Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Commercial Core Dwelling Units Use Tables.1986 ""'. -. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager Steve Burstein, Planning Office .~ THRU: RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Dwelling units in Commercial C'Ore-2nd Reading DATE: August 19, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMRY: At the reque.st ofa private applicant, Andy Hecht, P&Z initiated a Code amen-diitent- to allow dwelling units by-- r~ght in individually designated histaric structures and as a conditional use in ather buildings in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. On July 8, 1986 the Planning and Zaning Cammissian passed a resa- lutian recommendingCi tyCouncilamend the Zoning Code taallaw nan-accessarydwelling units as conditional uses for designated histaric structures in the CC zane district. PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: readinq 'Of the praposed opposed. BACKGROUND: The issue of mixed commercial/residential uses in the Commercial Core area has been generally discussed with P&Z in long-range planning work sessions.. However, the issue truly came into focus as a caseload item when the owner of the Brand Building requested a use determinatian as to whether residential units in his bUiltti:'l'l'g-<cwould"",c-be-"C011ridered "accesso-ry--dw-e-l-ling units" if first offered for rent ta tenants. "Dwelling units accessory to permitted uses" are a permitted use at this time in the CC zone and have been interpreted to include deed-restricted employee housing and attached professional office/townhome units. On JUly 28, 1986, Council passed first Ordinance in a vote of 4 in favor and 1 On Mar ch 4, 1986, P&Z unanimausly passed a motian determining that the additional units at the Brand Building would be a permitted accessory use only if restricted ta lang-term 'Occupancy thraugh six (6) month minimum lease restrictions as described in Code section 24-3.7('0)(1). P&Z also unanimausly passed a mation requesting the Planning Office ta study issues related ta residential uses in the CC zane district, focusing an the pras and cons 'Of allawing residential uses as a principal use in the CC zone.. On April 8, 1986, P&Z initiated the Cade amendment._ ~ .~ APPLIC\BLB SBC'rIONS OF THB CODB: COde states the intention of the be: Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Commercial Core zone district to "To allow the use of land for retail and service commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with customary accessory uses to enhance the business and service character in this central core of the ci ty.. Accommodations and residential uses are limited to an accessory status.." Listed as a permitted use in paragraph (9) of the CC zone district are "dwellinq units - accessory to other permitted uses, and comprising less than one half of the total floor area of the building. " Code amendments and rezoning requests are reviewed according to Section 24-l2.5(d) as follows: "Td)- lb-reviEi~trf1g the rezoning application, the planning and zoning commission hearing shall consider- but not be limited to, the following evaluation criteria as they may apply to the particular application under consideration, al though the commission need not make findings relative to each of these criteria: (1) Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require- ments, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on-site characteristics. ;.-.---..;--~.....- ----~-_. (2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety. availability of on-and off- site parking and ability to provide utility service in tlr~.,,1d:nti:y- of the site, inCluding an asses13men~"w~-~-- 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) Compatibil ity of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan of 1966, as amended. (6) Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the 2 ~. ^ health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visi tors to the City of Aspen. n PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The planning Office offers the following comments regarding the proposed Code amendment.. 1. Conformity - In th e appl icant I s memorandum of May 6, 1986, it is pointed out that there are a number of histo ri cally \jjesignat.ejj buildings in the ,CCzone with dwelling units w'hichcould ~e brought i,nbooonformity. It is clear that residential uses have historically 'been ;pa,rt of the Commer- cial Core although not predominant or principal uses.. A number of these residential units may actually be conforming with regard to their accessory status.. Other units pre- sently in non-conforming long-term residential use would be made conforming by this Code amendment.. 2.. Impacts on Commercial and Residential Space Inventory - It can be argued that the conversion of commercial..spaJ:e. to residential space could result in a net reductio'n of available commercial space.. Pressures to expand CC uses into the C-I,Office and Residential zone districts could be fostered, to the detriment of those areas with such zoning.. On the other hand, if the highest and best use of downtown space is commercial and. not resident, then residential uses would be pushed out by commercial again through market pres- sures. It appears that short-term residential uses in particular could be sufficiently high income producing to displace necessary Commercial Core functions.. For this and other reasons, it appears that short-term residential uses may upset this Commercial Core balance and should not be allowed.. It should be noted that study of the Commercial Core land tisers-fl'C progress and will soon be developed' "to'''"1:he''--de<Jree''' ,-.-.. of being abl e to give useful analysis of this issue. At this time, the study has not been completed. The Aspen Area COmprehensive Plan: Existing COnditions in the Aspen Area, pages 63-77 , analyzes the status of commer- cial land uses in the Aspen area.. Table 18 on page 75 states that there is 684,628 s..f. of existing commercial space and a maximum potential build out of 499,328 s. f.. in the CC zone.. The question is p:lsed whether the community is excessively zoned for commercial development. If it were determined that this is the case, then the displacement of commercial space by residential space in the CC zone could be argued to be a p:lsitive move.. Finally, in order to be consistent with the goals of the 3 1""". ,-, Growth Management Quota System, the changes in Commercial and Residential uses should be accounted for through quota adjustments to help keep the development sectors in balance. 3. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan defines the "central area" land use category to include primarily "tourist conunercial activity.." Residen- tial and professional office uses are considered appropriate on the fringe of the central area.';l'he fri'll.ge areas are currently zoned OfficeandC-I. inwhitJh ,r~si.iie:nti.al JUSeS are permitted. This proposal does not appear tD be (!()n;sis- tent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan.. How:ev.er. the 'oode amendment may be consistent with the Existing Conditiens Report, Land Use EIE!lllent (yet to be prepared) and 'Histeric Preservatien Element (draft under review, as discussed below) . 4.. (HistoriC.Preservatien Incentive -'!'he Planning Office .agrees wi thEhe'applicant that adding dwelHngs to permitted uses fer historically designated structures provides a new incentive. fer historic preservation. '!'here appears to. he a legitimate prOblemas to theviabiHtr 'Of :secono floor 'conunercial use in the downtownar(ea. On th~ (other hand, changes in sign regulations, design to allow for better access (including handicapped access). and pUblic prometien 'Of upper story commercial uses oould positively .effect this situatien.. '!'he appropriateness of such meves should seen be studied in the ConunercialCoreLand Use Plan.. Ameng the obj ectives of the Aspen A,rea Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element (draft) is "te encourage productive and econemically attractive uses of his,teric structures.." The issue of economic viabil ity of upperstory cenunercial uses in historic conunercial structures w ill be discussed in the Historic Preservation Element and this Code amendmerre~r-'"1:re...:t'tl>ted''"as'an action'it'em. ""- ,_. 5.. Compatibility of Residential Uses with Commercial Uses - It has been noted that many people prefer te I ive downtown because of the advantage of proximity to werk and night- life.. In Aspen there are certainly many types of peeple, some of whem may not be bothered by dewntown noise, lights. street-cleaning, snow removal, garbage pick-up and other such normal functions.. Nonetheless. if we can determine that the potentially annoying characteristics 'Of the commercial core would become a major source of complaints and conflicts for future residents, then the proposed Code amendment would not be apprepriate. The Planning Commission expressed the peint of view that residential uses are generally compatible with existing commercial uses, but that short term (tourist) uses should not be encouraged in the 4 ~ ~ downtown.. 6. Vitality - Additional residential use in the CC zone district would add to the vi tali ty of the area.. We can envision upper level urban landscaping, activity on decks and roofs, and more people participating in downtown affairs.. This aspect appears to be generally J;Ositive. 7.. Parking - Section 24-4..5 makes parking requirements for residential uses in the CC subj ect to special review by the Planning Commission l'ind this requirement will beuneffected by the proposed Ordinance.. As stated by the applicant, it makes sense to only require parking spaces where J;Ossible in the built up CC zone.. However, because many residents would have cars even though they do not rely on them daily, cash- in-lieu for parking based on a realistic ratio of spaces per bedroom may be IIIOst appropriate. The cash-in-lieu option is not available, as no plan nor code provision have been developed at this time.. We expect this option to be presented as an implementation technique for the Transporta- tion Element. RECOMMENDATION: There are attractive aspects of the Code amendment, including the historic preservation incentive. added vitality, and compatibility (for some people). . There are ques- tions about conunercial space needs, the effect of short-term residential uses on commercial space needs, the GMP change in use, other possible tools for historic preservation, and compli- ancewith the Comprehensive Plan.. The Planning Office is concerned that the Land Use Plan in progress has not been able to fUlly analyze all issues in the proposed Code amendment.. However, we feel that the likely .effect of this Code amendment, pertaining only to designated historic structures, should be generally positive and not entail a great number of residential conversions.. ADlTISORY COMMITTEJr'VOT!tr--0tr-.:rtlYfe'-17,-1986 the--pranntmr Commis- sion voted four in favor and one opposed to recommend Council approval of a code amendment allowing non-accessory dwelling units as a conditional use for designated historic structures in the ConunercialCore Zone District. On JUly 8, 1986, the Commis- sion unanilllOusly passed P&Z Resolution 86-9 (attached). RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance reading.. " , Series of 1986, on second "Move to approve Ordinance reading.. " , Series of 1986 on second SB..45 5 .'-'" ,-.., .- MEK>RANDUM FRO~l: Aspen City Council Ron Hitchell, Acting City ~ianager Steve Burstein, Planning Office ~ Municip3.1 Code 'Amendment: Dwelling Units in Commercial Core - 1st Reading July 28, 1986 TO: THm: RE: DATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: At the request of a private applicant. Andy Hecht, P&Z ini tiated a Code amendment to all ow dwelling units by ri ght in individually designated historic structures and as a conditional use in other buildings in the Commercial Core (CC) zone di st rict. On July 8, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission p3.ssed a reso- lution recommending City Council amend the Zoning Code to allow non-accessory dwelling units as conditional uses for designated historic structures in the CC zone district. BACKGROUND: The issue of mixed commercial/residential uses in the Commercial Core area has been generally discussed with P&Z in long-range planning work sessions. HO~lever, the issue truly came into focus as a caseload item when the OIiner of the Brand Building requested a use determination as to whether residential units in his building would be considered "accessory dwelling units" if first offered for rent to tenants. "Dwelling units accessory to permitted uses'" are a permitted use at this time in the CC zone and have been interpreted to include deed-restricted employee housing and attached professional office/townhome units. On March 4, 1986, P&Z unanimously passed a motion determining that the additional units at the Brand Building would be a permitted accessory use only if restricted to long-term occupancy through six (6) month minimum lease restrictions as described in Code section 24-3.7 (0) (1). P&Z also unanimously passed a motion requesting the Planning Office to study issues related to residential uses in the CC zone district, focusing on the pros and cons of allowing residential uses as a principal use in the CC zone. On April 8, 1986, P&Z initiated the Code amendment at the request of Andrew Hecht. APPLICABLE SEClIONS OF THE CODE: Code states the intention of the be: Section 24-3.2 of the 11unicip3.1 Commercial Core zone district to "To allow the use of land for retail and service .,-., ,-., .- commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with customary accessory uses to enhance the busi ne ss and service character in thi s central core of the city. Accommodations and residential uses are limited to an accessory status." Listed as a permitted use in paragraph (9) of the CC zone district are "dwelling units -;- accessory to other permitted uses, and comprising less than one half of. the total floor area of the . building. " . Code amendments and rezoning requests are reviewed according to Section 24-12..5(d)as follows: "(d) In revie~ling the rezoning application, the planning and zoning commission hearing shall consider, but not be limited to, the follo~1ing evaluation criteria as they may apply to the particular application under consideration; although the commission need not make findings relative to each of these criteria: (1) Compatibil ity of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require- ments, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on-site characteristics. (2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability of on-and off- site 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." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office offers the following comments regarding the proposed Code amendment. 1. Conformity - In the applicant's memorandum of May 6,1986, "......., .,-, it is pointed out that there are a number of historically designated buildings in the CC zone with dwelling units which could be brought into conformity. It is clear that residential uses have hi storically been part of the Commer- cial Core although not predomil'.ant or princiral uses. A number of these residential units may actually 1x ..:onforming ~lith regard to their accessory status. Other units pre- sently in non-conforming long-term residential use woul.d be made conforming by this Code amendment. . 2. Impact s on COmmercial and Residential space Inv.entory - It can be argued that the conversion of co.mmercial space to residential space could result in a net reduction of available commercial srace. Pressures to expand CC uses into the C-l, Office and Residential zone districts could be fostered, to the detriment of those areas \.,ith such zoning. On the other hand, if the highest and best use of downtown srace is commercial and not resident, then residential uses ~lould be pushed out by commercial again through market pres- sures. It appear s that short-term residential uses in rarticular could be sufficiently high income producing to displace necessary Commercial Core functions. For this and other reasons, it appears that short-term residential uses may upset this Commercial Core balance and should not be allowed. It should be noted that study of the Commercial Core land use is in progress and will soon be developed to the degree of being able to give useful analysis of this issue. At this. time, the study has not been completed. The As~n Area Comprehensive Plan: Existing Conditions in the Aspen Area, rages 63-77, analyzes the status of commer- cial land: uses in the Aspen area. Tabl e . U on page 75 states that there is 684,628 s.L of existing commercial space and a maximum potential build out. of 499,328 s. L in the CC zone. The question is p:>sed whether the community is excessively zoned for commercial development. If it: were determined that: this is the case, then the displacement of commercial space by residential srace in the CC zone could be argued to be a {Dsitive move. Finally, in order to be consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Quota System, the changes in Commercial and Residential uses should be accounted for through quota adj ustments to help keep the development sector s in balance. 3. Consistency vith Comprehensive Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan defines the "central area" land use category to include primarily "tourist commercial activity." Residen- tial and professional office uses are considered appropriate ~. .~. on the fringe of the central area. The fringe areas are currently zoned Office and C-l, in which residential uses are permitted. This proposal 'does not appear to be consis- tent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. However, the code amendment may be consi stent with the Existing Conditions Report, Land Use Element (yet to be prepared) and Historic Preservation Element (draft under revie\4, as discussed below). 4. Hist'oric Preservation Incentive - The Planning Office acrrees wi th the applicant that adding dwellings to permitted" uses for historically designated structures provides a new incentive for, historic preservation. There appears to be a legitimate problem as to the viability of second floor commercial use in the downtown area. On the other hand, changes in sign regulations, design to. allow for better access/including handicapped access), and public promotion of upper story commercial uses could positively effect this situation. The appropriateness of such moves should soon be st udied in the Commercial Core Land Use Plan. Among the obj ectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element (draft) is "to encourage productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures." The issue of economic viability of upper story commercial uses in historic commercial structures has not yet been identified in the plan element and should be looked at.. 5. Compatibility of Residential Uses with Commercial Uses - It has been noted that many people pref er to 1 ive downtown because of the advantage of proximity to work and night- life. In Aspen there are certainly many types of people, some of ",hom may not be bothered by downtown noise, lights, street-cleaning, snow removal, garbage pick-up and other such normal functions. Nonetheless, if we can determine that the potentially annoying characteri sti cs of the commercial core would become a major source of complaints and conflicts for future residents, then the proposed Code amendment would not be appropriate. The Planning Commission expressed the point of view that residential uses are generally compatible with existing commercial uses, but that short term (tourist) uses should not be encouraged in the do",nt OI'ln. 6. Vital ity - Addi ti onal residential use in the CC zone district would add to the vitality of the area. Vie can envision upper level urban landscaping, activity on decks and roofs, and more people participating in downtown affairs. This aspect appears to be generally positive. 7. parking - Section 24-4.5 makes parking requirements for residential uses in the CC subject to special review by the Planning Commission. As stated by the applicant, it makes ,....., ~ sense to only require parking spaces where p:>ssible in the built up CC zone. However, because many residents would have cars even though they do not rely on them daily, cash- in-lieu for parking based on a realistic ratio of spaces per bedroom may be most appropriate. The cash-in~lieu option is not available, as no plan nor code provision have been developed at this time. We expect this option to be presented as an implementation technique for the Transporta- tion Element. RECOMMENDATION: There are attractive aspects of the Code amendment, including the historic preservation incentive, added vitality, and compatibility (for some people). There are ques- tions about commercial space needs, the effect of short-term residential uses on commercial space needs, the G~1P change in use, other possible tools for historic preservation, and compli- ance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Office is concerned that the Land Use plan in progress has not been able to fully analyze all issues in the proposed Code amendment. However, we feel that the likely effect of this Code amendment should be generally positive and not entail a great number of residential conversions. ADVISORY COMMI'rTEE VOlE: On June 17, 1986 the Planning Commis~ sion voted four in favor and one opposed to recommend Council approval of a code amendment allowing non-accessory dwelling units as a conditional use for designated historic structures in the Commercial Core Zone District. On July 8, 1986, the Commis- sion unanimously passed P&Z Resolution 86-9 (attached). RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to read Ordinance reading." 2.~ , Series of 1986, on first 2B , Series of 1986 on first "Move to approve Ordinance reading. .. SB.44 ,-., -, ORDINANCE (Series lIfO. .~ of 1986) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE USE TABLES TO ALLOW NON-ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AS A CONDIT IONAL USE FOR DESIGNATED HISTORIC STRUcrURES IN THE COMMERCIAL CORE ZONE DISTRIcr WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter "Commission") initiated a code amendment at the request of a private applicant to Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code to allow dwelling units as a conditional use for designated historic structures in the Commercial Core Zone District and amend Section 24-3.7(0)(1) to restrict commercial core dwelling units to 6 month minimum leases, as provided by Section 24-12.3; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the proposed code amendment at a public hearing held during their regularly scheduled meeting on June 17, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Commission did recommend to City Council of Aspen, Colorado (herainafter "Council") to adopt the proposed code amendment in Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution *86- ; and WHEREAS, the Council did make the following findings with respect to the proposal: 1. Dwelling units presently exist on upper levels of numerous. designated historic structures; and they would be brought into conformity through this code amendment. 2. The current limitation to accessory use status for residential uses in the Commercial Core is counter- productive to the goals of increasing vitality and diversity in the Commercial Core. 3. Residential uses are believed to be generally compatible and appropriate in many hi storie structures of the ~ .'-' Commercial Core ensure that the consistent with zoning code. 4. As an incentive for historic preservation, adding dwelling units as a conditional use for historic structures will provide OWners with an additional option for use of upper story space. but should be conditional uses to proposed residential conversion is the obj ectives and purposes of the 5. Short-term residential uses could be sufficiently high- income producing to displace necessary Commercial Core functions, and should not be allowed as provided in the six-month minimum lease agreement stated in Section 24-3.7(0) of the Municipal Code. 6. No ne gati v e impa ct sin t r aff i c gener ation, parking, utilities, fiscal viability, air quality, water quality, and land uses would appear to result from this code amendment. WHEREAS, having received and considered the recommendation of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commi ssion, Council desires to amend Section 24-3.2 and 24-3.7(0)(1). NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr ORDl\INED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-3.2, Commercial Core Zone District intention, be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: (new language is in bold, old language is crossed out) "To allow the use of land for retail and service commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with customary accessory uses to enhance the busi ne ss and service character in this central core of the City. Ao(:€ellllllOda4>~en-e <<ItEl ~-deflloi-al l'lses afoe l-iilli~efl ~-e a-a a-e€-e-&&G-l'1" slo-a.-t-u-er. Hotel and principal long-term residential uses may be appropriate as a conditional use, while accessory residential uses are permitted. Section 2 That Section 24-3.2, Commercial Core Zone District Conditional Uses table, be amended to add: -(6) Non-accessory dwelling unites) above street level commercial uses in individually designated historic structures, provided thilt the unit (s) are restricted to I~ .~ 6-month m1n1mum leases as provided in Section 24- 3.7(0)(1)-. Section 3 That Section 24-3.7 (0)(1) be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows (new language is in bold): "(1) No multi-family unit within the RMF, 0, and C-1 Districts or multi-f.amily, duplex or single family unit in CC shall be leased for any period of less than six (6) successive months: or, in the alternative, be leased more than twice for short-term periods within any calendar year (in addition to occupancy by the owner or any lease for a six-month lease term)". Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, di stinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the day of auF' Ordinance shall be held on the 0.(5" , 198&., at 5:00 P.M. in the Community Center, at Lone Pine and Red Mountain Roads, Aspen, Colorado. the rrRr D1TRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by City Council of the City of Aspen on the ot~ay of , 1986 William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on this day of t~ ,198_. A'1'T EST : Kathryn S. Koch, City C1 erk SB.626 ',,- .'-' William L. Stirling, Mayor ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Steve Burstein, Planning Office FR0l1 : RE: Municipal Code Amendment: Dwelling units in Commercial Core - Public Hearing DATE: June 12, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant, Andrew Hecht, requested and was granted P&Z' s initiation of a Code amendment to allow d\~elling units by right in individually designated historic structures and as a conditional use in other buildings in the Commercial core (CC} zone district. BACKGROUND: The issue of mixed commercial/residential uses in the Commercial Core area has been generally discussed by the PI anning Commission in long-range planning work sessions. The owner of the Brand Building requested a use determination of ~Ihether residential units in the building would be considered "accessory dwelling units" if first offered for rent to tenants. "Ihlelling units accessory to permitted uses" are a permitted use at this time in theCC zone and have been interpreted to include deed-restricted employee housing and attached professional office/townhome units. \ 'On Harch 4, 1986, P&Z unanimoUSly passed a motion determining that the proposed Brand Building units (those which are not existing non-conforming units} are a permitted accessory use only if restricted to long-term use through six (6} month minimum lease restrictions as described in Code section 24-3.7(0) (1). P&Z also unanimously passed a motion requesting the Planning Office to study issues related to residential uses in the CC zone district, focusing on the pros and cons of allowin51. residential uses as a principal use in the CC zone. On April~~ ,f 1986, P&Z initiated the Code amendment before you at the request of Andre~1 Hecht. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE: Code states the intention of the be: Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Commercial Core zone district to "To allow the use of land for retail and serv ice commercial, recreation and institutional purposes with customary accessory uses to enhance the business and service character in this central core of the city. Accommodations and residential uses are limited to an f""', ~ accessory status." Listed as a permitted use in paragraph (9) of the CC zone district are "<'Melling units - accessory to other permitted uses, and comprising less than one half of the total floor area of the building." Code amendments and rezoning requests are review by P&Z according to Section 24-l2.5(d) as follows: "(d) In reviewing the rezoning application, the planning and zoning commission hearing shall consider, but not be limited to, the following evaluation criteria as they may apply to the particular application under consideration; although the ocmmission need not make findings relative to each of these criteria: (1) Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site, considering the existing neighborhood characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require- ments, and the suitability of the site for development in terms of on-site characteristics. (2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic generation and road safety, availability of on-and off- site parking and ability to provide utility service in the vicini ty of the site, incl uding an a sse ssment 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." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Planning Office offers the fOllowing comments regarding the proposed Code amendment. We believe that there are substantial positive and negative aspects to the proposal as best it can be presently analyzed. 1. Conformity - In the applicant's memorandum of Nay 6, 1986, it is pointed out that there are a number of historically designated buildings in the CC zone with dw elling units ~ ,-,. which could be brought into conformity. It is clear that residential uses have historically been part of the .Commer- cial Core although not predominant or principal uses. A number of residential units may actually be conforming with regard to their accessory status. 2. Impacts on Commercial and Residential Space Inventory - It can be argued that the conversion of commercial space to residential space could result in a net reduction of available commercial space. Pressures to expand CC uses into the C-I, Office and Residential zone districts could be fostered, to the detriment of those areas with such zoning. On the other hand, if the highest and best use of downtown space is commercial and not resident, then residential uses would be usurped by commercial again through marl~et pres- sures. It appears that short-term residential uses in particular could sufficiently be high income producing to displace necessary Commercial Core functions. For this reason, it appears that short-term residential uses may upset this Commercial Core balance. It should be noted that study of the Commercial Core land use is in progress and w ill soon be developed to the degree of being able to give useful analysis of this issue. At this time, the study has not been completed. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Existing Conditions in the Aspen Area, pages 63-77, analyzes the status of commer- cial land uses in the Aspen area. Table 18 on page 75 states that there is 684,628 s.t. of existing commercial space and a maximum potential build out of 499,328 s.t. in the CC zone. The question is posed whether the community is excessively zoned for commercial development. If it were determined that this is the case, then the displacement of commercial space by residential space in the CC zone could be argued to be a positive move. Finally, in order to be consistent with the goals of the Growth /.'1anagement Quota System, the changes in Commercial and Residential uses should be accounted f or through quota adjustments to help keep the development sectors in balance. 3. Prior Comprehensive Plan - The 1973 Aspen Land. Use Plan defines the "central area" land use category to incl ude primarily "tourist commercial activity." Residential and professional office uses are considered appropriate on the fringe of the central area. The fringe areas are currently zoned Office and C-l, in which residential uses are permit- ted. This proposal does not appear to be consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. ~ ,-" 4. Historic Preservation Incentive - The Planning Office agrees wi th the applicant that adding dwellings to permitted uses for historically designated structures incentive for historic preservation. There appears to be a legitimate problem in the viability of second floor commercial use. On the other hand, changes in sign regulations, design to allow for better access/including handicapped access), and public promotion of upper story commercial uses, could positively effect this situation. The appropriateness of such moves should soon be studied in the Commercial Core Land Use Plan. Among the objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element (draft) is "to encourage production and economically attractive Uses of historic structures." The issue of economic viability of upperstory commercial uses in historic commercial structures has not yet been identified in the plan element and should be looked at. 5. Compatibility of Residential Uses with Commercial Uses - It has been noted that many people prefer to I ive dO\~nto~ln because _ of the advantage of proximity to work and night- life. In Aspen there are certainly many types of people, some of whom may not be bothered by downtO'lln noise, lights, street-cleaning, snow removal, garbage pick-up and other such no rmal funct ions. Nonethel ess, if we can determine that the potentially annoying characteristics of the commercial core would become a major source of complaints and conflicts for future residents, then the proposed Code amendment would not be appropriate. 6. Vitality - Additional residential use in the CC zone district would add to the vitality of the area. ~le can envision upper level urban landscaping, activity on decks and roofs, and more people participating in downto~ln affairs. This aspect appears to be generally positive. 7. Parking - Section 24-4.5 makes parking requirements for residential uses in the CC subject to special review by the Planning Commission. As stated by the appl icant, it makes sense to only require parking spaces where possible in the buil t up CC zone. HO~lever, because many residents would have cars even though they do not rely on them daily, cash- in-lieu for parking based on a realistic ratio of spaces per bedroom may be most appropriate. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office is .most con- cerned that the Land Use Plan in progress has not been able to fully analyze information most pertinent to the proposed Code amendment. There are attractive aspects of the Code amendment, including the historic preservation incentive, added vitality, probable parking demands and compatibility (for some people). There are questions about commercial space needs, the effect of short-term residential uses on commercial space needs, the GNP ,-' .-, change in use, other possible tools for historic preservation, and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. We feel it is premature to act on this Code amendment and recommend tabling until the Land Use Plan can address these issues. However, we would like tonight's discussion to serve as a "j umping off point II into the downtown land use plan so to be able to arrive at a full analysis of this and related issues within the near future. If the Planning Commission believes that the advantages clearly outweigh disadvantages of the proposed Code amendment, we recommend that the follow ing changes be made to your recommenda- tion for approval to Council: 1. Section 24-3.7 (0) (1) regarding rental restriction to the six month minimum 1 ease shall also be amended to incl ude the Commercial Core zone district. 2. Dwelling units in the Commercial Core zone district shall be conditional Uses for individually historically designated structure and other buildings. 3. The intention statement of the zone district shall be changed to include long-term and employee residential uses as customary uses to enhance the business and service character. SB.4 ~ ""'" .--- , . DATE RECElVED: 5/tJ-b CASE NO. 13A '~G:o DATE RECElVED COMPLETE: STAFF: . ~ PROJ Ecr NAME: ~ 6n.c. UAJ 1iJtes ~. 'k MIAJ IJ. ()~ APPL ICANT: ~ ~A:I- I~,u~ PJl..2- Applicant Addr~s/Phone: "tJ, ~. ~ REPRESENTATIVE: ~ -Ib"i~ Representative Addre~/Phone: 9-J., -19~k CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen Type of Application: I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) Conceptual Submission __ Preliminary Plat Fi nal PI at ($2,730.00) ($1,640.00) ($ 820.00) ____ II '.f SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step) ____ Conceptual Submission Preliminary Plat Final Plat . -Y. III. "'Vf''''Pl'IeM/el!BI1j;q'IQ)-~~2 step) IV. SPECIAL .RI<.V IEW (1 step) ($1,900.00) ($1,220.00) ($ 820.00) .00) ( Special Review ____ Use Determination. Condi ti onal Use ____ Other: ===================================================================~ I'~Q~~i @ CC 11EETING DATE: -S~~ 'L-. PUBLIC HEARING: 6!iJ NO DATE REFERRED: 0/9;1'-(, INITIALS: ~ ==========================================~=======~====~=====~== REFERRALS: . / City Atty ____ City Engineer ____ Housing Dir. ____ Aspen Water ____ City Electric ____ Envir. Hlth. ____ Aspen Consolo S.D. ____ Mtn. Bell Par ks Dept. Holy Cross Electric _ Fire Marshall _ Fire Chief _ School District _ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas ____ State Hwy Dept (Glernld) ____ StateHwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) ____ Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn ____ Other: =================================================================~=~== . FINAL ROUTING: City Atty DATE ROUTED:-j- L City tngi neer INITIAL: Buil di ng Dept. Other: STATUS AND LOCATION: if fA,U P r.J Other: FILE Reviewed by: ( r~spe~ City Council ,,-... f)h,Jun<-i7,Wb6 tiv ~~ ~J 4~fw^~ Irr~.i. ~~+. . .Iff"AJK a. c,.-k 1t1U~~ ~~ ~ .,,~.I,\'-:"1vJxJ ~ P<J Il ~ ~ f i)_~ o i4fD Jiaivw,-~. y.'"ik C (.]rn t.;tJ' ,- . ~ . . . oJ r>.,. V Rcvie'~ec: nv: . ;.spcn P&Z . ;-" ~co~ C) '" \J"d; H. me ~ p-.") (0. ~<)."'1 4 0 ~' J.. '6 I U' . . r o /^ . ~ &.i';1 ~ ~ I'iJ 6 &""J .~"J '2 riJ""...lil' 1 O~)#4.< 1:'6. r) \.~j I !I .--... .--, GARfIJElLD & HIECHl, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD' ANDREW V. HECHT" ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS HGARHEC" W1LUAM K. GUEST, P.C.... JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN CUFTON D. BURDICK '"aI50 admined to New York Bar ."also admitted to District of Columbia Bar ....also admitted to Nebraska and Texas Bar MEMORANDUM D ~:Y~~:~iI,~ ~ TO: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, P.C. RE: Request for Amendment to Zoning Use Tables DATE: May 6, 1986 On April 4, 1986, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission agreed to sponsor an amendment to the Aspen Zoning Code Use Tables to allow dwelling units in the Commercial Core Zone as a permitted use in historically designated structures and as a conditional use in other buildings. POSITIVE ASPECTS AND CONCERNS: A. Conformity. Dwelling units present1y.exist over the Aspen Block Stores, the Paragon, Aspen Hardware, the Brand Building, Isis Theater, Aspen Drug, Wheeler Block, Cooper Street Pier and other buildings and are NON-CONFORMING. This change will bring them into conformity. B. GMP. Because of the number of historically designated structures without residential uses already existing above commercial uses is so small, residential growth impacts would be negligible from so few new units. In fact, the loss of long term units in the Independence Building, over the Red Onion and the Aspen Mine Company will probably never be regained. C. Incentives for Historic Preservation. Drawing shoppers up to second floor commercial is particularly difficult in historic buildings leaving office uses the only broad use category available. Adding "DWELLINGS" as a permitted use for historic structures provides the owner at least the option to change use if office tenants can not be found (which has been the case for the Brand Building for some years). ~. .~ GARfiELD & HECHT. P.C. City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 2 D. Noise. To assume dwellings are not appropriate in the center of town because of noise is absurd. The people who live downtown in most cities, do so because the advantages (proximity to dining and night-life, non-reliance on the automobile) outweigh the disadvantages. The advantage to the cityscape is a more vital, around the clock downtown. E. Parking. Although not required in CC, parking for office and commercial uses in adjoining zones is 3 to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. By Aspen's code, the residential requirement is one space per bedroom which reflects the lesser intensity of use. No hard data exists to prove that people who live downtown are more or less likely to have cars. For every example of someone who does, another can be found who doesn't. What is clear is that people who live elsewhere and work and shop downtown USE their cars more. The code should require parking for dwelling units in the CC zone the same as it does for other zones WHERE POSSIBLE. In new construction, the developer can easily be required to provide the required parking as a condition of Conditional Use. In other existing non-historic structures, the practicability of providing on-site parking can be studied on a case by case basis in Conditional Use. The owner of a historically designated structure should not be denied the uses available to others because the historic structure was built one hundred years ago in such a way that on-site parking is not possible. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. AVH/dd i~ ,,-.. MEII>RANDUM FROM: City Attorney Steve Burstein, Planning Office Commercial Core Use Tables Amendment - To Allow Dwelling Units in Commercial Core Zone District TO: .... DATE: May 8, 1986 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review is an rezoning request submitted by Andy Hecht which the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has agreed to sponsor. The rezoning request is for the Use Tables to be amended to allow Dwelling Units in the Commercial Core Zone Di st rict. Please review this material and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than June 3, 1986. Thank you. ,-, 130 asp ,~ CITY PEN reet 611 MEMO TO: Steve ~urstein, Planning Office FROM: Karen ~lcLaughlin, City Attorney's Office RE: COMMERCIAL CORE USE TABLES AHENDMENT DATE: June 9, 1986 I have reviewed your memo regarding a request submitted by Andy Hecht to rezone the commercial core to allow dwelling units as a permitted use in historically designated structures and as a conditional use in other buildings. I will briefly identify some of the issues f.orconsideration. First, you should refer to Section 24-12.1 for the procedure to follow in amending the zoning ordinance. Pay particular attention to the notice requirements. One of the questions which you must ask in evaluating the proposed zone change is whether it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and is done for public, rather than private benefit. Secondly, you must ask whether the proposed rezoning is reasonable. please remember that property owners have a right to rely on present zoning classifications if those were in effect at the time they purchased their buildings. You must balance the relative hardship of. the landowner and the public, both the hardship created by the ]:lresentzoning and the hardship created by the proposed ,zoning. This zoning will clearly have some economic impact on someone, and that impact should be carefully analyzed. Finally, the rezoning must bear a substantial relationship to the health, welfare and safety of the community. In order to render a more complete o9inion I would need to know the provisions of the comprehensive plan which might have any bearing on the validity of the proposed amendment. I would also like to know what your concerns are, and how you have framed the narrow issues. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. MEMOF~AI'I[)I..IM ~'S~ I1L ""@@@ 0 ~!Lr'; f:\\",~ iJ /' II f\'\ i MAR 2 I 1~8b .", Ii II '~ ...,' --,- '.'- ~ ~ "ro.. F'I:~()M : DA"TT: .. HE: Pau"l Tadclun","" City Attut"ney Bill DruedinQ, luning Enforceme Mar'ch 20, ..1.9:]6 Bt"and Buildinq DwellinglJrlit Vsyifj.cation It 15 my IJl1.jerstanejing that during a P & Z Use Determihationfor the Steanc[ BlJiJ.(~j.n~~, P & Z directed me to make the de'termination as to whether ther"e were additional d~ellingunits on the second floor of the Brand Building priur to aduption of codes in Nuvember, 1971. After researchinq every bit of Buildinq Department records, this 15 what I found:: -May 15, 1962: A letter from Jim Markalunas, Buildinq Inspector, i nd.i c a t(::.:.~.::; p t" (.:~:::.;(.)n t:. U~::;f~~ i:t::; (::1 c;':~~f:'~n:lb l)' ;:~nd f':~dll (. ;::11", i '"In;::ll r~i.l t~r-nc;(::.b~.;:. on t.he :::::I?C ond fluor" and d r.(:.~pa.i.t.. qar'acJf.~~and body i::lnd paint :-::::,hop on t:.hE~ f'it"st floor". '. ." ---. -There is very little file activity until Nuvember, 1971. Nothinq in Buildinq Department files indicates that any dwelling units were Pf;.t""mit:t:.f:.:.d on th(.::~ ~:.:.~(~.~cond f'lootW pr":i.o'r' to N(lvernl:Hz~r'1 .1':1"7.1.. "rhb\Se f:i..l(.~~s W(~t"(::~ a].so t"pviewed tlY representatives of the Brand Building. -A" cl-,erl' ',"I: "I:I-,e A~~(~~~,-)V'~ n"I'"F""l'Ce "l'I",rl"L'r.,"t"e~ "t",", lq7"? ~(~(-(")I",rl i'],"),')~'Ml'r" ..' ,....., '... . ,," .._,....,.......,....'.1 .... .. ....... .. .,. ",l,. .....M'. ..' ...., .... ........ .. .... ..." . r RenlC)(1eJ.j.I"IS~ offi(~es and ~3tores!' Therei,s also a note that two dwelling urlitswer-p irl existence, :rbelieve, prior. to November, 1971, but dl)PS riot indi(:~lte si.ze (Jt" location. -NOVPlntler" 3, J.97J: There is a lease agr'eement and paynlsnt to the City i,f'r 1.ielJ I:,f Cll"re parkirl9 pliJI::e apparently. in conjunction w.ith a right to B dl~ellil'1q unit", -There is cunsiderable permit activity in uur files after November 1971. --..., I feel that 1. could vl?r":Lfy tJW('lO dw("llinq units ar"ter" Hovelllbet"" 1971. l~oweVet-, OllY recot"ds show cot"respohdence frarn 1962 to Novemllsr 1971 withuut any permits fur dwelling units. I could not verify that there wet-e any dwelling units' J.egal.J.y created. Watet- Depay.tment rec:ords stlOW l:re(jit feJY only a IJne bedt"cJofn unit in the entire blJildin9_ This brinqs us tu the point. If in fact, priur to Nuvember 1971, portions uf the secund flour were being used to live in but nut leqally Ct"eated tjwelling ~nits, does the app]:icant get credit for thi.s ar~a? Jim Wilson feels that we sh[~ld refer to Section 24-14.2(a)(b) & (c), ~whichstates, "(a) In their interpretatiun and applicatiun, the pruvi~ions uf this zuninq code shall be held tu be minimum requirements adopted fur the promution of the public health, safety and welfare. (b) Wh.(,~~i"Jc;.v(~t.. th(:~ y'(::~quir'ern(.~~nts of' th(::~ zonin9 code i::tt.(~ at. var'.ianc(.~~ wit.h the reql.ti.reolcnts of any othey. lawfully adopted rules, regulations, oy'dini~lnC(.:':.~::.:; Ot" ot:.h(~t.. .l.E\qi~:::,.lati VE~ actions by th(~AsP(~~n c i tv counc i 1. th(:~ mure restrictiVe, ur that imposinq the higher standard shall govern. > ~. r, PUI)J. !'"addl..l.n(:,'./ C:i. t:.y l\t.tur"nc:Y Mar" c:h ~?D 'J 19C:(, P;::19F:: ~? (c:) WI')enever' t"estt-j.C:ti,Of)S j.m~Josed by this zuni,rlg (lcde ar"s ei,tt)0r" mClre or .l(~~7:;~::'; t"C~::7~t.r'ic:t,ivf:': t.h,:xn r'(:;~qu,ldt.i.()n~~-:;. adoj:.:lt.(.::::d by any ~;;t:.at.(,::~ or- f(~d(;::-r'dl agerlCY, tt18 r'ules Clt" y'pgulati,ons which are mOtes restrictive or whic:h impCISP hi!~tlet" standards or" requirements shall govern. Without regard to any r1t"CIVi,si,on ()f this zoning code, no land.-shaJ.l be used and no stru(;ture sh;ill be erected, constr'ucted, reconstructed, altered or nlaj.rlt;~irled in vi,olaticlf'l of ahy state or federal polluti,on cantt"o! or envir"clrlmerlt~~l protection law or regulation.." Attorney Andy Hecht made the point that Section 24-13,4(b) of the Aspen Hun icoi.pal Cod(~.! 1 1A.IOU.1.d allow t"(~con~:::.;truc t,:i.on o.r dw(::.~ll .in!;~ uni t~:::; t:hat W(::.!t..(~ ri,i'\ ..,rI..,'I....ICTF'd ]'" Y"""'W'.'I ",C)n On you fF"p] thl'.'.' i": tl'.e 'irtpnt cw "'llh,.,..t."lnc'p nf Q ~~ ,. -tv,-t ~.~ :'. ,-:l ..~. c ,....~ ..1 ~: '.:, .. ',.' .. :,~. i...~ .:~ _) ,.~ .:. .... " (:' "~ ~. ~.... .. .. ' '~l!. .~~ :. :.:~ ~. '.~ ....' : ~.:~ . " .1 .:,~ .. ,..~. :) ~.~.." .....~:.: ,. .:~' ,".<;' ..,:. ...: ,~~ ."< .!i"'"t.lll:,.., I...uI..k.... WI'dt.. dl..Uut. ...>bLtlU'1 ,,"..J 1....>"..1.('.'..) uf t.hb A,'.'f.t,11 MUII.l.l...IPdl C.uck..., ,,'" lot'" ,."h.i c'h e:t.' t.r'''''', "v.lhc'n ."1 nnr,,'..nn forml nC) II";P nf ", ."t~..llct' It' F.'. (It"" ".tt" II"t' It."'" .',n .'1 f't.'ll'><'r u.:"~ . ~''''. 'm, cl : ....... I . "', <.: .. .;... .: . . ...... "N~'" "....... .. . ,. ..' I~' ....' .. .:. .." ... iN C ," 1",,10' I:)~" (::"1'1 .1 ,':," ,::,\":," '1 J'. ('" nllll'. '1 ,", ':~ .t ] '..)1'.,. 1 ':::; ('I' ,~.~c ClI"1 .1.: 1 r,' I,.:~(j, Coo, ~., ':~I") ':"1"1 Ij'"'I" ,,:'~(:;I .f" '"'~.. ';:' o,,:~ ~., , ,")(j ,.., 'f' ti1' J 1 I ' ..' , . .",'.., ....' ,. I ..... ,)..' '", "'~, ! ,.... .. .... .... ..' .. . . .....' .., "'<," <;. ... I.., .. I (;.~ I" ,,' I .... ... .. ~ '~o-j\. )1..". f.I" (" ," (.'., ,.t'.I"' .:: I"' (", ,.. ,::., \/'::'\ .:: ,t'. .t'I'., (:.\ ".:'.; '[' I" I I c: .[. , I t" F.', Cl t.. ,:::. t.. t.: I I c.' .1"'/ " ~., ,:.-:. '~'I", ..-1 I:) ~., (:.\ fll]' ",:~ ,:.:, ,,:;. 'J' r., S<-~ ;;:.~,\,\,'" ..I... ,I '..l I ..' I ..' ..' t.l I . ..' ...., ',' , ...1.. '.. ...,.. ....' ....'. .. f ,,' (.. .. r....~.. ..' ....' .. ~~ ,.': Of 111'. I. ,", .", '1" .1. 0,'.,. ".,1", ''', ]] ,'., ,') .t. ..'.1", ,....., ,.. p'" .f" .1.:1-'-' ,.' I'",,,,, II '."F'("I ,." x (": '....'1" .1... 1. ,'., c: 0'"1 'fo ,.. III .1' .1'..'1 w J. .t'I"1 .t. L., ,.' ~G:I .... ,),. <.. " ,....' I .... '...... " t..., I ..' (..~' . ..' ".,'.. '_ ...., .~ .....' , .. .. .. .. I .., ".. ./... ,..euu.lat.:i.ons of t.he di'.ot~.'ict .in which it is located.." 1 hd\/(':' 'iu,~:,::~t. b('::.~c~n 'pr"('::,~~::;(~nt:.(:~~d IA.I.it.h d dr:alA.linq ft"otrl L<J(::.~.lt:.nn And(~t"~:::;on and tin af'F~l(:lflvi't ft"clnl Di.ck A~rlold indicating severl (jwellinq 'l)rlits on t~le spc:on(j floor of the Brand Buildinu. An affadavit from Saard Moses was not not:.ar':.i.z.(~d.. {:~q1::{j.n" in -::.~:pit:,(:.:' 'of (,~xc(,~lll';:~nt. rnf::~mor:i.F~~:::;" I cannot find pr'oof: of these ~.(nj,ts nor t~leir (~(Jnfigurations" I personally feel the information provided by the applicant IS insufficient to credit them with thp pla~ submitted, However. I feel .t~lat t~le ~t~)~)],j,c:ant ,nay be able to furt~let.. substantiate their cJ.aims drld wO!..lld iJp~)t"0ciate YOllt.. assistance in detey'ming the validity of allY fut."ti'ler- (:~],~lj.ms. I ~Iclpe YOU tldve time tel arrange a meeti.ng with the (~(Jncet"rled I~at..ties so that we may resolve this (~orlfusing issue as soon as PO::':':.: ~:':.:; ,i b 1 C:' .. cc f:leg!~v ~;ee!~er, ZClrlir)g Offici.al Alal'l I~i(~hlllan, Planning i--Jrd.. ton Andr","~",;on ,b,nd';! Hr:::\ch t:. BD/at. . ~ ,-, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Municipal COde Amendment: Section 24-3.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses - To Allow Dwelling Units in Commer- cial COre Zone District NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on June 17, 1986 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider Code amendment submitted by Andy Hecht which the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has agreed to sponsor. The rezoning would amend Section 24-3.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses, of the Municipal COde of the City of Aspen, Colorado, to allow Dwelling Units in the Commercial Core Zone District by right in individually historically desig- nated structures and as a conditional use in other buildings in the district. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, Ext. 223. sIc. Welton Anderson Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ================================================================ Published in the Aspen Times on May 15, 1986. City of Aspen Account. N.5 ~ ,-., GARfHlEILD & lHllEClHlI, IP'. Co RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW Y. HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPlER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" WILLIAM K. GUEST. P.C. JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN CLIFTON D. BURDICK jj'&@&DWlrg n APR - 4 1986 flU IIi " I' M E M 0 RAN D U , '/ TO: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Harley Baldwin by and through his counsel Andrew V. Hecht Garfield & Hecht, P.C. RE: Request for Amendment to Zoning Use Tables DATE: April 4, 1986 This is a request by the owner of the Brand Building of the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission to sponsor a Code amendment to the zoning use tables for the CC zone to allow dwelling units as permitted uses in historic structures and as conditional uses in other structures in the CC zone. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. CDB/mms cc: Harley Baldwin Welton Anderson ~. !''''''' ....-... "-.- --. .... ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC& 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado . 81611 (303) 925-2020 ~~ . ~ ~ 1"10,/1 . /JA/J' RE:~Cuu. ~I.)~ ~~ -~"fr Dea r a".~ This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of your ;?-9.~ ' application for complete- ness. We have determined that your application -:i- is complete. is not complete. The additional items we will require are as follows: Disclosure of ownership (on.e copy only needed). Adjacent property owners list (one copy only needed). Additional copies of entire application. Authorization by owner for representative to submit application. Response to the attached list of items demOnstrat- ing compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specified materials. A check in the amount of $ is due. '1_ A. Since your application is complete, we haVe !r:heduled it for review by the 7/~m~ ~on m'4 I ,q(. . We will be calling you if need any addition' information prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the review memorandum available to you. Please note that it (is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can prov ide you. B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it for pUblic review at this time. When we have received the materials we have requested, we will be happy to place you on the next available agenda. PI,ease feel free to call ~ ~ , who is the planner . assigned to this case, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITKIN PIrAlmnm O'rrrCl:: tU~~ ~~l'~ Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director , AR:jlr