HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Pitkin County Library Parking Lots in Office Zone.A15-92PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY TEXT AMEND
2737-124-38-002 A15-92
5�V2 � da
A
h
J
C
�A
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113-63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE
SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Name:
Phone.
Address:
Project:
Check #
Date:
Copies received:
#of Hours: -'
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 2/28/92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-124-38-002 A15-92
STAFF MEMBER• LL
PROJECT NAME: Pitkin County Library Text Amendment
Project Address:Main Street, Aspen
Legal Address•
APPLICANT: Pitkin County Library Board
Applicant Address: 117 South Monarch, Aspen, CO 81611 5-4530
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Van
Representative Address/Phone:_ 230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 925-6958
PAID:(YES) NO AMOUNT:__$1976 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 7/0
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
CC Meeting Date
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
--------------------
--------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Aspen Con.S.D.
Mtn Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
State HwyDept(GW)
State HwyDept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL
City Atty
Housing
City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
DATE: June 8, 1992
RE: Code Amendments for Chapter 24 Sections 5-213.E.3, and
7-404.B, Affecting Office Zone District Parking
Requirements and Special Review, Second Reading Ordinance
35, Series of 1992
SUMMARY: The proposed amendments will affect the parking
requirements for the Office Zone District and Special Review for
parking in the Office Zone District.
Council approved Ordinance 35 at the May 11, 1992 meeting but
referred the text amendments back to the Commission for an
evaluation of alternative mitigation measures.
The Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendments and
recommends to Council the changes to the Office Zone District and
the Special Review for parking.
The proposed amendments are as follows:
1) To keep the standard for parking in the Office zone
District at 3 spaces/1,000 square feet.
2) To allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept
the following mitigation for parking:
a. on -site parking
b. off -site
C. cash -in -lieu
d. alternative mitigation
The Special Review section of the Land Use Code was also amended
to include specific mitigation measures.
The Ordinance has been revised to reflect those changes, please see
attached Ordinance, attachment A. New language is in bold.
CURRENT ISSUES: The purpose of the proposed amendments are to
provide flexible parking mitigation for those parcels that are
unable to provide parking on -site.
Following is a summary of the main text amendments:
1. The proposed amendments will enable the Planning and Zoning
Commission to accept mitigation for on -site parking requirements
in the Office zone district through parking mitigation criteria
outlined in the Special Review section of the Land Use Code. This
is similar to the parking requirements of the CC and C-1 zone
districts where on -site parking may be reduced with a payment -in -
lieu to the Parking Fund.
The proposed language is as follows:
E. Off-street parking requirement.
3. All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net
leasable area; these spaces may be mitigated via a
payment in lieu and/or other forms of mitigation
that are approved by the Commission by special
review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
2. A reduction in parking from the standard 3 spaces/1,000 square
feet of net leasable as required in the Office zone district will
still require mitigation. Currently, parking mitigation is $15,000
per parking space. However, the amendments to the Special Review
section of the Land Use Code provide the ability for an applicant
to mitigate on -site parking by a means other than cash -in -lieu.
3. The Special Review section of the Land Use Code has been
amended to include the following mitigation measures to include,
but not limited to:
* private vanpool operation
* transit/vanpool fare subsidy
* capital improvements for transit service
* shared parking concept
* flexible work hours
* provision of bus service
* bicycle parking facilities
* participation in ride -share and purchase of
parking passes for the parking garage
The Commission shall also consider whether a valid public purpose
would be served by the reduction of off-street parking spaces,
whether the property is located within a designated historic
district, the availability of sufficient publicly owned parking
spaces in the area to justify the reduction without detriment to
the public health, welfare and safety, the availability of shared
parking or adjacent off -site parking, and the applicant's
commitment to support alternative transportation modes.
The Commission also supported the addition of the following
language: applicant shall demonstrate how the alternative
transportation mode(s) will be implemented, the permanency of such
mode(s), the extent of the program, number of vehicles the mode(s)
will replace, and other pertinent information.
K
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As is mentioned in the "Applicable Review"
section of this memo, the cash -in -lieu for parking is being
deposited in the Parking Fund and is used to offset construction
and operating costs of the parking garage. The Parking Fund has
received $18,974 for parking mitigation within the last three
years. However, approximately $394,500 have been committed to the
Parking Fund over the last two year but will not be deposited until
the issuance of a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the proposed Text Amendments as defined herein.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Council may want to add additional review criteria for
Special Review.
2. The Council may wish to consider amending the language in
Section 7-404.B limiting the use of the "Parking Fund". The Code
only allows the money in the "fund" to be used for parking
structures. A more broad definition of the fund would enable the
use of the fund money for transit alternatives thus furthering the
City's desire to move away from parking structures and parking
requirements as the answer to parking and congestion issues.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the text amendments as
proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission."
"I move to adopt Ordinance 35, Series of 1992."
CITY MANAGERS COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance _, Series of 1992
B. Review Standards for a Text Amendment
3
•
•
ATTACHMENT B
Applicable, Review Criteria: Pursuant
standards of review for a Text Amendment
to Section 7-1102 the
are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The reduction of parking within several zoned districts
by Special Review is already available in the Land Use Code. To
amend the parking requirement for the Office Zone District to
reduce on -site parking requirements via parking mitigation is
consistent with the Commerical Core and Commerical-1 zone
districts. For those unique parcels whereby parking cannot be
accommodated on -site or 1.5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. of net leasable
creates undesirable impacts on the property or surrounding
properties,. -the ability to mitigate a reduction in parking may be
more appropriate.
Parking mitigation alternatives that are proposed in the amendments
could support City wide parking and transit goals. Parcels that
are within walking distance of the garage and mass transit routes
may be considered appropriate for alternative mitigation. The
money accrued via cash -in -lieu is deposited in the Parking Fund
which is currently being used to offset construction and operating
costs of the parking garage.
According to Section 7-404.B, money accrued in the Parking Fund may
be used "Solely for the construction of a parking structure or
similar new parking facility within or adjacent to the zone
districts to which this subsection applies." Staff would suggest
amending this language to provide a more broad transit use for
cash -in -lieu mitigation for on -site parking. This could have
financial implications for the Parking Fund.
The change in use amendments fill the gap for Public parcels that
may be rezoned or formally change their use to either commerical,
residential, or lodge. Presently, many public land uses throughout
the community are relocating which usually initiates a rezoning of
the public parcels and a change in their use. This amendment
formally addresses that change in use and defines the proper
formula for assessing mitigation for all change in uses.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The ability to review the parking demand based upon
location of the property and other unique characteristics is
consistent with past parking requirements in the Office Zone
District (especially given the differences between the east side
and Main Street Office Zone Districts) and the CC and C-1 Zone
Districts.
The 1992 Aspen Area Community Draft Plan promotes a more auto
limited downtown with the support of auto alternatives. The auto
alternatives must be in place to insure its use by residents and
tourists.
In addition, a prevalent theme throughout the 1992 Transportation
Symposium was the reduction of parking both public and private was
a tough but effective mechanism to reduce the use of the private
automobile.
The change in use revisions support the Growth Management concept
that a change in use should be exempt but the mitigation should be
fully assessed.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The Office zone districts are surrounded by Commerical
and Residential zone districts. The proposed revisions to the
Office parking requirements. are consistent with the Commercial Core
and C-1 parking requirements in that all or a portion of the
required parking may be mitigated by cash -in -lieu. The ability to
reduce the parking requirement via Special Review with alternative
mitigation measures will enable the true need for parking of a
particular site to be established. The criteria for Special Review
considers the surrounding land uses and impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood of a parking reduction.
The ability to review a change in use for Public by applying
mitigation standards similar to those applied to commercial, lodge
and residential change in use should protect surrounding properties
from an increase in intensity of use without mitigation.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The amendments to Office parking requirements help to
establish a realistic parking requirement by Special Review. The
two amendments should not create further parking problems or auto
related safety problems.
The change in use section (that includes a Public category) will
dictate the mitigation for an increase in the required parking and
employee housing and address potential parking and traffic
problems.
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: Parking cash -in -lieu payments are deposited in the
Parking Fund which is used to off -set parking garage construction
and operations. The proposed amendments do not eliminate a cash -
in -lieu requirement. The amendments attempt to balance the parking
requirements of a parcel that cannot provide on -site parking with
the acknowledgment that some parcels do not need to provide maximum
parking (3 spaces/1000 sq. ft.) given their proximity to garages,
transit routes etc.
Although a change of use is exempt from the GMQS competition,
impacts are still mitigated and the new square footage that is
"created" in a particular category is deducted from the annual
allocation of that category. For example, if a 2,000 square foot
residence converts to an office use, the annual quota for the
Office Zone will be reduced by 2,000 sq. ft. to reflect the
increase in office space inventory. The amendment to the GMQS
section does not affect this process.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: Auto disincentives have been examined as a means to
reduce air and noise pollution within the downtown. Flexible
parking review standards encourage auto disincentives rather than
encourage demolition of existing non -conforming structures to
comply with parking standards or parking lots to encourage auto
use instead of green space.
g. - Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: During the creation of the 1992 Aspen Area Community
Plan, a specific focus has been given to the transportation issues
of the metro area. The vision being developed in the Plan is one
of programs which promote auto disincentives and protect existing
structures. The amendments proposed support these goals of the
1992 Draft Community Plan.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: Parcels on the outskirts of Main Street are different
from those office zoned parcels between Original and Spring
Streets. Special Review for a reduction in parking will address
the disparate locations of parcels zoned Office in a more
reasonable manner. The ability to reduce required parking via
cash -in -lieu or other parking alternatives helps to alleviate those
problematic parcels where on -site parking cannot be provided for
several reasons without encouraging the redevelopment of the
property to correct a non -conformity.
91
•
•
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 revisions to the Office parking requirements are
no different from the way parking review in the Office zone has
been treated in the past. The ability to mitigate all required
parking via cash -in -lieu is consistent with the community's desire
to support auto alternatives such as mass transit and maintain
existing buildings.
The intent of the change in use GMQS exemption is to ensure that
the impacts from an increase in the intensity of use will be
mitigated. To amend that section to include Public use addresses
a missing link in the Code.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont
DATE: June 2, 1992
RE: Office Zone District Text Amendments
SUMMARY: Attached to this cover memo is amended Ordinance 35.
Based upon discussion with the Commission at the May 19, 1992
meeting, staff has revised the proposed amendment for parking
requirements in the Office Zone District, new language is in bold
in the attached Ordinance.
Specifically, Special Review for off-street parking requirements
has been elaborated to include a list of mitigation procedures that
the Commission may consider when reviewing a parking plan.
Please pay special attention to Section 2, paragraphs 1 and 3.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission recommend
the proposed text amendments to Council for their approval.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r J
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner /
DATE: May 26, 1992
RE: Code Amendments for Chapter 24 Sections 5-213.E.3, 7-
404.B, and 8-104.B.1.b. Affecting Office Zone District
Parking Requirements, Special Review, and GMQS Exemption
for Change in Use, Second Reading of Ordinance 35, Series
of 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Council at the May 11, 1992 meeting approved first
reading of this Ordinance and directed staff to revise the proposed
amendments and to return to the Planning Commission for more
direction regarding "mitigation alternatives". Staff met with the
Planning Commission at their May 19 meeting and is also scheduled
to meet with the Planning Commission at their June 2, 1992 meeting
to finalize the language for the code amendments. Staff recommends
that this item be continued to the June 8, 1992 Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the code
amendment for the Office Zone District and Special Review section
of the Code be continued to the June 8, 1992 Council meeting.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for the
Code Amendments for the Office Zone District and Special Review
section of the Code to june 8, 1992."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Diane Moore and Leslie Lamont
DATE: May 19, 1992
RE: Office Zone District Text Amendments
SUMMARY: The Commission recommended to City Council several text
amendments regarding the parking requirements in the Office Zone
District, Special Review for parking mitigation and Change in Use
clarification.
Although Council approved the Ordinance on First Reading, Council
directed staff to revise the proposed amendments and to return to
the Commission for more direction regarding "mitigation
alternatives".
Staff would like to review the revised text with the Commission
and discuss mitigation alternatives other than cash -in -lieu before
returning to Council for second reading of the Ordinance.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The text amendments have been revised since the Commission adopted
the proposal at their March 31, 1992 meeting.
Council and staff have revised the proposal in the following
manner:
Y
1) To keep the standard for parking in the Office zone'
District at 3 spaces/1,000 square feet. -� �s �a, AIQ
2) To allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept �'`.,
the following mitigation for parking:
a. on -site parkinc CoYI r v
off -site ckxt r � 1 �
cash -in -lieu
d. alternative mitigation
/ h
3)� Provide the ability to reduce parking on -site below 1.5
spaces/1,000 sq. ft. but require mitigation for any ALI^
5 ces 1,000 sq. ft. reductions below 3 sp -d/ -
Clt'"'J
4) Eliminate the Special Review by Council to reduce or i
waive parking requirements and/or mitigation.
49�Ir�,G�i
5) The amendments to the change in use section have been
eliminated but will be considered in the future when a
more comprehensive discussion can occur.
The proposed amendments will enable the Planning and Zoning
Commission to reduce the on -site parking requirements in the Office
zone district through parking mitigation criteria outlined in the
Special Review section of the Land Use Code. This is similar to
the parking requirements of the CC and C-1 zone districts where on -
site parking may be reduced with a payment -in -lieu to the Parking
Fund.
The proposed language is as follows:
E. Off-street parking requirement. /
3. All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net
leasable area; these spaces may be mitigated via a
payment in lieu or other forms of mitigation that
is approved by the Commission by special review
pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
A reduction in parking from the standard 3 spaces/1, 000 square feet
of net leasable as required in the Office zone district will still
require mitigation. Currently, parking mitigation is $15,000 per
parking space. However, the amendments to the Special Review
section of the Land Use Code provide the ability for an applicant
to mitigate on -site parking by a means other than cash -in -lieu.
The Special Review section of the Land Use Code has been amended
to include the following mitigation measures:
* ava -1abi14ty—ef--suf-flcient
the area - Fi�'qrw?f`+-dn
* availability of shared or
* applicant's commitment to
modes
* public health, safety and
publicly owned parking spaces in
adjacent off -site parking
support alternative transportation
welfare
POINT OF DISCUSSION: Council approved first reading of Ordinance
35 proposing the text amendments on May 11, 1992. Council is still
concerned by the lack of specificity with regard to "alternative
mitigation" for a reduction in on -site parking.
The Council would like the Commission to consider alternative
mitigation measures that are tangible and enforceable. These
measures would be alternatives that the Commission could accept in
lieu of on -site parking.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission identify
additional parking mitigation other than cash -in -lieu for
recommendation to Council.
2
.,c+rM"y�w- IIA�Iun l�l��r� a}�en
�uan�%o+�
— �'Ns�fi,P imp(�UZrFamis ry+" fna✓�A-�{ AWun�c¢
�P I
S�iwv� �a,t W'ny LM i4F�
- P'tiwol-bv� LO-5 o ce,
em�l � �ncn Mn
PdAIU'A
L�I�m-tvansp�rk
•
•
by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
Section 2\
That Section 7-404(B), "Off-street parking requirements" of Article
7 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 7-404. Review standards for special review.
,.� MakPrh'or�
B. Off-street parking regp1remen4Whenever the off-street
parking requirements of g proposed development are subject to
establishment or reduction by special review, or may be provided
via a payment in lieu, the Development Application shall on1. be
approved if the following conditions are met.
1. In all zone, districts where the off-s r t parking wI
requirements are subject to establishment r -redu-eti-e-n
by special review, the applicant shall de onstrate that \
the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and
employees of the project have been met, taking into
account potential uses of the parcel, the projected
traffic generation► of the project, the projected impacts
onto the on -street parking of e neighborhood, its
\ proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area,
and any special services, suc as vans, provided for
residentsr guests and .empl .ye -
` `l2 `� R-�(N^ �->P,, V� M I'll, . i n
The Commissirfn shad a`�so consider whet r a v id public
purpose would be served by the n of off-street
I parking spaces, whether the property is located within
a designated historic district, the availability of
sufficient publicly one arking spaces in the area to
(/L"1 justify the (rithbut detriment to the public
�( C health, welfare and safety, the availability of shared
/ parking or adjacen off -site parking, and the applicant's
commitment to support alternative transportation modes.
n -The Commissiorr-a all s
-tan n en orceab e.
2. In all zon districts, where the off-street parking
requiremen may be provided via a payment in lieu, the
applicant, hall make a one-time only payment to the City,
in the ount of $15,000 per space. Approval of the
payment in shall be at the option of the commission.
In det rmining whether to accept the payment or whether
to require that the parking be provided on -site, the
commission shall take into consideration the practical
ability of the applicant to place parking on -site,
whether the parking needs of the development have been
adequately met on -site and whether the city has plans for
a parking facility which would better meet the needs of
i.>
6fp t f slid cam al-WrL
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
requesting approval of a Text Amendment to the following sections
of the Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 24: Section 3-101-Definition
of Non -Conforming Structure; Section 5-214.E.3-Off-street parking
requirement; Section 5-301.C-Off-Street Parking, requirements for
expansion of existing development; Section 7-404.B-Special Review -
Off -Street Parking Requirements; and Section 8-104.B.b-Change in
use. These amendments will expand the scope of review for off-
street parking requirements and parking mitigation. For further
information, contact Les"Lie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on February 26, 1992.
City of Aspen Account.
0
VANN ASS0C11AT=S
February 27, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Library Text Amendments
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application to amend the text
of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, a/k/a, the Aspen Land Use
Regulations (see Exhibit 1, Preapplication Conference Summary,
attached hereto). The proposed text amendments address the
City's off-street parking requirements, as well as various
regulatory provisions related thereto. The application is
submitted pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Land Use Regula-
tions by the Pitkin County Library. Permission for Vann
Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent the Applicant
is attached as Exhibit 2.
Background
On February 6, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved a growth management quota system exemption to permit
a so-called "change in use" of the old Pitkin County Library
building from public to office use. The GMQS exemption, which
was approved pursuant to Section 8-104.B.1.b. of the Regula-
tions, was conditioned upon the provision of sufficient
parking and affordable housing to mitigate the additional
demand which would theoretically result from the building's
change in use. In addition, the P&Z recommended that the City
Council rezone the library property from P, Public, to O,
Office, to accommodate the change in use approval.
On April 23, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-
15, which formally rezoned the library property to O, Office.
As you know, the parking and affordable housing mitigation
requirement imposed by the P&Z as a condition of their GMQS
exemption approval was also imposed by the City Council as a
.'30 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •301925-6958 • Fax 303,920-9310
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 2
condition of the rezoning. The condition stated that the
amount of parking required to mitigate the change in use was
to be based upon the applicable provisions of the Regulations,
and that mitigation could be accomplished via a cash -in -lieu
payment.
As the Applicant had previously received an employee credit in
connection with the approval of a GMQS exemption for the
construction of the new library building on the Rio Grande
property, the amount of affordable housing required to
mitigate the change in use was to be based upon the total
number of employees generated by the purchaser of the build-
ing. The parking and affordable housing impacts resulting
from the change in use were required to be mitigated prior to
the issuance of a building permit or a certificate of occupan-
cy for the building.
In November of 1991, the Applicant and a prospective purchaser
of the library property submitted a request to the Planning
Office for a clarification of the building's parking require-
ment. The Applicant wished to obtain a credit against the
required parking mitigation for approximately nineteen (19)
off-street parking spaces located adjacent to the west side of
Paepcke Park. The purpose of the credit request was to reduce
the extent of the parking required to mitigate the building's
change in use, thereby enhancing the salability of the
property.
The Planning Director formally denied the Applicant's request
for a parking credit, and the Applicant appealed the matter to
the City Council for further consideration. While the Council
subsequently concurred with the Director's position, they
indicated that they would consider other alternatives regard-
ing the mitigation of the library building's parking require-
ment. As the possibility of a code amendment to address the
parking issue was raised by both the Council and the Planning
Office, the Applicant has elected to pursue this alternative.
Proposed Text Amendments
The Planning Director's decision to deny the Applicant's
request was apparently based on the interpretation that the
rezoning of the library property to O, Office, triggered the
parking mitigation requirement. As the parking provision of
the O, Office, zone district requires that a minimum of one
and one-half (1-1/2) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square
feet of net leasable area be provided on site, no ability
existed within the Regulations to reduce this requirement via
the provision of off -site parking. The Director also ques-
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 3
tioned the appropriateness of allocating the Paepcke Park
spaces to the library building for mitigation purposes, and
the prior City Council's decision to allow full mitigation via
a cash -in -lieu payment.
To address these issues, the Applicant proposes to amend
several sections of the existing Land Use Regulations. The
purpose of the various amendments is twofold. First, the
amendments would clarify when parking mitigation is required
(i.e., rezoning vs. change in use) and how it is to be
calculated. Second, the amendments would provide additional
flexibility in determining the O, Office, zone district's
parking requirement, and provide a mechanism for the further
reduction and/or waiver of the resulting requirement by the
City Council.
More specifically, the proposed amendments would clarify that
the existing library building became nonconforming with
respect to parking upon rezoning of the property to O, Office,
and that mitigation of this nonconformity is not required as
a result of the rezoning. Parking mitigation, however, is
required as a result of the building's change in use from
public to office. The amendments would also clarify that the
amount of parking mitigation required is to be calculated
based on the difference between the prior library's theoreti-
cal parking requirement and the parking requirement of the
proposed office use. The parking requirements of the two uses
would be based on the off-street parking provisions of their
respective zone districts.
In addition to the above, the proposed text amendments would
provide for a reduction in the O, Office, zone district's
total parking requirement from three (3) spaces to one and
one-half (1-1/5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet
of net leasable area, which could be met via a cash -in -lieu
payment. The ability to reduce the amount of required
parking, and to satisfy the resulting requirement via a cash -
in -lieu payment, would be subject to special review by the
P&Z. Upon the recommendation of the P&Z, the City Council
could further reduce and/or waive the parking requirement
subject to demonstrated compliance with certain criteria.
Please note, however, that Council's ability to further reduce
and/or waive parking would only apply to existing buildings
for which a change in use was requested.
The text amendments required to accomplish these objectives
involve five (5) separate sections of the Regulations. The
affected sections, and the proposed text amendments thereto,
are discussed below.
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 4
1. Section 3-101
Section 3-101 of the Regulations contains the definitions
which are used in the administration of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code. A nonconforming structure is defined therein
as any structure which was established pursuant to the zoning
regulations in effect at the time of construction but does not
conform to the "dimensional requirements" imposed by the
current regulations. As the parking provisions of the various
zone districts are not codified as dimensional requirements,
a building whose parking does not meet current regulatory
requirements arguably is not subject to the nonconforming
structure provisions of the Regulations
As the attached excerpt from the zoning regulations in
effect immediately prior to the adoption of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations in May of 1988 indicates (see Exhibit 3, Section
24-13.3), the previous definition of a nonconforming structure
referred not only to dimensional requirements, but also to
other requirements (e.g., parking) of the underlying zone
district. I believe that the previous definition was reworded
for the purpose of clarity when the new Regulations were
drafted, and that there was no intent to specifically preclude
parking from the definition of a nonconforming structure, or
from the provisions of the nonconforming section of the
Regulations.
To alleviate this problem, the Applicant proposes the
following revised definition of a nonconforming structure.
For clarity, please note that both text deletions and inser-
tions are depicted for all of the proposed amendments where
J appropriate.
r�
"NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE means any structure which
was established pursuant to the zoning and building
�, laws in effect at the time of its development, but
which does not conform to the dimensional e-
�ee ar s % raet s `« git r ma to imposed by
this Qed4 these lte "...... for the done District
. .. .
in which it is located:"
The revised language would make it clear that a structure
may become nonconforming with respect to its off-street
parking requirement. As a result, Section 9-103.C.1. of the
regulations would preclude the expansion of such a structure
without the provision of additional parking pursuant to the
requirements of the underlying zone district.
•
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 5
2. Section 5-301.C.
q>o
�J 1`
G
Section 5-301 of the Regulations contains various general
provisions which pertain to off-street parking. Section 5-
301.C. establishes the requirements which govern the expansion
of existing development. Historically, this section has been
interpreted to mean that further development could not reduce
existing parking below the minimum required in the underlying
zone district. In the case of an existing parking nonconfor-
mity, no reduction in the number of existing spaces could
occur as a result of development. This section of the Regula-
tions also requires the provision of additional parking if an
existing development is expanded. Additional parking,
however, is only required for the expansion, and an existing
parking nonconformity need not be mitigated.
While it is my understanding that the intent and current
language of this section has been debated by the Planning
Office staff, I believe that the equivalent language of the
prior zoning regulations supports the above interpretation.
As the attached excerpt from the pre 1988 regulations indi-
cates (see Exhibit 4, Section 24-4.1.(b)), additional off-
street parking was clearly required only for an expansion.
Existing parking nonconformities were permitted to continue
provided, however, that their was no reduction in the amount
of existing on -site parking.
As discussed previously, I believe that the current
confusion results from an attempt to clarify the applicable
language in connection with the 1988 recodification of the
zoning regulation, as opposed to a conscious effort to revise
the City's off-street parking policy. The following revisions
are proposed -for section 5-301—.C—.te alleviate this problem.
"No development shall reduce the number of existir ----
off-street parking spaces below the minimum number
of existing spaces required herein for that devel-
opment, unless expressly exempted by this division.
If existing development is expanded, additional
off-street parking spaee shall be provided for that
inerement of the expansion only as if it is weir;
separate development est fished ter `th" f"
tive 'datle' of this division. The >number of "addt
tional perking spaces required for the expansid
shall be based upon the applicable off-street
parkxtg rquxement of the underlying Zone dis-
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 6
The above language will further clarify that an existing
parking nonconformity need not be mitigated in connection with
the expansion of an existing structure. Additional parking,
however, would have to be provided for any proposed expansion.
3. Section 5-104.B.1.b.
This section of the Regulations provides a GMQS exemption
for a change in use of an existing structure between the
residential, commercial/office and tourist accommodations GMQS
categories upon the demonstration of minimal impacts and the
mitigation thereof. While this section's existing language
was utilized to approve the change in use exemption for the
old library building, it does not include the public use
category or define how required mitigation is to be deter-
mined. I believe that the inclusion of language addressing
these two issues would facilitate both the public's under-
standing of the regulation and its administration by the
Planning Office. The following language, therefore, is
proposed.
"Any change in use between the residential, commer-
cial/office and tourist accommodations cqh
.!..ftsht. and fi#categories r: ie$os ds;ot fo0.9 Xetr Whih ca car-
. =ff
.:. �'tificateof occu.pancyhasbeen issued for at least
two (2) years, and which is intended to be reused,
provided that it can be demonstrated that the
change in use will have minimal impact upon the
City. A determination of minimal impact shall
require a demonstration that a minimal number of
additional employees will be generated by the
change in use and that employee affc la housing
will be provided for the additional employees
generated; that a minimal amount of additional
parking spaces will be demanded by the change in
use and that parking will be provided; that there
will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood
from the change in use; and that minimal demand
will be placed on the City's public facilities from
the change in use.
In order to >de�na the dumber o! addftional
employees genera t :and required to be; housed ,,by'a
change in use#between the residential, commer-
cial'/office acid tourist' aGnommo ations growth
management auc4i.e.I compare
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
n--- '7 Al.'�
a bider<hbLib#�#+e:nm>:::.>;::#d++nm
parking space sequf red h abY #a ftN
comet ..*lion shall compare
relent.. of the axisting A ,.
requent of ` the proposed us0;���#lltpt#� t
offcraet' .,Parking r }:>:.<::.<::;;:.
is,.greateF tban the ::;.: •. .:::...:::.;' :::...}:..,...:.
►arkinq ;} ohm.
exist �.:.
;::;
I �.11gtASAR
each usef'>'i#I►�`##aR
The above language will formally provide for a change in
use between the P, Public, zone district and the residential,
commercial/office, and tourist accommodations growth manage-
ment categories. In addition, the language will clarify how
affordable housing and parking mitigation is to be calculated
with respect to change in use applications.
An additional amendment to this section of the Regula-
tions is also required to provide a mechanism for the City
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 8
Council to further reduce and/or waive the parking requirement
established pursuant to the proposed amendment to the text of
Section 5-214.E. (see item #4 below). The Council's ability
to further reduce and/or waive the applicable off-street
parking requirement would be expressly limited to change in
use applications in which an existing building was to be
retained. This amendment would further the Council's goal of
preserving the Community's character by encouraging the
retention and adaptive reuse of existing structures. While
various incentives are presently available for the preserva-
tion of historically designated structures, no consideration
is given to the retention of non -historic buildings.
To address this issue, the Applicant proposes that the
following language also be added to Section 8-104.B.1.b. of
the Regulations. If acceptable, the additional language would
be added to the last paragraph of the section.
" use's off-street parking requirement. It
number of additional parking spaces required by',a
change in use may 'be 'reduced and/or waived by the
City Council upon the reaommandation of the Comma -
lionpursuant tf
This language would provide additional flexibility to
address the on -site parking problems of existing structures
for which a change in use is requested. To implement the
provision, the Applicant proposes to add additional review
criteria to Section 7-404.B. of the Regulations.
4. Section 5-214.E.
This section of the Regulations establishes the off-
street parking requirements for permitted and conditional uses
within the O, Office, zone district. At present, this section
requires that all uses other than residential provide three
(3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of net
leasable area. While fewer spaces may be provided via a
payment in lieu, a minimum of one and one-half (1-1/2) spaces
per one thousand (1,000) square feet must be provided on -site.
Based on the above provision, and the requirements of
Section 8-104.B.1.b., the amount of off-street parking
required to use the existing library building for office
purposes would be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000)
square feet of net leasable office space less the theoretical
parking requirement of the building's previous library use.
The existing Regulations, however, permit a maximum of one and
one-half (1-1/2) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 9
of the resulting parking requirement to be met via a payment
in lieu, subject to special review by the P&Z.
A similar reduction in the off-street parking requirement
for non-residential uses in the O, Office, zone district was
also in effect immediately prior to the adoption of the 1988
Land Use Regulations (see Exhibit 4, Section 24-4.5.(c)). The
pre 1988 zoning regulations permitted a reduction from three
(3) spaces to one and one-half (1-1/2) spaces per one thousand
(1,000) square feet by special review. No payment in lieu,
however, was required for the first one and one-half (1-1/2)
spaces. As Section 24-4.6 indicates, the special review
criteria to be considered by the P&Z included the projected
traffic generation of the proposed development, site charac-
teristics, pedestrian accessibility, walking distances to the
downtown area, and the availability of public transportation.
The pre 1988 parking requirements for the O, Office, zone
district clearly anticipated that certain areas of the Office
zone could provide less than the maximum off-street parking
required. The 1988 rewrite of this section, however, preclud-
ed this flexibility, as the Regulations now require a payment
in lieu as a quid pro quo for a reduction in the district's
parking requirement. As a result, the parking requirement is
effectively three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square
feet for all non-residential development, the availability of
the payment in lieu provision notwithstanding.
Whether the removal of this flexibility was intentional,
or merely the results of somewhat unartful drafting, is
C unclear. The Applicant, however, proposes to restore the
flexibility of the original zoning regulations by amending the
existing language of Section 5-214.E.3. as follows.
c ']C
J'
of
• � n
N �The above language will permit `
requirement for non-residential uses
district to be reduced from three (3)
half (1-1/5) spaces per one thousand
net leasable area by special review.
parking requirement can be provided
'All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net
leasable area; fewer spaces may be provided i
Tlu
the off-street parking
in the O, Office, zone
spaces to one and one-
(1,000) square feet of
In addition, the entire
via a payment in lieu.
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 10
Please note that the ability to fully cash out of the parking
requirement is presently provided in both the CC, Commercial
Core, and C-1, Commercial, zone districts.
S. Section 7-404.B.
This section of the Regulations provides special review
criteria for the establishment or reduction of off-street
parking requirements in the various zone districts. In order
to implement the Applicant's requested changes to Section 5-
214.E.3. and 8-104.B.1.b. of the Regulations, the following
revisions to the language of Section 7-404.B are proposed.
2-,rVIn 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, ttt
guests and employees of the project nave been
met, taking into account potential uses of the
.....:...:.:.;.:.: .
parcel, the pro aft.e tra p q
the project, its proximity to mass transit
routes and the downtown area, and any special
services, such as vans, provided for resi-
dents, guests and employees.
lrv2'. In
zone
districtsT
zuu« tine applicant snail mare a one-time only
payment -in -lieu of parki-fig paj to the
City, in the amount of $15,000 per space
requiredg basted o, the report entitled IlPhysi7
cal and Financial Conceptual Design for Two
Parking Facil�ies for the City of Aspen'l
prepared by L Facilities Corporation.
,0
Note: No changes are proposed for the remain-
der of former Section 7-404.B.1.
J
P_j
•
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 11
3.!
In addition to the above, Section 7-405, which establish-
es the procedure for special review approval, must also be
Iamended to provide for City Council review of requests to
reduce and/or waive the off-street parking requirement
associated with a GMQS change in use exemption. The proposed
language is as follows.
F 1 A�: a com sss on as A� pprogedn.X
groved with c d3.tion9 or disapproved:by the Ci't
council >at ai;;�u A Development Application
...
for Special 94 i'i may be consolidated with any
other Development Application pursuant to the
requirements of Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2.11
Please note that I have not provided for a public hearing
the City Council stage of review. Since approval must be
granted by ordinance, a public hearing is automatically
required at second reading. As the P&Z may also reduce, or
effectively eliminate via a payment in lieu, the provision of
on -site parking at a hearing, a more formal public hearing at
City Council would not appear to be required.
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
February 27, 1992
Page 12
It is my understanding that the Applicant's proposed text
amendments have been scheduled for review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on March 17, 1992. Given the extent and
complexity of the amendments, I would be pleased to meet with
you to discuss the Applicant's proposal in more detail prior
to the preparation of your memorandum to the P&Z.
Should you have any questions, or require additional informa-
tion, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
VANN ASSOCIATES
SV:cwv
Attachments
0
CITY OF ASPEN 0
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT: 1 i t,( �- a C- Ll
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME�^
SUMMARY --nn
1. Type of Application: � = a 1M kM
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
� A) irk
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) __(P&Z then to CC)
Public Hearing: C::(YES (NO)
Number of copies of the application to be submitted:
What fee was applicant requested to submit h ,
Anticipated date of submission: 9 c
COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
L L lit. PL C_QYN
•
•
EXHIBIT 2
February 25, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of
Vann Associates, Planning Consultants, to represent the
Pitkin County Library in the processing of our application to
amend the text of the Aspen Land use Regulations with regard
to the provision of off-street parking. Mr. Vann is hereby
authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters
reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Charles Vidal
Chairman
Pitkin County Library Board
117 South Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-4530
SV:cwv
•
•
EXHIBIT 3
§ 24-13.1 ZONING § 24-13.2
ARTICLE XIII. NONCONFORMING USES
AND STRUCTURES
Sec. 24-13.1. Intent.
Within the districts established by this zoning code, or amend-
ments thereto that may be adopted, there exist lots, structures,
and uses of land and structures, which were lawfully established
before this code was passed or amended, but which would be
prohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this code or
future amendment. It is the intent of this article to permit these
nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to
encourage their survival. It is the further intent of this article
that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or
extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or
uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. (Ord. No. 11-1975,
§ 1; Ord. No. 16-1980, § 3)
Sec. 24-13.2. Nonconforming uses of land (or land with minor
structures only).
Where at the time of the passage of this zoning code, or amend-
ment thereof, lawful use of land exists which would not be per-
mitted by the regulations imposed by this code, the use may be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided:
(a) No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased,
nor extended to occupy greater area of land than was occu-
pied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this
code;
(b) No such nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in
part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that
occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this code;
(c) If any such nonconforming use of land ceases for any rea-
son for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use
of such land shall conform to the regulations specified by
this code for the district in which such land is located;
Supp. No. 32 1515
•
E
1 24-13.2 ASPEN CODE § 24-13.3
(d) No additional structure not conforming to the requirements
of this chapter shall be erected in connection with such
nonconforming use of land.
A nonconforming use shall not be changed to a use of a lower or
less restrictive classification, but such nonconforming use may be
changed to another use of the same or higher classification. (Ord.
No. 11-1975, § 1; Ord. No. 16-1980, § 3)
Sec. 24-13.3. Nonconforming structures.
Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adop-
tion or amendment of this zoning code that could not be built
under the terms of this code by reason of restri 'ons on area, lot
cove e, height, yards, its location on the lotLaLotbpr reagire-
isyoncerning the structure, such structure may be continued
so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following
provisions:
(a) No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or al-
tered in a way which increases its nonconformity, but any
structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its
nonconformity. The above notwithstanding, single-family
and duplex structures which have been individually his-
torically designated pursuant to sections 24-9.4, 24-9.5,
24-9.6 and 24-9.7 of the Municipal Code and which are
nonconforming with respect to allowable floor area, may
be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does
not exceed the floor area of the existing structure as of the
effective date of this ordinance by more than five hundred
(500) square feet and also complies with all other area and
bulk requirements of the Code.
(b) Should such nonconforming structures or nonconforming
portion of a structure be destroyed by any means and shall
not have been repaired or replaced within two (2) years
from the date of loss, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of this code; provided, fur-
ther, that any nonconforming structure located within a
flood hazard area as defined in section 24-6.3 which is
substantially destroyed may only be repaired, replaced or
reconstructed within its original footprint and only in strict
Supp. No. 32 1516
I (.- ,` --e-,r-_,.
•
•
§ 24.13.3 ZONING § 24-13.4
accordance with all current flood hazard standards and
requirements of this code (see e.g., section 7-141(c); section
24-6.3).
(c) Should such structure be moved for any reason for any
distance whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regu-
lations for the district in which it is located after moved.
(Ord. No. 11-1975, § 1; Ord. No. 16-1980, § 4; Ord. No.
11-1982, § 9; Ord. No. 62-1985, § 5)
Sec. 24-13.4. Nonconforming uses of structure or of struc-
tures and premises in combination.
If lawful use involving individual structures, or of structure
and premises in combination, exists at the effective date of adop-
tion or amendment of this zoning code that would not be allowed
in the district under the terms of this code, the lawful use may be
continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the
following provisions:
(a) No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by
this code in the district in which it is located shall be
enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstrdc1ed-, or
structurally altered except in changing the use of -thy str
ture to a use permitted in the district in which it is loca
nonco ormffig use
parts of a building which were manifestly arranged or
designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment
of this code, but no such use shall be extended to occupy
any land outside such building;
(c) If no structural alterations are made, any nonconforming
use of a structure, or structure and premises, may be changed
to another use of the same or higher classification, but
such use shall not be changed to a use of a lower or less
restrictive classification;
\d) Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or
on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permit-
ted use, shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the
district, and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be
resumed;
Supp. No. 32 1517
�1 -0-0 .3Aca�im�' 0 9 EXHIBIT4
a� +� , o d w v :.u
.� o � . � .� •O''
m aw0 a�i as i �° a . � u a v 42 ,n
0
a c> G aX�
i � a � � e
0
O V� O a ..X d p � y O y E�
° a) w 'oal d 7 w >> " O
U O
iI...i. a F, s.
ol s. Z
cd
C a. m m m
cd -to
3 ° co c VaJ ^ Go X ca r b a n� p >, ai
x o b a�Cd
a a o b x to ,. C u Z
O ca Cd
b 00 a) w; �; C ca ObQ
C
w d w s. w ai co u c a. ci C 0
+' O a ca y '� C r m w 'fl '00a d 3 A c°i d
w. w
4) a " a) ,.. O to
0.
U
"O cd
'a Oo � fir" O 'b y R O y v 0 y a) p O
y yV .0 4�i a L' FOr >
p, v 0. k .OG C w in w a C >, ~ a>i o o wa
N v� o m++� a o• a� o co 0r. wO
I`
.• CO A •0 co 0 y c w
Y w y c° c co o �i y m z 'd
3� co m ° o b b
m ,�cp c a'. o m o c° b yR p p cpt
v > e0 " d �' C c0 C C � . � 3 Occ$ - co � M s. p
w.a°d ti y c c u. U.ay K zM� oC,CO 00
x as
. � a a°i � O � 60 �
.ti O c � as c 'ti m x s. c o w w s0. y� E o r, z -� aCd
d m x d vS co w b w c '° c a u as �' �cn 00 -' ti y m
c' 'ci G z O z Gc7 a
M y ^0co
�oCw co co co 0 C > ww 0
F aC N
pi o NR. `m A
o aCD `°' .oca O to CD cn
02 o `~o w N A 03 o o aci CO rn CO aci g° m Z c cn 00
tA
m C C co_ �«. >> O w, '� z �. c0
c s O O O �• y C3 .� c�
m i >, O, a�
w ca Ca z o,, ca C +� C 'O CD N 0 00 N y
oN . F. C rn +�' .O C* • ° .a co �, y c0 >> +' a) +' a) " ca .r (z � ° W w O O V' p .:3 a i. .� > y c.. C C C s. C oa � z �.. m
w > � cu
r via aci c ca c E y a>i > °�' ' b b m .ti ,aV., ' 7
�.cc
aai co � as.' c � � ro� c � a z°.� caO.C.��� � o � c�a� �'�?Z�`°'ZoO E O co d
w m E-� ci m E- 6 c ^O GL . , in , , "� ai ch Q � ; >
.�i •� ^y t0� N ~ -Z N
CO
�00 N ,mow Z
N M as 0
O O y
0zAN Ui 44 �.
0
§ 24-4.2 ZONING § 24-4.3
Sec. 24-4.2. Characteristics of off-street parking spaces.
(a) Each off-street parking space in all zone districts within the
City of Aspen shall consist of an open area measuring eight and
one-half (8V2) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7)
feet high. Each parking space shall have a public unobstructed
area for access to a street or alley. Off-street parking must be
paved with all-weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and
be maintained in a useable condition at all times.
(b) Parking areas provided for single-family and duplex
residences need not have unobstructed access to a street or
alley, but may consist of garage area, or parking strip or
apron.
(c) No off-street parking area shall be used for the sale,
repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment,
materials or supplies, nor shall any such activity adjacent to
off-street parking spaces obstruct required access to off-
street parking areas.
(d) Off-street parking spaces shall be graded for proper
drainage and shall be provided with entrances and exits so
located as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards.
(e) Lighting facilities, if provided, shall be arranged so
that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent
residential properties nor interfere with driver vision.
(f) Responsibility for complying with these requirements
rests with the owner of the property. (Ord. No. 11-1975, § 1;
Ord. No. 45-1980, § 1; Ord. No. 38-1982, § 6)
Sec. 24-4.3. Location of off-street parking.
Parking required in any commercial, industrial or office
zones shall in no case be located in any adjacent residential
district. Parking for any dwelling, hospital, school or other
use located in a residential district must be located on the
same building site as the principal use. Parking for a boarding
or rooming house, lodge, hotel or dormitory must be located
on the same or adjacent lot under the same ownership as the
lot occupied by the principal use. (Ord. No. 11-1975, § 1)
Supp. No, 26 1470.1
§ 24.4.4 ASPEN CODE 1 24-"
Sec. 244.4. Main Street off-street parking.
All parking required for uses fronting Highway 82 shall, if
an alley exists, be provided off the alley access and shall
not enter or exit from or onto said Highway 82. (Ord. No.
11-1975, § 1)
Sec. 24-4.5. Numbered spaces required.
(a) Required off-street parking shall be provided for each
use as described below in all zone districts. All requirements
for parking calculated on square feet of floor area shall be
calculated on gross floor area of the structure or use.
(b) When any calculation results in a required fractional
space, such fraction shall be rounded off to the next higher
number of spaces of one-half or greater, but shall be ignored
if less than one-half space.
(c) Off-street parking spaces shall be provided as follows:
PARKING REQUIRED
Zone Lodge Uses Residential Uses All other Uses
CC
N/A
Review
N/A
C-1
N/A
1/Bedroom
N/A
C-L
None
N / A
None
S/C/I
N/A
1/Bedroom
3/1,000 square feet
C
N/A
1/Bedroom
4/1000 square feet
mmercial uses
0
N/A
1/Bedroom
3/1,000 square feet
for all other uses;
fewer spaces may
be permitted by
special review of
the planning commis-
sion but no fewer than
1.5 spaces per 1,000
square feet shall be
authorized by the
commission
L-1
1/bedroom
N/A
4/1000 square feet
T,-2
1/bedroom
1/bedroom
4/1000 square feet
Supp. No. 26 1470.2
•
•
o 10 c
o cc v °
;, m m
O
z C'
ai
F°..00
cva
a
a
a
a
a o
06m
m
a
d,
`Y'
o
'C
'� •�..•• o 41
�z
a. N
w O g C.8
-o
rn s,
G
O
.
oO
a) +�
'Ad qqq �°
e p
a„
„moo ow
o� 9
a
;
a
;
<
a
Q
6
5o
z$
a e$aq
z
z a
o �
z,;
u°
,�
co
o
c
c
m
N
c,co
G
o �w C
S
.� 00
4
N
J
� •b
>.
ice.
.� .O
z
zzzz
�O
a�
o
x
°
> � Ld••
N
Cl!0) 0o -C O w -o , ri ° s. 'tl cC Oo s. `'"' r-. ^: be
cm 0 be
3 4,0. ) 4 S x
Q) U° A 4.i .� ... CL m co a �^ m O
U .r Q r.a $4 er O �bo 0 04 � cC � � ►. � � . w � m 4-4
O
CbO
w `'' C C7 C. w 00
° o ►.
Im. cm
3 p, a 0, od° mo a O� o c,,�� oto ...°°
o 0
abO as m ai o a�w ¢� �x ❑5o
� o° 4, o °6O
o o o $ 0 m ' a~0 > ' ~ o AC A 00 �" 10. °
m 00 •5 po 5 o y a. w "' °° >' -O O oo �.. a3 m CL
m LL G oo %� a�i a0 d y m o ~ w cm
ca `" A a� �'oo�«�r.o �° °p° oc� v�omw�> aa�, C7 °0m
E'' a -o CL)m b �b °a —o , 'Coo>
c q m O p Q co
a
�.�qc�-vaiUa om ,3 r. c m o 33 C�ao3ac�oc�z cio
coa�o C3UzUo
�-2 cz z
o .,
a
N 3 W cn -d N�
p�.� �add�a.ssed
�°Nt
P
lS ffOA/
*-� N4r\-CO^F,�L
PLANNING AND ZONING OFFICE 6�ot
cAi
CODE INTERPRETATION-�QLE►^ GJ
d�54i
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
JURISDICTION: City of Aspen
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION(S): Chapter 24, Article 9 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, which refers to purpose of Nonconformities within
the Code. Additionally, the applicant also requests an
interpretation of Section 5-213 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which
refers to the Office zone district.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 1991
WRITTEN BY: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
BACKGROUND: The old Pitkin County Library Building is presently
under contract to Charles Moss and the OM Limited Liability
Company. The existing building contains approximately seven
thousand five hundred and ninety (7,590) square feet of net
leasable area, including the basement.
The old library building is located at 120 East Main Street. The
property is bounded on the north by the vacated alley and the
Mountain Bell building's parking lot. The Sardy House lodge and
the Aspen Clinic building are located to the east and west of the
property, respectively. Paepcke Park is located across from the
library south of Main Street.
Although there are numerous policy implications that relate to the
parking requirements of the zone districts and the location of
those spaces, staff had to focus specifically on the application
of the Code to those issues presented.
The issues outlined in this interpretation are two fold:
1) Whether parking mitigation is required for the existing
building?
2) If parking mitigation is required, what is the acceptable
number and location of the parking spaces.
1
• i.
G
130
As
DATE: December 11, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney
RE: Land Use Code Interpretation Appeal
rW
:reet
611
allI P.
WP
This matter is on your agenda at the request of Vann Associates,
Inc., acting on behalf of Mr. Charles Moss and the Pitkin County
Library Board, pursuant to Section 24-11-101F of the Municipal
Code, which allows a person to pursue an appeal to City Council
of a land use code interpretation as entered by the Planning
Director.
PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK
Section 24-11-101A of the Municipal Code vests the Planning
Director with authority to make all interpretations of the land
use code. A code interpretation may be sought by any interested
person. Upon receipt of a proper request for an interpretation,
the Planning Director shall have fifteen days to render a written
opinion. Section 24-11-101F provides that any person who has
made a request for an interpretation may appeal the interpreta-
tion as made by the Planning Director to the City Council by
filing a petition within thirty days of the Planning Director's
decision. The appeal shall be considered by City Council within
thirty days of its filing. No standard for review is set forth
in the Code, hence, I would advise that you apply an "arbitrary
and/or capricious" standard, i.e., the Planning Director's
interpretation shall be affirmed unless there is no competent
evidence supporting the interpretation and the interpretation is
unjust and not in accordance with the Code. This is the standard
Council has utilized in the past.
THE VANN APPEAL
On December 6, 1991, Vann Associates,
request to the Planning Director for a
Land Use Code as the same relates to t
tion for the old Pitkin County Library
1.) The Planning Director rendered a
Inc. submitted a written
n interpretation of the
he issue of parking mitiga-
Building. (See Exhibit
written interpretation
rec ycled Pape,
U
•
addressing the Vann request on December 11, 1991. (See Exhibit
2.) The Planning Director's interpretation is before you now on
appeal on an expedited basis due to Vann's request, as set forth
in its December 6th letter, to immediately schedule an appeal in
the event the Planning Director did not concur with the appel-
lant's own interpretation of the Code.
REQUESTED ACTION
Council is to determine whether the Planning Director's code
interpretations as set forth in her December lath memorandum are
to be affirmed or modified. While the Code provisions delineat-
ing the appeal process do not call for a hearing, it is my advice
and recommendation that the appellant be afforded the opportunity
to offer oral argument in support of its case if it so desires,
affording the Planning Director a corresponding opportunity to
respond as she deems appropriate. Vann Associates would then be
allowed a final closing statement or argument.
You may render your decision at the conclusion of the parties'
presentation or take the matter under advisement for further
deliberation and a decision at a later date. While no time
period is set forth in the Code in which you must render your
final determination, I would suggest that Council enter a ruling
no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing. I
will be happy to prepare a written document thereafter reflecting
your decision should you so desire.
EMC/mc
Attachments
jc1211.4
cc: Vann Associates, Inc.
Planning Director
Exhibits attached:
Exhibit 1 - Planning Director's interpretation.
Exhibit 2 - Request for Code Interpretation and Appeal submit-
ted by Vann Associates, Inc. (3 exhibits
attached).
Exhibit 3 - Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 1990) rezoning the
library parcel.
In regards to the first issue, whether parking mitigation is
required for the existing building, the applicant proposes that
the building is non -conforming with respect to the parking
requirement of the Office zone district. It is their belief that
no mitigation is required at this time as no expansion of the
building's net leasable area is proposed. Approximately twenty-
three (23) spaces are required on -site and one (1) space is
provided. As no increase in the building's existing net leasable
is proposed, no additional parking would appear to be required.
Staff responds that the rezoning from Public zone district to
Ohanged the making_ reoll.ix� his
parcel in what each zone district "h�G �_s o ur ose and
r9QR
establishes use regu-iatdons, density regulations, dimensiona5�� gulations.... off=stree-f-parking regulations .... that control the
use of land in each zone district" (as stated in Section 5-101).
Previously, the a1d fib ary (Public zone district) did�ot_provide
t ff-street parking for that particular use. The rezoning changed 80 ?`b
the par ing requirements for this parcel. The non -conforming Ain -
�1 ��vl section of the code does not apply to parking in that the rezoning
of the property from Public to Office requir���a King
•� requirements for a particular use i.e. office.
f
In November of 1989, the Pitkin County Library Board, on behalf of
Q.0 the Board of Count Commissioners submitted an application to
U5L Y � PP
rezone the old library building from the Public (PUB) zone district
to the Office (0) zone district. At the City Council meeting of
April 23, 1990, Council approved the map amendment to rezone the
(Y" " parcel from public to office zone district In addition to the
rezoning, the applicant requested a GMQS Exemption for a change in
use for the building to convert from a public use to an office use.
The change in use was approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
City Council Ordinance No.15-90 granted the map amendment with the
following condition:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or a Certificate
of Occupancy (whichever is required) the purchaser shall
ultimately be required to provide parking in accordance with
the Code provision or may be provided through cash -in -lieu and
employee housing acceptable to the Housing Authority using the
formula indexed to the current Housing guidelines and the
change in use provision in the Aspen Land Use Code. It should
e noted that the Library has received credit for their
r��� existing employees as part of the Rio Grande SPA approval.
This means that the user of the Library building must mitigate
all of the employees associated with the new use. The Housing
Authority Guidelines establish a generation rate of 3
`-�` employees/1000 square feet in the Office Zone.
Typically, the applicant addresses the nub of additional
employees/housing that will be generated and the amount o
additional parkincl snares that wil3, be remanded by the chanae in
use at the time of approval of the change in use. However,
the app scan , in their letter of application, _requested that the
employee mitigation and off-street parking requirements be
addressed at such time as the the actual use
s acer an is request was accomodated by the Planning
Commission and Council.
The second issue outlined in this interpretation focuses on what
is the acceptable number and location of parking spaces for the
office use.
�► cA As stated previously, Ordinance A1o_ i5-90 requires the purchaser
to provide parking in accordance with the Code provision and the
existing library building contains a total of seven thousand five
�GrkiN� hundred and ninety (7,590) square feet of net leasable area.
00 c0. golf The Office zone district parking requirements for office use are
three (3) spaces per one thousand feet of net leasable; fewer
100 spaces may be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Article
7, Division 4, but no fewer than 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of net leasable area shall be provided on -site. Twenty-three (23)
parking spaces would be required to meet the office needs of the
building. One (1) parking space is provided on the library
property. Thus, the applicant would be required to provide twenty
two (22) park ng spaces. y 5fACP_ Or(�SI
Article 7, Division 4 refers to Gppcial review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Within the Office zone district, the Commission
determines whether to accept the payment -in -lieu fee or whether to
�t 6ASI �l,require that the parking be provided on -site. The code permits the
�iO� Commission to accept up to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. (or 11
(' spaces) as cash -in -lieu; the other 11 spaces would have to be
provided on -site. The payment -in -lieu fee is $15,000 per parking
space. Thus, the payment -in -lieu fee for 11 spaces would total
$165,000. However, it is important to note that with the existing
building and lot size, there is not enough lnt area to construct
eleven (11) parking spaces on -site.
Only one (1) parking space is presently provided on the library
property. The applicant believes that this is most likely due to
the absence of an on -site parking requirement when the building was
constructed. The applicant has also stated that the parking area
located adjacent to the west side of Paepcke Park was originally
intended to serve the library. The area in question contains
approximately nineteen (19) spaces, and it appears that it is
located outside the Garmisch Street right-of-way.
The applicant has proposed that these parking spaces, along with
3
on -street parking in the immediate site area, are believed to have
served the library since its construction.
The information presented by the applicant in support of this
proposal is an improvement map of Paepcke Park dated May 26, 1970,
which depicts the parking area and the map appears to have been
prepared after the library was constructed in the late 1960's.
The applicant requests that the existing parking spaces
located t to the west side of Paepcke Park be stunted as
GS '_Parking. They propose
that the amount of mitigation that would be required would be the
difference between the library's existing parking (i.e., on -site
spaces plus Paepcke spaces) and the twenty-three (23) spaces
required pursuant to the Code. Approximately nineteen (19) spaces
(` are believed to be available at Paepcke Park and the mitigation
requirement would be approximately two (2) to three (3) spaces, or
the cash equivalent thereof.
Q� ! INTERPRETATION: The Planning Director's interpretation and
application of Article 9 and Section 5-213 of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code to the case at hand is that parking mitigation
is rPc�itiir�� for the existing building The rezoning from the
Public zone district to Office zone district changed the parking
requirements for this parcel. Section 5-101 of the Code states that
each zone district has its own purpose and establishes use
regulations, density regulations, dimensional regulations... off-
street regulations... that control the use of land in each zone
district. The non -conforming section of the Code does not apply
to parking in that the rezoning from Public to Office requires
specific parking requirements for that use.
olh
su���ast
I J6
Additionally, Ordinance No.15-90 (which granted the rezoning)
required the applicant to provide parking in accordance with the
Code provision. The underlying zone district parking requirements
would apply which is the Office zone district.
In regards to the acceptable number and location of the parking
spaces, the Code requires that the parking spaces be provided off-
street and that off-street parking not be located in any
residential zone district.
In reviewing the information resented by the applicant regarding
the designat i nn-parkinq_at Paepcke _Park, it does not appear that
sufficient evidence has been presented for staff to determine that
it sates ies—tNE— 6ff=street parking requirements. Staff has not
received information that indicates that this area was designated
as parking for the old library building.
Based on a strict interpretation of the Code, the applicant is
required to provide twenty-three (23) off-street parking spaces for
the proposed use. One (1) parking space is currently provided on-
4
•
•
site. The applicant could apply for special review by the Planning
Commission and the parking requirement could potentially be reduced
to eleven (11) spaces onsite and payment of parking -in -lieu for the
remaining eleven (11) spaces. However, it should be noted that the
existing lot size would not support the construction of eleven (11)
parking spaces.
The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable
sections in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates
to this request.
5
•
Ll
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
December 6, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Diane Moore
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Library Building Affordable Housing and
Parking Mitigation
Dear Diane:
In his March 8, 1991, letter to the County Attorney regarding
the Pitkin County library's affordable housing mitigation
requirements, Jed Caswall takes the position that the City
Council must review and approve a specific mitigation
proposal at such time as redevelopment of the property is
proposed (see Exhibit 1, Letter to Tim Whitsitt). As the
property is presently under contract to Charles Moss, the
Council's approval of an affordable housing mitigation plan
is apparently required to permit Mr. Moss to convert the
building to office use. No expansion of the building's
existing net leasable area is proposed at this time.
As I discussed in my letter to Leslie Lamont dated November
21, 1991, the existing building contains approximately seven
thousand five hundred and ninety (7,590) square feet of net
leasable area, including the basement. Based on the O, Offi-
ce, zone district's employee generation factor of three (3)
employees per one thousand (1,000) square feet of net
leasable area, approximately twenty-three (23) employees
would theoretically be generated by the conversion of the
library building to commercial use.
To mitigate the proposed conversion's affordable housing
impact, the Board of County Commissioners will dedicate a
sufficient number of units in the County's Williams Woods
condominium project to meet the affordable housing require-
ments of the Land Use Regulations (see Exhibit 2, Letter from
Wayne Ethridge). Upon conveyance of the property to Mr.
Moss, the Board will adopt a resolution identifying the
specific units to be dedicated, and the number of employees
to be housed.
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303/925-6958
Exhibit 2
on -street parking in the immediate site area, are believed to have
served the 1'Z
ary since its construction.
The informat presented by the applicant in support of this
proposal is an improvement map of Paepcke Park dated May 26, 1970,
which depicts' the parking area and the map appears to have ,been
prepared after the library was constructed in the late 1960 s.
The applicant requests that the existing off-street parki g spaces
located adjacent to the west side of Paepcke Park be counted as
part of the library's existing available parking. T ey propose
that the amount of mitigation that would be requiredould be the
difference between the library's existing parking (i.e., on -site
spaces plus Paepcke spaces) and the twenty-three (23) spaces
required pursuant to the Code. Approximately nineteen (19) spaces
are believed to be available at Paepcke Park and the mitigation
requirement would be approximately two (2) to ee (3) spaces, or
the cash equivalent thereof.
INTERPRETATION: The Planning Director's interpretation and
application of Article 9 and Section 5- 13 of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code to the case at hand is that parking mitigation
is required for the existing building. The rezoning from the
Public zone district to Office zone district changed the parking
requirements for this par qel. Section 5-101 of the Code states that
each zone district has \its own purpose and establishes use
regulations, density regulation , dimensional regulations... off-
street regulations... that pont;ol the use of land in each zone
district. The non -conforming ection of the Code does not apply
to parking in that the rezo Ong from Public to Office requires
specific parking requiremen s for that use.
Additionally, Ordinance No.15-9'0 (which granted the rezoning)
required the applicant to provide parking in accordance with the
Code provision. The underlying zone district parking requirements
would apply which is the Office zone district.
i
In regards to the acceptable number and location of the parking
spaces, the Code requires that the parking spaces be provided off-
street and that off-street parking n7tt be located in any
residential zone district.
In reviewing the information presented by the applicant regarding
the designation of parking at Paepcke Park, it does not appear that
sufficient evidence has been presented for staff to determine that
it satisfies the off-street parking requirements. Staff has not
received information that indicates that this area was designated
as parking for the old library building.
Based on a strict interpretation of the Code, the applicant is
required to provide twenty-three (23) off-street parking spaces for
the proposed use. One (1) parking space is currently provided on-
4
Ms. Diane Moore
December 6, 1991
Page 2
As a lottery for the project has already been held, the
County will continue to control the sale and occupancy of the
dedicated units. All occupants, however, will meet the
applicable requirements of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority's affordable housing guidelines. To ensure that
the units are properly dedicated, Mr. Moss will provide the
City with a copy of the Board's adopted resolution prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the remodeled
library building.
With respect to parking, Mr. Moss has previously requested a
clarification as to whether parking mitigation is required
for the existing building (see Exhibit 3, November 20, 1991,
Letter to Leslie Lamont). It is our belief that no mitiga-
tion is required at this time as no expansion of the build-
ing's net leasable area is proposed. The building is non-
conforming with respect to the parking requirement of the O,
Office, zone district. Approximately twenty-three (23)
spaces are required on -site, and one (1) space is provided.
It is my understanding, however, that such non -conformities
may continue to exist, provided that the extent of the non-
conformity is not increased. As no increase in the build-
ing's existing net leasable area is proposed, no additional
parking would appear to be required.
As the City Attorney has taken the position that the non-
conforming structure provisions of the Regulations do not
apply to parking, and that the rezoning of the property from
Public to Office requires that the existing parking non-
conformity be mitigated, I respectfully request a formal
interpretation pursuant to Section 11-101.C. of the Regula-
tions of the applicable parking requirements. In the event
that you concur with the City Attorney's position, I would
like to appeal your decision to the City Council as provided
for in Subsection F. I believe that this matter has been
scheduled for the Council's December 16th meeting in antici-
pation of the Planning office's position.
Should the Council concur that mitigation is required, it is
our intention to request that the existing off-street parking
spaces located adjacent to the west side of Paepcke Park be
counted as part of the library's existing available parking.
As a result, the amount of mitigation that would be required
would be the difference between the library's existing
parking (i.e., on -site spaces plus Paepcke spaces) and the
twenty-three (23) spaces required pursuant to the Land Use
Regulations. As approximately nineteen (19) to twenty (20)
spaces are believed to be available at Paepcke Park, the
•
•
site. The applicant could apply for special review by the Planning
Commission and the parking requirement could potentially be reduced
to eleven (11) spaces onsite and payment of parking -in -lieu for the
remaining eleven (11) spaces. However, it should be noted that the
existing lot size would not support the construction of eleven (11)
parking spaces.
The code interpretation is based on the review of the applicable
sections in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code as it relates
to this request.
5
LJ
December 6, 1991
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
EXHIBIT 2
Pitkin County
Re: Pitkin County Library Affordable Housing Requirement
Dear Leslie:
Earlier this year, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to
dedicate units in its next affordable housing project to meet the
housing mitigation requirements arising from the conversion of the
old library building to commercial office use. The purpose of this
letter is to reconfirm and elaborate on the Board's prior commit-
ment.
Upon conveyance of the library to Charles B. Moss, the prospective
purchaser of the property, the Board will dedicate a sufficient
number of units in the County's Williams Woods condominium project
to meet the affordable housing requirements of the existing library
building. It is understood by the Board that approximately twenty-
three (23) employees will be generated by the change -in -use. To
memorialize the dedication, the Board will adopt an appropriate
resolution at its first regular meeting following the sale of the
property to Mr. Moss. The resolution will specify the specific
units to be dedicated, and the number of employees to be housed.
The County, however, will continue to control the sale and
occupancy of the units.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
reEthriodge',
Way Ch irman
WE:cwv
Administration County Commissioners County Attorney
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Suite B Suite I
Aspen, CO 81611 506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street
(303) 920-52W Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
FAX 920-5198 (303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5390
EXHIBIT 3
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
November 20, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Library Building Parking Requirement
Dear Leslie:
The old Pitkin County Library Building is presently under
contract to Charles Moss and the OM Limited Liability
i
Company. A satisfactory resolution of the building's Parking
requirement, and the approval of a code amendment to permit
the building's use as a radio broadcast station, are condi-
tions of the sale. An application to amend the conditional
use provisions of the 0, Office, zone district will be
submitted later this week. The purpose of this letter is to
address the building's parking requirement.
As you know, City Council Ordinance No. 15-90 requires the
purchaser of the library to mitigate any increase in the
building's parking requirement resulting from its conversion
to office use. The ordinance stipulates that
the
epamountoof
parking required is to be based on the applicable
ns
of the Land Use Regulations, and that mitigation may be
accomplished via a cash -in -lieu payment.
As Table 1 below indicates, the existing library building
contains a total of seven thousand five hundred and ninety
(7,590) square feet of net leasable area. Based on the 0,
Office, zone district's parking requirement of three (3)
spaces per one thousand (1,000 square feet of net leasable
area, twenty-three (23) parking spaces would theoretically be
required to meet the office needs of the building.
Table 1
Net Leasable Floor Calculations
1. Gross Building Area (Sq. Ft.)' 8,120
4,150
Basement 3,970
Ground Floor
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Ascen. Coicraco 8'.61' • 301925-6958
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
November 20, 1991
Page 2
2. Net Leasable Area (Sq. Ft.) 7,590
Basement 3,790
Ground Floor 3,800
I All numbers rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
Only one (1) parking space is presently provided on the
library property, due most likely to the absence of an on -
site parking requirement when the building was constructed.
It is our understanding, however, that the parking area
located adjacent to the west side of Paepcke Park was
originally intended to serve the library. The area in
question contains approximately nineteen (19) spaces, and is
located outside of the Garmish Street right-of-way. These
parking spaces, in conjunction with the significant amount of
on_ street parking available in the immediate site area, are
believed to have adequately served the library since its
construction.
The history of the Garmish Street parking area is presently
being researched by Chuck Vidal, the County's representative
with respect to the sale of the library building. While the
results of this research are incomplete, an improvement map
(file #840-8) of Paepcke Park dated May 26, 1970, has been
located in the City's Engineering Department which depicts
the parking area. The map appears to have been prepared
after the library was constructed in the late 19601s.
While the Land Use Regulations do not provide a parking
generation factor for public land uses (parking for such uses
is established by special review), the parking requirements
of the old library were arguably greater than the theoretical
needs of the proposed office use. .Xs the library's parking
appears to have been adequate, and no expansion of the
existing building is proposed by the purchaser, no additional
parking would appear to be required. As a result, no
mitigation by the purchaser is required at this time.
As we discussed, I would appreciate it if you would schedule
this matter for City Council's December 9, 1991, agenda, as
the sale of the building is scheduled to close on December
18. Permission for the purchaser to request the Council's
clarification of the building's parking requirement is
provided below.
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
November 20, 1991
Page 3
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sunny Va jfi, AICP
SV:cwv
Permission to apply:
( � l
C.A. Vidal, Chairman
Pitkin County Library Board
as agent for Pitkin County
W' EXHIBIT 1
CITY
March 8, 1991
Mr. Tim Whitsitt
Pitkin County Attorney
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PEN
Dear Tim:
In that there may be some confusion concerning City Council's
action taken on Monday, February 25th, in regard to the housing
mitigation requirement for the library, it has been suggested
that I provide you this letter for clarification purposes.
The request put before the Council was whether, at some future
date, City Council would accept as part of a housing mitigation
plan for the library housing units provided by Pitkin County pur-
suant to some type of unspecified cooperative agreement between
the development applicant and the County. Council's response was
that it had no objection conceptually to accepting housing as
made available by Pitkin County in mitigation of the library.
Council did not, however, forgive or waive specific housing
mitigation requirements for the library, nor make a determination
as -to the level of housing that will be needed." When a developer
eventually comes forward for the library, the housing mitigation
requirements will be identified and reviewed under the applicable
municipal code provisions then in effect. Pursuant to Council's
action on Monday night, one of the methods to meet the housing
mitigation requirement can be the provision of specific housing
units by Pitkin County via an agreement with the developer.
I hope this resolves or corrects any
ception as to Council's action Monday
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
misunderstanding or misper-
night.
t
Ms. Diane Moore
December 6, 1991
Page 3
mitigation requirement would be approximately two (2) to
three (3) spaces, or the cash equivalent thereof.
ShouO you have any questions, or require additional informa-
tion, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
7
SV:cwv
Attachments
cc: Chuck Vidal
.JAtA— 1 6-92 THIJ 1 0 = 59
PosHt' tr ina
Fax Transmittal MemO 7672
To
Company
Location
��G�1/iZvY!
Fax # Tel ne #
Comments
FZ _ F= . T . A .
P _ 0 1
No. of Pages 9MDate ' Time
,,
From 171,
Company
Location De t Char
ge
Fax
Telephone�"
onginal
Disposilion: ❑ Destroy � Return � Ca!I for pickip
#333283 06/05/91 15:2'6 Rec $0.n0 BK 647 PG 767
Silvia Davis, FitE in Canty Clerk, Doc $.00
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this llth day of
April, 1991 �xI990� by and between the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN, COLORADO, a Colorado home -rule
county (hereinafter "County") and the ROARING FORK TRANSIT
AGENCY, an independent public entity created by Intergovernmental
Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado (hereinafter
"RFTA").
W I T N E S S E T H•
1. Pitkin County is the owner of that real property
situated in the County of Pitkin, Colorado, located at 120 East
Main Street, Aspen (hereinafter "the Property"), described as
follows:
The Easterly 20 feet of Lot M, all of Lot N
and all of Lot 0, in Block 66, and the
Southerly 10 feet of the vacated alley
through the block adjacent and contiguous to
Lots N, O, and the Easterly 20 feet of Lot M,
Block 66, in the City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado, also, but without warranty, an
easement as described in Book 202 at Page
429, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office for joint use for the purposes of
egress and ingress only to the above -
described property, over and across the
Northerly 15 feet of Lots K and L and the
Westerly 10 feet of Lot M and the Southerly
10 feet of the alley through the block
adjacent and contiguous to said Lots.
A public library currently exists on the Property.
2. County desires to grant to RFTA an easement over
and across the Property, for the use and purpose of a transit
passenger waiting area and facility as defined, delineated and
limited as set forth herein.
i.iuitt-c:u cas 6eL rolLn nerein.
NOW, THERE, in consideration of to mutual benefit
to be derived therefrom, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. County hereby grants, demises and conveys to RFTA
a perpetual easement over and across the Property, for passenger
waiting purposes, including the erection of a passenger waiting
facility and other uses associated therewith, said easement to be
described as follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said
Lot O; thence westerly N 750 09' 11" W, along
1
_JPT- 1 S-92 THU 1 1 00 R_ F_ T_ A_
#333283 46/05/91 i5._6 F.e_ .? r $20.00 W 647 PG 768
Silvia Davis, PitF--:in Cnty Clergy:, Doc $.DU
P _ 0 2
the southerly property and Block boundary of
said Lots 0, N and M, 68.95 feet; thence N
14°50149" E, 13.67 feet to a point of
intersection with a line produced westerly
from and along the front of the Library
building; thence S 75017140" E, (along said
line produced westerly), along the front of
the Library building 35 feet to a point;
thence S 140501 49" W 7 feet 9 inches to a
point; thence South 7509111" E to the point
of intersection with the lot line common to
Lots O and P; thence S 14050149" W along said
common lot line to the point of beginning.
Such easement is shown on the site plan
attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit "A."
The easement shall be used solely for passenger
waiting, passenger seating and associated purposes, including,
without limitation, sidewalk and pedestrian passage relocation,
subject to the following restrictions:
(a) The waiting and seating areas to be constructed
shall not restrict access to and from the public library building
as currently located on the Property.
(b) Any enclosed passenger waiting facility
constructed within the easement shall be subject to review by
appropriate City of Aspen agencies and boards, and County if it
owns the Property at the time of construction. Further, unless
otherwise agreed to by the then owner of the Property, any such
enclosed passenger facility shall conform to the following
limitations:
i. Any such facility shall be not more than 200
square feet in size;
ii. Any such facility shall be positioned not
less than ten (10) feet perpendicular to the front wall
of the public library building as in place on the date
of this Easement Agreement; and
iii. Any such facility shall not be more than 10
feet in height.
(c) In the event that
building located on the Property
parties and their successors and
faith to incorporate the easement
design, provided that the amount
purposes as herein provided shall
consented to by Resolution of the
successors in interest.
2
the current public library
is remodeled or replaced, the
assigns shall cooperate in good
herein granted into the new
of square footage, use and
not be diminished, unless
then Board of RFTA or its
JAU-a- 1 6-92 T HU 1 1 : 0 1 R. F. T. A.
#33328 06/o5/91 15:'2b Rec- $2o.00 647 PG 769
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc *-00
P _ 0
(d) County, its successors and assigns, shall be
solely responsible for payment in full of any and all levies,
special assessments and ad valorem taxes assessed against the
Property, including the easement granted herein, except for any
such levy or assessment based upon the value of the facility
constructed by RFTA, which shall be the responsibility of RFTA.
(e) It shall be the sole responsibility of RFTA to
keep any such facility clean and in good repair.
3. Relocation of Sidewalk. RFTA shall have the right
to relocate the sidewalk existing and in place on the date of
this Easement Agreement, provided that access to the building
shall not be unreasonably restricted by such relocation.
4. Installation of Seats, Benches or Recesse
Seating. Nothing hereinabove shall be construed to preclude RFTA
from installing seats, benches or recessed seating areas within
the easement, provided that any such seats, benches or seating
area shall not exceed in height the windowsill of the front
windows of the public library building as existing on the date of
this Easement Agreement.
5. Restoration of Premises. If requested by the then
owner of the Property upon termination of this easement, RFTA
shall, at its own expense, remove any structure which has been
placed thereon and restore the Property to its original condition
as is reasonably practicable.
6. Indemnification. To the extent allowed by law,
RFTA agrees to indemnify and hold County, its successors and
assigns harmless from and against any and all claims, damages,
demands, actions or losses resulting from or connected with
RFTA's use of the easement, except those claims which result
directly from the actions of County or its agents, employees,
licensees or invitees.
7. Binding Effect. This Easement Agreement shall run
with title to the Property and be binding upon and shall inure to
the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
8. Breach. In any legal proceeding to enforce the
provisions hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover its costs and fees herein, including its reasonable
attorney s fees.
9. Abandonment. This easement shall be deemed
abandoned if no part of the easement is used by RFTA or its
successors in interest for any of the purposes for a period of
ten (10) consecutive years.
3