t t.tLL O 1J o _f 'r 2c►9.19 !, Z is tl w m � 0 ' SLAKE � ' i S IN 10 FT, A I '; C r) low I V\ � .y 1 Lh� EttiiO' m •ai Fq. dITY MON, Rao • w cA 6�.�+�tNGS A2.E W W Q Q T , _.VkMES R. ALLCN T Tuvs PLAT 15 PLOTTED FiZc>M FlEln KOTES OF A SUQ./EY MAOE SkCIN w C� �T \ Co 9 , CO O. REti. L/>ND 5uX%JF-V K ,.• � 9i75 ?,! -15'09 \\ W i 9-4 I N .' i, p O PROPERTY SURV E `( m MOORC RE A� � Y 0 m U SURVC`( CNGP'S Nr— '101 N0.1TK- G�AN� �C1.- COLU. • Page 14-C The Aspen Times September 12, 1985 b ri efcase Father Dragon closing / Latimer Chaplin is closing the Leather Dragon in the Monarch Building this Saturday, after 131/2years of custom leath- erwork business. Chaplin said he has done a fine leather belt business, but it hasn't been enough to support the rest of the operation. He may look for a smaller space in town, but high rents are discouraging him from re- locatipg. Between now and Saturday all items in the Leather Dragon are marked down by half-price or more. After that time, faithful customers can find Chaplin working out of his Aspen Village home. He came to Aspen as a computer systems analyst looking for an entirely different career, and he found one. He learned the business from a leatherworker who occu- pied the space he eventually took over. Chaplin doesn't anticipate returning to computers. He said he'd like to teach what he has learned about custom leatherwork to an interested student. Services from Marketforce include en- - n gineering, expanded surety bond facilities, James Koutsakis of Mr Video of Aspen insurance information interchange, adver- said his video rental/sales business will move a few doors down, to the Leather tising, and a wide spectrum of auxiliary services. Rent it! I Aspen Rent -All has all equipment for CONSTRUCTION LAWN & GARDEN ►� CLEANING ROLLAWAY BEDS BABY NEEDS ...and more! R3 P0 Q� ra n t_"n .Dragon space, which will mean a doublin of square footage. Koutsakis said an expansion of video offerings will result, as well as better orga- nization and displays. Building owner James Moore said he hasn't confirmed a new occupant for the Present Mr Video space, but a Glenwood Springs dress shop owner is interested. Stapleton adds service Stapleton Agency, Inc of Aspen now pro- vides services offered by Marketforce In- ternational of Kansas City; Missouri, according to David E Stapleton. He recently attended an orientation meeting in Kansas City for Marketforce. Stapleton is now the only Marketforce affiliate in Garfield, Eagle and Pitkin counties in Colorado. The Marketforce network is comprised independent insurance agencies who nong themselves have a premium lume in excess of $500 million annually, 3king the network equivalent to one of e top 10 insurance organizations in the Dallas/Houston non-stop Aspen Airways' new British Aerospace jet will provide direct jet service to Aspen this winter, beyond Denver, for the first time ever. The flights are being arranged by Fir- stours, a national agency. Twice -per -week service from both Dallas and Houston will provide Texas skiers with non-stop service into Aspen. Air fares are set at $249 round-trip from Dallas, and $299 roundtrip from Houston. Considered the world's quietest jet, the Aerospace seats 86. • Firstours will sell air fare and hotel packages through travel agents, begin- ning Sept 15. For information call 1-800- 423-3118. Furnished Rooms and Kitchenettes by the week or the month. Low rates, color cable TV, HBO. Room service. Centrally located off Hwy 82 in Basalt. Lounge and fine restaurants within walking distance. 220 Midland Ave • Basalt • 927-4747 15 Horsi on 3.000 acre ranch near, Per month. Outside. $50. CASE b IS POS IT I ON : Reviewed by: Rezor.,J.}i lien�PZ City Count 71 P4.knvn. �L7�✓►A� ^n attierA/intM�+1 �CFtF"�i'� // �2 1/W� L�#S F, G fl tnA -1 �l��y� (� 71 C,4y 044 /Un, C- Cam , c r �A,.�/X 6,, VA, AP014,, i V4IJ 0 t� g Ll p �i �y� ./lsL�su. .i1L (� �L i, �a�1cLc ��.loyn 'YS�� r�d0� 6h �= `'e [I✓?i�4�Xh I L� X� P. >.��ri 17 i�. /NTill" P.eviewed By: Asper, P&Z City Council ASPEN4bPITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: September 3, 1985 TO: Steve Burstein' • FROM: Bill Druedin V'" g SUBJECT: Moore Zoning Change I have dealt with these properties over the past four years. About three years ago I received a memo from either Wayne Chapman or Alan Richman advising me to consider these spaces as pre-existing commercial uses. At this time, I cannot find that memo. Also a letter at one point advised me that the building, even though in the Historical Overlay, was so unhistorical that it was not necessary to go before H.P.C. for minor changes. BD:lo cc: Patsy Newbury offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/S25-SS73 mail address: 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 T E THE GOAL MINER COLORADO CHAPTER /AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION APRIL 1983 CONDITIONAL ZONING: FLEXIBILITY IN THE LAND USE PROCESS ByJ. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. Conditional zoning may be defined generally as the imposition of condi- tionsupon a rezoning that do not arise out of the zoning resolution itself, or are not uniformly applicable through- out the zone category granted, but rather are uniquely applicable to the project or rezoning involved. It is a useful and flexible land use tool, parti- cularty (a) in rural areas facing new and significant development pres- sures, especially if the area has few other sophisticated tools available, and (b) for review of significant, large, and complex development proposals. Conditional zoning is analogous to other land use tools that were de- signed for flexibility: e.g., variances, floating zones, planned unit develop- ments, special review uses, and devel- opment permit review. Properly viewed, conditional zon- ing can be distinguished, from most of the actions held illegal by various courts under the label "contract zon- ing" Yet, there are problem areas of which an attorney should be aware: e.g., problems and arguments of lack of undormity, of spot zoning, of pos- sible procedural defects, of the scope of authorizing or enabling legislation, and of the relationship of the condi- tions to the land and the development project. [Reprinted with permission, Practic- ing Law Institute, "Modern Control of Land Development," Real Estate Law and Practice Handbook No. 175 (1980), PLI, 810 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019] 1. DEFINITIONS A. Conditional zoning "A zoning amendment which permits a useof particular property in a zoning district subject to restrictions other than those applicable to all land simi- �rly classified * * *." ANDERSON, MERtCAN LAW OF ZONING (1976). See also cases discussed below. B. Contract zoning In myview, it is difficult to find a totally acceptable definition of "contract zoning" other than a zoning that is the product of a bargained for exchange that may be embodied in a bilateral agreement, restrictive covenants, or the like. See Miller, "The Current Sta- tus of Conditional Zoning," 1974 IN- STITUTE ON PLANNING, ZONING, AND EMINENT DOMAIN. Note, "Con- tract and Conditional Zoning: A Tool for Zoning Flexibility." C. Semantics - is there a distinc- tion? 1. "Exactly what 'contract zoning' means is unclear. All legislation 'by contract' is invalid in the sense that a legislature cannot bargain away or sell its powers. But we deal here with actualities, not phrases." Church v. Town of Islip, NY (1960). 2. "The phrase 'contract zoning' has no legal significance * * *." Scrut- ton v. County of Sacramento, Cal. (1969). 3. "This lack of legal significance can probably be ascribed to the fact that there are numerous ways in which the corresponding commitment from the landowner can be obtained * * *. The distinction [between the phrases] is usually based on the pro- position that contract zoning is valid * * *." Note, "Contract and Conditional Zoning, etc." 4. The Washington courts appar- ently do not find the phrase "contract zoning," or the bilateral contract form, offensive, although they usually use the phrase, zoning "with a written con- comitant agreement," Town ofSelah v. Waldbauer, Wash. (1974). III. CONDITIONAL ZONING - PROBLEM AREAS AND ISSUES As is apparent, it is the thesis here that conditional zoning is a useful, flexible tool; that the reasoning of the cases broadly holding conditional or so- called "contract" zoning illegal is un- persuasive; and that the usual zoning review standards, with perhaps some additional focus, are more than ade- quate to deal with any dangers in the process. The real concern should be upon the conditions to be imposed, their- rsasonab.leness: relationip�o the land_ or impact of _the -particular project, and the like. This will become apparent in any examination of some of the relevant cases. See also "Val- idity, Construction, and Effect of Agreement to Rezone, etc." A.L.R. (1976). A. Power and authority to condi- tion 1. Implied powers. The courts holding conditional zoning valid have held the power is fairly to be implied. 0 0 Scotch', 7664 "Post -it" Routing -Request Pad ROUTING - REQUEST Ple READ ❑ HANDLE ❑ APPROVE and ❑ FORWARD ❑ RETURN KEEP OR DISCARD ❑ REVIEW WITH ME Date To w From Alk Church v. Town of Islip, NY (1960) • tions to the government, and the like. a highest bidder or solely for the (since town could without conditions The court rightlyworriedthat while the enefit of private speculators." as to maximum area and fence and resulting bargain might be in the com- Chrobuck v. Snohomish Co., (dis- landscaping to hide business area, munity's best interest, it placed the sent): "we fail to see how reasonable condi- government in the position of perhaps "The indicia of validity in such agree- tions invalidate the legislation"); bargaining legislative discretion for ments include: (1) the performance King's Mill Homeowner's Assn. v. City the donations, etc., to the community. called for is directly related to public of Westminster, Colo. (1976) ("the In another Illinois case, one condition needs which may be expected to re - power to impose conditions on rezon- to a rezoning was that the developer sult from the proposed usage of the ing is an exercise of the police power pay $1,000 per building for general property to be rezoned. (2) Fulfillment and such conditions are valid as long village purposes; this and other con- of those needs is an appropriate func- as they are reasonably conceived"); ditions the court deplored as "individ- tion of the contracting governmental Scrutton v. CountyofSacramento, Cal . ualized zoning deals" and "an invalid body. (3) Performance will mitigate (1969); Haas v. City of Mobile, Ala. abuse of the zoning power." See the public burden in meeting those (1972); Transamerica Title Ins. Co. V. Andres v. Village of Flossmoor, III. resulting needs by placing it more City of Tucson, Ariz. (1975). (1973). Note that the Illinois Sup. Ct. directly on the party whose property 2. Particular enabling legislation. has subsequently held that condi- use will give rise to them. (4) The Apparently Rhode Island has enacted tional zoning is not invalid per se, and agreement involves no purported re - specific legislation applicable to a has upheld its use, although stating "it linquishment by the governing body of particular city that includes language would have been preferable" to have its discretionary power." allowing the city council to "impose amended the special use section and See also Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. such limitations and conditions upon then to have issued a permit, rather City of Tucson, (holding invalid an ex - the use of land as it deems necessary" than conditionally rezoned. Goffinet v. traction of land for unrelated right -of - in approving a zoning change, Land Christian Co., III. (1976). Hartnett v. way purposes); Scrutton v. City of Use Law and Zon. Dig. (1977). Austin, (each citizen would be gov- Sacramento, (invalidating condition of 3. Other. See Section 2-103, A erned by an individual rule based automatic reversion to prior zoning). MODEL LAND DEVELOPMENT upon the best deal that he could make D. Some conditions have particu- CODE, which would allow conditions with the governing body"). lar problems to be attachu&d to the issuance of any This problem area may be avoided, at 1. Reversions to prior zoning sta- development permit, with the kinds of least in jurisdictions otherwise up- tus or time limits smack of a bargain or conditions virtually unlimited as to holding the concept of conditional improper limitation on governmental "special development permits," which zoning, by relating the conditions and powers. Reciting either that upon ter - involve discretionary review (any exactions specifically to the land and mination of the conditions the zoning "conditions that may concern any project involved; see the discussion returns to its prior status, or of time matter subject to regulation under of exactions and conditions below. limits upon the rezoning, is neither this Code"). Also, it is submitted that it is virtually necessary nor wise. B. Contracting away governmental irrelevant that the form of the rezoning 2. Limiting the rezoning to a parti- powers in these cases may have been con- cular applicant is not usually wise 1. This phrase or variations of it tract or conditional, rather than any since that condition implies a lack of appear in the leading cases holding other form or device. Obviously, once focus on the land or development "contract zoning invalid, whether or a court concludes a rezoning has project, or upon the merits of the re - not in fact it can fairly be said that the been in effect paid for, regardless of zoning itself. conditions or the contract improperly the beauty of the bargain or the form 3. Exactions of money and land bind the government." See Houston of the rezoning, the rezoning should are particularly troublesome. Petroleum Co. v. Automobile Prods. be held invalid. a. It is submitted that the exac- Credit Assn, N.J. (1952) ("contracts C. Additional tests tions extracted in conditional zoning thus have no place in a zoning plan"; Some courts or judges favorable to should be governed by the same stan- limit of the rezoning to applicant, and conditional zoning have articulated dards adopted by the jurisdiction for limit to particular use); Hartnett v. additional or different tests, some of subdivisions. Austin, Fla. (1956) (a "municipality which are perhaps helpful. See State b. See Section 2-103, ALI, A cannot contract away the exercise of ex rel. Myhre v. City of Spokane: MODEL LAND DEVELOPMENT its police powers"); Baylis v. City of "There are jurisdictions which hold CODE, and comments thereto. Baltimore, Md. (1959). It is submitted that all zoning ordinances which are c. See Scrutton v. County of that the reasoning of these cases is amended, with concomitant agree- Sacramento, (remanded for trial on unpersuasive and far broader than ments, are invalid. We hold the better issue of relationship of dedication and necessary to deal with the real and rule to be that, before deciding to condition of paving expense to needs imagined excesses in zoning, whether amend a zoning ordinance, the city arising from project); Transamerica conditional or not. must weigh the benefits which will Title Ins. Co. v. City of Tucson, (evi- 2. A much more significant varia- flow to the public generally against dence did not support theory of in- tion of this issue is whether the rezon- the detriment, if any, to the adjacent creased general traffic hazards, so ing appears to the reviewing court to property owners ortothe public which right-of-way extraction invalid); Chro- have been a bargained -for result for may result therefrom. An amendment buck v. Snohomish Co., (dissent) which the applicant in effect paid, i.e. to a zoning ordinance and a concomi- ("agreement which seeks to extract whether the rezoning was really en- tant agreement should be declared some collateral benefit from the pro - acted for public reasons and the gen- invalid if it can be shown that there perty owner * * * are void attempts to eral welfare or ratherwas.ind xb"L was no valid reason for a change and sell or bargain legislation"). the nature of 1.h.e.appUcant's_promises that they are clearly arbitrary and d. See generallyA. RATHKOPF; or -payments. See Hedrich v. Village of unreasonable, and have no substan- Hamilton,"Dedication Requirements - Niles, III. (1969), in which a developer, tial relation to the public health, Binding Conditions or Inverse Con - which obtained a rezoning to a manu- safety, morals, and general welfare, or demnation," 1977 INSTITUTE ON facturing district, optioned land for a if the city is using their concomitant PLANNING, ZONING, AND EMINENT golf course, agreed to make dona- agreement for bargaining and sale to DOMAIN. • AUG i s 1985 I V MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineer DATE: August 13, 1985 RE: Moore Rezoning Having reviewed the application from James E. Moore for rezoning of the Moore Building at Main and Monarch, the City Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. From the standpoint of rezoning the existing structure we have no particular problems with the request. The structure is effectively in use as commercial space and rezoning to remove is non -conformity would not affect parking or utility usage. 2. We have some concern over the rezoning request as it relates to redevelopment potential. Rezoning to CC would eliminate parking and setback requirements for a new structure on the parcel and would result in a building and usage different from the remainder of the block. JH/co/MooreRezoning -41 IS N ILL) r7 I i L --- MAIN STREET PAEPCKE ��- I � � L E:l PARK E-1 El�J I i - WAGNER PARK 1:1 Ey 1:1 - ERu,,,BR .1 MAIN 5TRELT W151"ORIC DISTRICT • n U EFFECTS OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION The Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has requested that I summarize the legal effects and consequences to landowners upon creation of the proposed historic district along Main Street. Let me first note that the procedures have only been initiated, and there must yet be (1) preliminary approval of the designation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, (2) a joint hearing by the Historic Preservation Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission, (3) adoption of the district by the City Council, and (4) recordation of the adopting ordinance. In establishing a historic district, as opposed to designating specific structures, all land (vacant or otherwise) and existing and proposed structures within the district area come under the close supervision of the Preservation Committee. Let me describe the effects as follows: Required Review No building permit may issue for 1. the exterior remodeling or reconstruction of any structure within the district; 2. the demolition or moving of any structure within the district; or 3. the construction or erection of any new structure or addition to any structure within the district; unless the building inspector determines that no change to the ex- terior appearance of the structure or combination of structures will occur, or until the Preservation Committee has reviewed the permit application and approved the same. Review Procedures The review procedures are rather complex so they are merely summarized here. They require an applicant to submit preliminary scale drawings and outline specifications to the building inspector who will determine if exterior changes will result. If so, the material is forwarded to the Preservation Committee who will hold at least one public hearing and then either: 1. approve or approve the proposal subject to modifications and so advise the building inspector, or 2. disapprove and so notify the building inspector who must then deny the permit. Criteria for Approval The Preservation Committee will judge any proposed remodeling for the preservation of historical, architectural and characteristic qualities, and any new structure for complementary design with the existing structures within the district. In case of an application to raze, demolish or move a structure, judgment shall be made on the basis of the structure's historical and architectural importance, its importance as a part of the area within which it is located, and the actural physical condition of the structure. Dangerous Conditions; Exceptions; Appeal The Committee may grant exceptions from the effects of designation, and Committee approval is not necessary when the owner is repairing or demolishing a structure on order of a city or other governmental officer when needed to remedy a dangerous condition. As is apparent, historic designation does have significant impact on landowners within a district. If you have any questions, please call John Stanford at 925-2020, Ext. 56, and I will be happy to help. Thank you. JPS/bk Very truly yours, John P. Stanford Planner w MW Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 July 18, 1985 Mr. James E. Moore Box 707 Main & Monarch Aspen CO 81611 Dear Mr. Moore: Thank you very much for your letter dated July 16 concerning the zoning of your building on Lots Fr G, H, and I, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen. I will be happy to accept this letter as an application for rezoning if you provide me the following information prior to August 15: 1. It would be very helpful to have a map showing the location of the building on the property and the dimensions of the stores within the building. 2. You must provide a list of all property owners within 300 feet of the edge of your property. 3. You must provide a copy of the title insurance for the property, demonstrating that you are its current owner. 4. You must provide a check in the amount of $1490.00 to cover the costs of the land use application. Please be aware that we will rebate to you any portion of that fee which is unused at the end of the review process. Your fee will "buy" you 11 hours of our time, and every hour not spent will be returned to you in a rebate check. I hope these code requirements (Section 24-12.5) are clear to you. Please let me know if I can help you in any way to insure that you meet the application deadline. Sincerely, Alan Richman Planning and Development Director AR/nec • • PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 C ERT I F I CAT E O F T T T L E PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT: JAMES E. MOORE AND ALBERTA O'MOORE ARE THE OWNERS IN FEE SIMPLE TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO TO WIT: LOTS F, G, H AND I, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN THIS CERT FICATE IS ISSUED FOR THE SOLE USE AND BENEFIT OF JAMES E. MOORE AND ALBERTA MOORE AND ANY USE BY OUTSIDE PARTIES WILL VOID THE ENCLOSED CERTIFICATE. THE ABOVE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE HAS FOUND NO OUTSTANDING MINERAL INTERESTS OF RECORD. CERTIFIED THIS 29th DAY OF JULY, 1985 AT 8:00 A.M. P I TK I N C O NTY T I T L E, T N C BY : gm, OR T Z ED S T GNA TURF &A 711t7Fo- 14 r - 13 -T 3 2 PUPPY SµITH 7 6, 9 10 TRUEMAN SUBD. 777- i ij, 71, IT, ITF� i! Pa[PCKE PA RK -T 1 T, TT T 'r 7T d ,7 r -T-7 C7-r, 71 L T-1 T1 L I�i---lLl ILI a--i -T- ;4 4,I, ll 1 ! j -7-7 77 1 F.A