HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930413
. ,
AGE N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
April 13, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning 'staff
Public
"
'----- IT
Ml;.N'6tES
/' --
PUBLIC HEARING
III.
...
A.
Aspen Arts and Recreation Center (Red Brick)
Rezoning, Kim Johnson
IV. ADJOURN
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner.*.
RE: Aspen Arts and Recreation Center (f.k.a. the Red Brick
Elementary School) - Rezoning from R-6 (Medium Density
Residential to Public (PUB), Text Amendment to the
Allowed Uses in the Public (PUB) Zone District, Final PUD
Development Plan (Consolidated Review), Special Review
for Parking, and Growth Management Exemption for
Essential Public -Facilities
DATE: April 13, 1993 (special meeting/public hearing)
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the following as proposed:
1) the map amendment to rezone the former school site from
R-6 to Public; and
2) the proposed text amendment to include "arts, cultural and
recreational activities" as a permitted use in the Public
(PUB) zone district; and
3) Special Review for parking in a Public zone district; and
4) GMQS -Exemption for the facility as an essential public
facility.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen, represented by Davis Horn, Inc.
LOCATION: 110 E. Hallam Street. The parcel contains approximately
92,600 s.f.
ZONING: R-6 (Medium Density Residential)
APPLICANT' S REQUEST: The City wishes to lease off ice space to arts
and cultural related non-profit groups and operate recreational
activities in the eastern -portion of the former school building
including the gymnasium. In 5% of the structure, studio space will
be rented to working artists, either as individual or shared studio
space. This requires an amendment the Official Zone District map
from R-6 to Public (PUB). and to add "arts, cultural and
recreational activities" to the Public zone permitted use list.
As required by the Public zone, the Applicant must receive approval
of a site plan pursuant -to the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
review process. The Applicant requests, and the Planning Director
has agreed, to process this application as a two-step review (P&Z
and Council). Special Review for parking is required for uses in
a Public zone. Also being requested is GMQS Exemption as an
11
essential public facility for the building revised use.
Please refer to the attached application package from Davis Horn,
Inc.
REFERRAL -COMMENTS: Complete referral comments are attached as
Exhibit "A".
Engineering: Chuck Roth comments that:
1. The proposed rezoning will have improved impacts on traffic
generation and road safety, and will not result in an increase of
public service needs.
2. The proposed 35 parking spaces will exceed minimum requirements
-for similar office uses. The. spaces should be striped to optimize
their utilization.
3. Any improvement to the parking in the Garmisch St. right=of-
way must be coordinated with the Engineering Department. Curb and
gutter is' recommended* to facilitate head -in parking like that found
at Paepke Park. Sidewalks are recommended also.
4. Easement must be established for a 141-wide trail, electric
switchgear, and other utility or pedestal needs.
Water Department: The Waster Department requests that the two
water service lines to the building be properly metered.
Housing Office: Tom Baker responded that the employment generation
of the proposed uses will not exceed .the employment figures of the
former -school use. This comment was based on the assumption that
the 1941 section (western half) of the building will not be used.
The application states that a range of 21-48 employees will be
generated. Mr. Baker believes that the low end of this range is
the more likely generation scenario. Information from the school
confirms that employee population ranged from 24 to 30 persons.
The summary of Mr. Baker's memo is that the proposed Center will
have fewer housing impacts than did the historic elementary school.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Red Brick School was purchased by the City
upon the direction of a citizen's vote in May 1992. A City Council
appointed task force composed of interested citizens and neighbors
of the property met weekly in November and December, 1992 and
developed a program for the structure, including recommendations
for the physical plant and a list of appropriate arts, culture, and
recreation users to occupy the various spaces of the building. The
City Council reviewed this report in February, 1993 and decided
that they would send out a request for proposal from various
2
architects on the different alternatives proposed by the citizen
group . .
The City. would like to commonce•construction in June or July of
this year, with tenant move -ins. in the summer of. 1994.. In an
effort to initiate renovations quickly, the -City must process the
requested -text amendment, rezoning, and GMQS Exemption under the
current Council's authority.
Amendment to the Public zone list of permitted uses: The Public
(PUB) zone district currently allows 14 permitted and 3 conditional
uses (refer to Exhibit "B"). Two of these uses, "performing arts
center" and "community recreation facility" come close to the
proposed uses for the Aspen Arts and Recreation Center. However,
the City Planning, Director has made the determination that the
incorporation of arts related non-profit offices and individual art
studio'spaces does not fit with these already permitted uses. The
proposed text change is the addition of.a new use which will read:
15. Arts, cultural and recreational activities.
Staff discussed the option of overlaying the property as an SPA
(Specially Planned Area). and applying for a use variance for non-
profit arts related offices and individual artist studios. This
option was discounted because of: -1) the length of time to process
an SPA map amendment and Development Plan (four steps) ; and 2 ) the
concern that an SPA overlay might allow future use variances, thus
lessening protection of the neighborhood character.
Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code establishes the review
standards for amendments to the code:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: No land use code conflicts are evident for this proposed
text amendment.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the short-
term goal number 5 of the "Design Quality and Historic
Preservation" section of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This goal
reads:
"Retain the redbrick school building for public use and
preserve its open space; a. Purchase for public use;
b. Rezone to Public."
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: Neighborhood compatibility issues will specifically be
addressed pursuant to the rezoning standards. However, Public
3
i 1
zoning, in most communities provides for a wide variety of uses. and
activities for citizens and guests.
D. The effect of the proposed- amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
Response: Per se, this proposed amendment has no effect. Specific
impacts will be considered during individual reviews.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result. in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage
facilities, water supply, parks,.drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
Response: These items will be addressed during the rezoning
review. However, the.proposed-use is consistent with the other
uses identified in the Public zone district.
F. Whether and the'extent to which the proposed amendment
would result- in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: Impacts are evaluated on a site -by -site basis. No
adverse impacts are anticipated on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
Response: This amendment will apply to the approximately twelve
other sites in the City zoned.Public (PUB). Any development in a
Public zone must be reviewed pursuant to PUD standards.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which
support the proposed amendment.
Response: This amendment affects all parcels zoned Public (PUB).
Specific to the former school site, this requested text addition
allows those uses developed by the Red Brick citizen's group to
occupy the structure. Without "arts, cultural and recreation
activities" as .a permitted use, the Planning Director would have
to make use determinations for the proposed users based on the
existing permitted use list. This -'task would: be awkward and might
not.put to rest any potential non -conformity issues.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose
and intent of this chapter.
Response: One of the goals of the AACP is -to better utilize
community facilities. This amendment -allows for enhanced public -
oriented uses at a public site.
----.------------- -------------
4
Map Amendment for Rezoning from R-6 to Public (PUB):
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment
to the Official -Zone District Map are as .follows:
A. Whether-the.proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the zoning code.
B. Whether the 'proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The Aspen Area Community Plan set forth goals to
maintain and enhance the balance between resort functions and
community oriented functions. This site provides an opportunity
to serve the local community as well as our tourist populations by
supporting arts and recreation functions, which are central to
Aspen's 2-Oth century heritage. As mentioned earlier, the AACP also
specifically addresses the purchase of the school building and its
rezoning to Public. 4
C. 'Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone -Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: Currently the zoning on the parcel is R-6, Medium
Density Residential. As a public school, the use was considered
a grandfathered conditional use. Activities associated with
schools include intense daytime use, two peak traffic periods per
day, and occasional night functions. The proposed Center use will
lessen peak traffic impacts and lessen daytime noise significantly.
Recreation -oriented night functions will probably remain at the
same level.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: City Engineer Chuck Roth comments that the proposed use
should result in improved traffic generation and road safety
conditions.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: No increased demands will result from the rezoning. -In
fact, the community's public facilities will be augmented by the
new recreation facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The site and the neighborhood are already developed.
No,new square footage is proposed with this application, so this
condition does not readily apply.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community* character in the City of Aspen_.
Response: The proposed rezoning to Public is consistent with the
historic public use of the site as a school and is considered
"impact neutral" to the surrounding area. Any changes to an
Approved PUD Plan must receive approval through appropriate land
use reviews.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response; The most important change for this parcel is that the
voters approved the purchase of the site for community arts and
recreation purposes. This mandate requires rezoning from the
current R-6 residential designation.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The -Red Brick School Building will be a valuable asset
to the community by providing a hub for the arts community, which
is a large part of the cultural fabric of Aspen.
Final (consolidated) Planned Unit Development (PUD): The proposed
rezoning to Public (PUB) requires that the dimensional requirements
of a development be set by the adoption of a conceptual development
plan and final development plan pursuant to Article 7, Division 9,
Planned Unit Development. Consolidation of Conceptual and Final
reviews is allowed if the Planning Director determines that "the
full four step review would be redundant and serve to public
purpose". If, during review,' the Commission or Council believe
that a consolidated two step review is not adequate, the full four
step process must take place. Staff believes that since the
structure/site plan is not changing as a result of this
application, four step review is excessive and will serve no useful
public purpose.
1. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall
be those of the underlying zone district, provided that
variations may be permitted in the following:
a.
Minimum
b.
Maximum
C.
Minimum
d.
Minimum
e.
Minimum
f.
Minimum
distance between
height (including
front yard;
rear yard;
side yard;
lot width;
31
buildings;
viewplanes)
e g. Minimum lot area; `
h. Trash access area;
i. External and internal floor area ratio; and
j. Minimum percent open space.
Response: The dimensional requirements submitted for the Final
(Consolidated) Plan are those of the existing building footprint.
Therefore, the following actual dimensions are requested as the
dimensional requirements of this•development plan:
a. Minimum distance between buildings - 10'
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes) - 25'
C. Minimum front yard - 1.0' (except 4' at southeast entry)
d. Minimum rear yard - 15'
e. Minimum side yard - 5'
f. Minimum lot width - 60'
g. Minimum lot area - 6,000 square feet
h. Trash access area - see provided survey
I. External and internal floor area ratio - .75:1
j. Minimum percent open space - no requirement .
According to the application; these dimensions were derived from
the requirements of R-6 and O (Office) zones. Staff believes these
dimensions are appropriate for this structure and future
development. If other dimensions are needed to accommodate future
growth, additional PUD review is required.
----------------------------------
Special Review for Off-street parking.
Although not specifically a dimensional issue, parking is an
important aspect of this application. The number of required off-
street parking spaces for a project in a Public zone is established
by Special Review (Section 24-7-404.B.2.):
"In all other zone districts where the off-street parking
requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by
Special Review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
parking needs of the residents, guests and employees of the
project have been met, taking into account potential uses of
the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the
downtown area, and any special services, such as vans,
provided for residents, guests and employees."
The PUD review section also establishes relevant standards for
considering on -site parking:
a The probable number of cars used by those using the
proposed development.
b The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
K
c The varying -time periods of use, whenever joint use of
common parking is proposed.
d The availability of public transit and other transpor-
tation facilities, including those for pedestrian access
and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive
techniques in the proposed development.
e The proximity of the proposed development to the
commercial core or public recreational..facilities in the
City.
Please refer to the site plan (attachment 1) in the application
information attached to this memo. The proposed site plan shows
35 on -site spaces. According to the March 16. letter clarifying the
employee generation, 21 to 28 employees will use the Center (based
on the use of -the post 1941 portions of the building) . The Housing
Office believes that it is probable, that the lower end of this.
range will be the number of employees on site at any given time.
The O (Office) zone requires. 3 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of net
leasable area, or 1.5 spaces per 11 000 s. f . if cash payment is made
for the difference. This rate anticipates a wide range of office
uses, from a one person typing service to a corporate headquarters.
According to the Housing Office Is employee generation guidelines
for "utilities / quasi -governmental" rate, 1.5 to 2.5 persons per
1,00*0 s.f. are generated.
The internal layout of the structure is shown in attachment 2 of
the application information. The net leasable area of the post-
1941 portion of the school (the eastern half of the building) is
approximately 14,093 s.f. At the quasi -governmental generation of
1.5 persons per 1,000 s.f., the employee generation would be 21
persons. The feeling of the Housing Office is' that the non-
profit offices proposed for this building will have limited hours
of business and run on "shoestring" staff, thus employee generation
will be less than for typical office users. According to Housing
_Director Tom Baker, the recreational uses will generate less than
one full time equivalent employee (FTE).
The studio space cannot exceed 5% of the building, or 1,090 s.f.
based on the 21,800 s.f. post-1941 building because of limitations
set by the financial bonding requirements. The studio spaces will
probably be 200-300 s.f. each, according to information from Julia
Marshall, who has worked on the lease agreements for the arts
representatives.
If 20-30 persons occupy the building, one parking space is readily
provided per employee. Most of the proposed tenants will not
generate guest parking requirements. Overflow parking has
historically been and will continue to exist at the west end of the
building and on the adjacent streets.
n
e ,
The project. is .,located two blocks from the Main Street RFTA routes
and is within walking distance to downtown, approximately four
blocks. The Rio Grande Parking Garage is two blocks to the east.
Time' needs for .parking among the tenants will counterbalance.
between the office and studio uses during the day and. the'
recreation uses during the evenings.
GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities: Pursuant to.
Section 8-104 C.l.b. the Council may exempt construction of
essential public facilities. The Commission shall review and make
a recommendation to Council. Section 24-8-104.C.1.b. reads:
(i) Except for housing, development shall be considered an
essential public facility if it serves an essential
public purpose, provides facilities in response to. -the
demands of growth, is not itself a growth generator,- is
available for use by the general public, and serves the
needs of the City. It shall also. be taken into
consideration -whether the development is not -for -profit
venture. This exemption shall not be applied to
commercial or lodge development.
A development application shall demonstrate that the
impacts of the essential public facility will be
mitigated, included those associated with the generation
of additional employees, the'demand for parking, road and
transit services, the need for basic services including
but not limited to water, sewage, drainage, fire and
police protection, and solid waste disposal. It shall
also be demonstrated that the proposed development has
negligible adverse impacts on the city's air, water,
land, and energy resources, and is visually compatible
with the surrounding areas.
(iii) Notwithstanding the criteria as set forth in paragraphs
(i) and (ii) above, the city council may determine upon
application that development associated with a nonprofit
entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may
exempt such development from GMQS and from some or all
such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and
warranted.
Response: The Planning Office acknowledges that the structure
proposed as the ,Arts and Recreation Center is not new construction,
but is in effect a new use or development on the site. For this
reason, staff believes that GMQS Exemption as an essential public
facility is warranted. Official recognition that, the structure and
its non-profit uses qualify as essential to the community will
solidify the Center's important role in the community.
,A
The Center complies with paragraph (i) above in that it will serve
the public in many ways, from active recreation to art support and
education; offers space to recreation and arts users who must
accommodate their increased growth based on community growth; is
not a growth generator itself (all users*are currently scattered
elsewhere throughout the city);.is available to the public as any
other public facility; and serves the citizens and guests of Aspen.
The groups listed. in the application, and subsequently reduced
slightly, who will occupy the building must qualify as bona fide
nonprofit entities.. The City's bond requirements specify -that no
less than 95% of the structure may be occupied by non-profit users
to retain the bond's status. The artist studio spaces are intended
for educational use where visitors may observe working artists and
works in progress.
The Center also,meets the requirements of. paragraph .(ii) regarding
impacts to the vicinity and larder community: Employee generation
will be less for -the proposed uses (approximately 22-26) than the
previous school use (25-30). Parking has been discussed previously
in this memo as being a neutral. impact. Utility needs probably
decrease from the previous school use. No negative environmental
impacts will occur, nor will visual incompatibility.
The City should find that the nonprofit use of this structure
qualifies as essential public facility per paragraph (iii).
Citizen Comment: Because he could not attend the public hearing,
Ferenc Berko submitted a letter to the Planning Office expressing
his opposition to the rezoning. Please -refer to Exhibit licit.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the SPA Designation
of the Benedict Office Building, SPA Development Plan, text
amendment allowing consolidated SPA review, and GMQS Exemption for
the Category 4 deed restricted cabin, with the following
conditions:
1. The 35 on -site parking spaces shall be striped.
3. . Any improvement to the parking in the Garmisch St. right-of-
way must be coordinated with the Engineering Department.
4. Easement must be established for a 14' wide trail, electric
switchgear, and other utility or pedestal needs.
5. The two water service lines to the building must be properly
metered.
6. The applicants shall agree to join any future improvement.dis-
10
tr.icts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
7. All .material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and, Zoning.
Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and cons.idered
conditions of approval., unless otherwise amended by. other
conditions.
8. The Final PUD Development Plan and PUD Agreement shall be
recorded in the office of- the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within
a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval
by the City Council shall. render. the approvals invalid, unless
reconsideration and approval of both the Commission and City
Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording.
Application Packet/Maps
EXHIBITS
A - Referral Memos
B - Permitted Uses, Public (PUB) Zone District
C - Letter from Ferenc Berko
11
Robert L. Segall
Box 6642
Aspen, Co. 81612
13 April 1993
city Planning And Zoning
Galena Street
Aspen, Co. 81611
Attn. Jan Garnet'
,Tan
I unfortunately have a prior committment and cannot attend the
meeting until about 5:45 pm. In case the meeting is adjourned
before then, please be aware that the neighbors are very much
against the re -zoning attempt. The desired result can be
accomplished by simply making a conditional use under the R-6
category.
There is already a provision for a. satellite dish which is needed
by XAJX and one can interpret the designation of public school or
private academic school to encompass the arts center portion of the
project. Recreation is obviously oft, since there is an existing
gym from when it was a school.
The problem with the proposed PUB zoning is the leeway the city has
if the project fails, and the resulting de --stabilization of the
neighborhood while waiting for the project to succeed or fail.. At
least under the R-6 zoning, we know that it is either an art & rec
center or single family housing. We do not want the possibility of
affordable housing; a bus stop, a maintenance shop, public parking
facilities, essential government facilities,. essentially anything
under sea. 5-221 B .
Furthermore, having this meeting at 4:30 when most of the neighbors
who live here full time are still at work may render the entire
meeting invalid. It certainly does not serve the democratic
process by not allowing for full paritci.pation on the part of those
most of ected. Hopefully, I will see you. at 5:45. Please try to
hol heig un,then.
Robert
roft*nw. p01
Robert L. Segall
Box 8642
Aspen, Co. 81612
4 Apr i 1 1993
Davis Horn Inc.
215 South Monarch Suite 104
Aspen, Co. 81611
Attn: Alice Davis
Re: Red Brick Rezoning
Dear Ms. Davis:
I am in receipt of your March 29 letter regarding the rezoning of
the Red Brick School, I must tell you that there is no support
f rom the res i dents f or severa 1 b 1 ocks . The reason f or th i s i s that
the school can be turned into an arts & rec center without the
rezoning process. If it is rezoned, it can be turned into
affordable housing, have a bus stop put in, etc. This is not in
the interest of the neighborhood, nor would it contribute to
keeping this a neighborhood, I can envision a future of excessive
vehicular traffic, followed by RFTA buses belching noxious deisel
fumes. Then when the whole project fails to support itself , the
city will turn it into affordable housing a la West Hopkins,
thereby de -valuing al 1 the years I sacr,i f iced to be able to afford
to 1 ive here and the same for al 1 my neighbors.
With all due respect, I suggest that instead of accepting city
money for this rezoning project, you counsel the city that they can
do what the voters want with the zoning just the way it is. I can
assure you that if this passes, the fu.l 1 f financial resources of
this neighborhood wi 1 1 throw this into the courts and tie up the
whole project in a way that wi 11 make last fal 1's lawsuit look 1 ike
child's play.
If you wish to discuss this before the meeting, feel free to
contact me at work, 920-1500 x209.
Robe
zo�i�e.0o1
04/13/93 07:31 $303 440 3967 CAPLAN & EARNEST �1aeG
733 13th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
April 14 1993
is Teleconier. 920-519
Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning ConmmissXon
c% Kun Johnson
Aspen/Pifidn Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Aspen Arts- and Recreation Center (Red Brick School)
Dear Ms. Tygre and Members of the Board:
Please consider this letter which is respectfully submitted in oppitim to the
proposed Map Amendment, GMQS Exemption and Text An=dment to the Aspen 1. wd
Use Regulations with respect to the Red Brick School.
My husband and I are the owners of the residence at 219 North Monarch,
which is located two doors away and across the street from the Red Brick School. During
the more than 25 yearn that we have owned our residence, of course, we have seen many
changes in Aspen. However, one thing that has endured for us is the preservation of the
residential character of our neighborhood, we fear that is endangered and would be lost
if the proposed rezoning to Public Zone District were to be approved.
It is ironic, but a little over a year ago, we wrote to express concerns about a
proposal to allow filming activities at the sGhoal. In that letter, we stated our worries
about the fact that these kind of cornrwrcW activities would alter the residential character
of our neighborhood. We n=tioned the fact that the traffic would incrcase in the area,
even beyond the increased level we have noticed in recent years. We described the fact
that our neighborhood has already become overcrowded with parked cars, many owned by
employees who work at Clark's Market or the other stores just down the hill or businesses
on Main Street. And, perhaps most significantly, we predicted t1lat the use would open the
door to future, similar activities. The following prophetic quote is from our letter of
lanaary 9, 1992:
04/ 13/93 07 : 32' V303 •440 3967 CAPLAN . & EAKNEST to 003
Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 1993
Page 2
The precedent in perndtting a commercial use, even on a
temporary basis, poses a dangerous threat of authorizing
future similar uses. We-sce this as opening the door to
the potential permanent rezoning of the school property
to allow commercial activities to be carried on there. Byer
since the School District first armounced its intentions to
vacate the property, we have been concerned about the
possibility that some use other than residential would be
sought. If the filming activities were allowed, even on.
a temporary rezoning basis, the precedent for that zoning
will be set.
A copy of our January 1992 letter is enclosed. It now appears that the fictional Aspen
"extreme" we feared then is being proposed to become reality now.
It is our understanding that the narrowly -approved referendum authorizing
the acquisition of the school by the City was for "arts -related" activities. Although this is
not a term of precise definition, it seems clear enough that it would not include the broad
range of permitted uses currently allowed in the Public zone District, nor `!reraeational"
activities as contemplated by the proposed text amendment. It seems fair to conclude that
"arts -related" also did not contemplate the conversion of the school into effectively an
office building within our historic residential neighborhood, much less envision the
attendant daily traffic, parking,, business invitees and other activities normally associated
with an office, which is really a commercial -not residential -use. Schools are couVatible
with residential neighborhoods. Office buildings are not. Thus, the reason for the
proposed rezoning. This contradiction in convWtioriat wisdom and existing permitted uses
alone undermines the arguments for even considering such a change.
Some would say that rezoning should be automatic, given the approval to
purchase the school. However, as mentioned, the margin of the vote could hardly be
considered a mandate, nor can it fairly be deemed to be any approval by those who would
have standing to dictate what kinds of uses should be imposed upon those of us, who reside
in the vicinity. We would suggest that rather than expanding the text of permitted uses
within the Public Zone District and attempting to completely rezone the School property to
fit the new definition, that the City consider allowing for use by special review or
conditional use review, so that some precision as,to the actual proposed uses would be.
4410 Oao / l,At UAN a CAM14C,Z i
Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Pla ming and Zoning Commission
April 12y 1993
Page 3
required to be committed to up front, and those of us most affected could be considered
and the impacts mitigated ttarougb the use of conditions and other regulatory tools.
Under the proposed rezoning, no such detailed commitments or
restrictions as to use will be made. For ex'aniple, we have heard that the classrooms. may
be partitioned into offices for various "arts -related" non-profit organizations. But does .
this mean that the City will have no offices there? Will City recreation leagues use the
gym for all types of indoor recreation activities? Will the hours of use be restricted? Will
parking be added, or simply allowed to fare for the already limited spaces on the street?
Will traffic to and from'the building be controlled? Will Music Festival patrons continue
to be encouraged to take leisurely walks to and from the tent along Hallam by continuing
to close off the street in the summer? These are but a few of the questions and concerns
that need to, be addressed and which could more property be addressed by some type of
conditional, precise review, rather thAn by A sweeping rezoning as proposed.
We respectfully urge you to disapprove of this proposed rezoning and
preserve the residential character of our neighborbood.
Thank you for your consideration.
04/ 1 SIV6 401:06 -4aowa 44V Otto I a r,^m14"oi VVj
733 - 13th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
January-9, 1992
slant Ylik-T Iscopler: 920-1890
To Whom It May Concern
c/o Me. Kathy Lee
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Ms. Lee:
We are the owners of the residence located at 219 North Monarch, Aspen,
which we have had for more than 25 years. Our house is located two doors
away and across the street from the red brick (former) elementary school.
Our neighbor, Mr. Berko, has brought to our daughter's Attention the fact
that a temporary rezoning of the school property is being contemplated
that would allow commercial film operations to be oonduated there for a
period of at least six months. Even though we are presently out of the
country for a time, are concerns about this potential use of the
neighboring property are so significant that we have authorized our
daughter to forward this letter on our behalf to you with the
understanding that you will, in turn, submit it to the relevant City
board.
It is our understanding that a company plans to rent and use the entire
school and property for the filming. We assume that, among other tbings,
this will mean that the traffic in and around the school will increase
dramatically, not to mention the large number of trucks and other vehicles
that will be associated with the filming activities. Our neighborhood is
already overarowded with parked cars. On any given'day, one has
difficulty finding a parking place anywhere -along.Monarob or Hallam in our
neighborhood.
As you know, our neighborhood'is entirely residential. Many of the
residente, 000upy their hcmes year-round. In our case, since our
retirement, we have spent more time each year in our home, Our occupancy,
together with that of our children and grandchildren comprises a
significant portion of each year, especially the ski season, We are
concerned that commercial filming activities will entirely alter the
residential character of out neighborhood. Filming will likely not be
confined to the davtime hours inside the building. Even if it were,
significant additi;nal noise is likely to be generated. If nighttime
filming occurs, then it most surely will result in noise during that
per4od, but also in the use of bright, disturbing lights,
We appreciate that the filming is apparently planned for a six-month
period. However,
the precedent in permitting a commercial use, even on a
temporary basis, poses a dangerous threat of authorizing future similar
uses. We see this us6 as opening the door to the potential permanent
1011/ 10/ Zia rl I . 0 -1 'LJ Ovq 'a`sv Jau vv%.r
rezoning of the school property to alloy commercial activities to be'
carried on there. Ever since the School District first announced its
intentions to vacate the property, we have been concerned about the
pocsibilty that some use other than residential would be sought.. If the
f ilming activities were allowed, even on a temporary rezoning basis, the
precedent for that zoning will be set,.
We cannot imagine that there are not some other buildings that would-be
equally if not better suited to the type of filming being contemplated.
It must, be assumed that the building was ohosen, in large if not full.
measure, because of its location and the attraction A6pen has to so many,
including those vkLose career$ involve the film -industry. This type of
convenience to a few, however-, should not override -the substantial, -
domestia interests of those of us who are the impacted homeovuers and
residents.
Please preserve the residential character of our historic West End
neighborhood, and turn down this ill --advised request. Thank you for your
aatftsideration of our continued peaceful and quiet. enjoyment of our home,
Sincerely,
Joan and Bill Light
-2-