HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse.code amendment.S/C/I Artists Studios.003-85
t"'"
,-,
I
'~.~~~~ :~~~~~:~~~E: ~~~;~
PRojECT NAME::Y~C-rb--.:RF~ Sc..\ Cbk .~
APPLICANT: lI/z AJ.II1IL/,. CbAJOaMINWIl1 tl5!:fIl.
Applicant Address/Phone:
REPRES EN TAT IV E: ---r&rOt. "'RcSE-.
Representative Addres~Phone:
CASELOAD SUMMARY"'SHEET
. City of Aspen
C:Z, ...0-- co r. () <-
~.., . :;:.:<-1 ~~ ...J
/',;0" II"yJ_
I<. .,.1.. J.J ,r;: ,J . .
Type of Application:
I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission
____ Preliminary Plat
____ Final Plat
____ II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
($2,730.00)
($1,640.00)
($ 820.00)
Concept ual Submi ssion
____ Preliminary Plat
____ Final Plat
1 III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step)
IV. SPECIAL RF.V IEW (I step)
($1,900.00)
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1'490.00)~
($ 680 .00 )
Special Review
Use Determination
Condi ti anal Use
Other:
~~~~~=~~=~=~========~===~~======~===~~=~~==~===~~============~=~=~== \
~ ~ ",A,(<.. ,- ~k'f'L.~~ .
P&Z CC MEETING DATE: '. '"",,- 'd-. PUBLIC HEARING: (llS) NO
DATE REFERRED: '--zJ20JeS INITIALS:)i2.->
==~======~=====~=====~====~==~=~==================f==============~===
REFERRALS:
/ Ci ty Atty
____ City Engineer
____ Housing Dir.
____ Aspen Water
~ City Electric
____ Envir. Hlth.
____ Aspen Consolo S.D.
____ Mtn. Bell
____ Par ks Dept.
____ Holy Cross !tlectric
____ Fire Marshall
____ Fire Chief
____ School District
____ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
~ State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
---+- StateHwyDept (Gr.Jtn)
~ Blag: ~onins!Inspectn \)~~
____ Other:
;;;~::::;~:~""~'~'::::'::::::::;;~7'::~:::~'::~:::::~~~l
-~ tL2J
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
~-pj
,,-,
.-"
MEMORANDUM
V J \ l
RE:
Aspen City Council ~
Hal Schilling, City Manage~
Alan Richman, Planning Office ~
2nd Reading - Orainance Amending SCI Use List - Artists'
Stuaios
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
June 24, 1985
========================================================================
SUMMARY:
attached
awelling
The Planning Office recommends second reading approval of the
ordinance which adds "artists' stuaios with optional accessory
unit" as a permitted use in the SCI zone district.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved this Ordinance on
first reaaing at your meeting on June 3. At that time, there appeared
to be a desire on Council's part to amend the Ordinance to grant the
Code amendment as originally proposed by the applicant and the Planning
Office, not as modified by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND: Section 24-12.5 of the Code provides that privately
initiated amendments to the zoning map and the text of the zoning
regulations may be submitted on February 15 and August 15 of each
year. This past February, the only private applicant to submit such a
request was the 412 North Mill Condominium Association (Andrews-
McFarlin Building).
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The zoning text amendment initially submitted by
the applicant was to make "artists' studios with optional accessory
dwelling unit" a permitted use in the SCI zone district. Presently,
artists' studio is not mentioned in the use list for this zone, while
accessory dwelling units are a conditional use in the zone. The
closest use to artists' studio in the zone is "shop-craft industry".
The intent of the SCI zone district is:
"To allow.for the use of land and the preservation of limited
commercial purposes and limited industrial purposes, with customary
accessory and institutional uses, which do not require or generate
high customer traffic volumes. In addition, residences for those
employed in this district may be included in the service or
commercial buildings or adj acent thereto as conditional uses".
Both the Planning Office and the Planning Commission found that
artists' studios fit the intent of the zone to have limited commercial/
industrial uses which do not require or generate high customer traffic
volumes. The Planning Office also felt that a dwelling unit in
~
~
conj unction with an artist studio is a natural living/working combination
which should be permitted, and which is not likely to be so popular as
to extensively displace other SCI uses. However, the Planning Commission
felt that accessory residences should continue to be evaluated as
conditional uses to insure that the building in which they are to be
located is compatible with the proposed use. Specifically, the issues
raised at the Commissioner's public hearings on this topic were as
follows:
1. If we allow residences accessory to artists' studios as a
permitted use, to be equitable, we might have to change the
intent of the zone and allow accessory residences to all
permitted uses in the zone. Such an extension of the
residential concept for the zone would limit the amount of
space available for true service-commercial uses in the
City. While I doubt that we would have to open this accessory
residential use to all permitted uses in the zone, I think
it is more likely that other uses would have a legitimate
basis to also request that dwelling units be permitted as
accessory to their use, which is not in keeping with our
intent for this zone. Therefore, I suggest that the intent
section be modified to read " . . . In addition, residences
for those employed in this district may be included in the
service or commercial buildings or adj acent thereto as
conditional uses or if expressly allowed, as permitted
uses. (new language in bold)
2. In buildings with "hazardous" SCI uses, dlvel1ings may not be
a compatible use. Since the SCI zone is the only district
in the City where various hazardous, but necessary uses can
occur (welding, repair, garage, etc.) we should not totally
commit the zone to the softer, shop-craft type uses.
Based on these comments, the Planning Commission and the applicant
came to an agreement that accessory dwelling units should remain as a
condi tional use. The applicant requested, however, that the Commis-
sion's record reflect the understanding reached that the Code does
allow a conditional use to pass from one owner to the next, provided
that the basic space arrangement and use of the space does not change.
This finding, which is contained in the attached P&Z Resolution 85-9,
will help the artists to obtain financing for their units on a long-
term basis.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the ordinance as written.
2. Adopt the Ordinance with the following changes:
a. In those places where the Ordinance refers to "Artists
Studios" add the words "with optional accessory dwelling
units."
b. Add a new section 2 to the Ordinance amending the SCI intent
r"',
~
section to add the following language at the end "or, if
expressly allowed, as permitted uses."
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The vote on P&Z Resolution 85-9 was unanimous
in favor of its adoption (4-0).
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move to adopt on 2nd reading Ordinance 33 Series of 1985 with the
following changes:
a. In those places where the Ordinance refers to "Artists
Studios" add the words "with optional accessory dwelling
units. "
b. Add a new section 2 to the Ordinance amending the SCI intent
section to add the following language at the end "or, if
expressly allowed, as permi tted uses."
!"""\
i-',
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen City Council ~
Hal Schilling, City Manag~
Alan Richman, Planning Office ~
TO:
TH RlJ :
RE:
1st Reading - Ordinance Amending SCI Use List - Artists'
Studios
DATE:
May 28, 1985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends first reading approval of the
attached ordinance which adds "artists' studios" as a permitted use in
the SCI zone district.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACl'ION: None
BACKGROUND: Section 24-12.5 of the Code provides that privately
initiated amendments to the zoning map and the text of the zoning
regul ati ons may be submi tted on February 15 and August 15 of each
year. This past February, the only private applicant to submit such a
request was the 412 North ~lill Condomini um Association (Andrews-
McFarlin Building) .
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The zoning text amendment initially submitted by
the applicant was to make "artists' studios with optional accessory
dwelling unit" a permitted use in the SCI zone district. presently,
artists' studio is not mentioned in the use list for this zone, while
accessory dwelling units are a conditional use in the zone. The
closest use to artists' studio in the zone is "shop-craft industry".
The intent of the SCI zone district is:
"To allow for the use of land and the preservation of limited
commercial purposes and limited industrial purposes, with customary
accessory and institutional uses, which do not require or generate
high customer traffic volumes. In addition, residences for those
employed in this district may be included in the service or
commercial buildings or adjacent thereto as conditional uses".
Both the Planning Office and the planning Commission found that
artists' studios fit the intent of the zone to have limited commercial/
industrial uses which do not require or generate high customer traffic
volumes. However, the Planning Commission felt that accessory residences
should continue to be evaluated as conditional uses to insure that the
building in which they are to be located is compatible with the
proposed use. Specifically, the issues raised at the Commissioner's
public hearings on this topic were as follows:
--
.-'
1. If we allmq residences accessory to artists' studios as a
permitted use, to be equitable, we might have to change the
intent or the zone and allow accessory residences to all
permitted uses in the zone. Such an extension of the
residential concept for the zone would limit the amount or
space available for true service-commercial uses in the
city. While I doubt that we would have to open this accessory
residential use to all permitted uses in the zone, I think
it is more likely that other uses would have a legitimate
ba si s to al so request th at dwell ing units be permitted as
accessory to their use, which is not in keeping with our
intent for th is zone.
2. In buildings with "hazardous" SCI uses, dl;7el1ings may not be
a compatible use. Since the SCI zone is the only district
in the City ~lhere various hazardous, but necessary uses can
occur (welding, repair, garage, etc.) we should not totally
commit the zone to the softer, shop-craft type uses.
Based on these comments, the Planning Commission and the applicant
came to an agreement that accessory dwelling units should remain as a
conditional use. The applicant requested, hO~lever, that the Commis-
sion's record reflect the understanding reached that the Code does
al1o~l a conditional use to pass from one owner to the next, provided
that the basic space arrangement and use of the space does not change.
This finding, which is contained in the attached P&Z Resolution 85-9,
will help the artists to obtain financing for their units on a long-
term basis.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The vote on P&Z Resolution 85-9 was unanimous
in favor of its adoption (4-0).
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
"~love to read Ordinance _ Series of 1985"
" l!Jove to adopt on 1st reading Ordinance _ Series of 1985"
1"",
I""
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL A CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD
.ARTISTS' STUDIOS. AS A PERllITTED USE IN THE
SERVICE/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL (S/C/I) ZONE
Resolution No. 85-~
WHEREAS, on February 15, 1985, the 412 North Mill Condominium
Association (hereinafter, the "Applicant") initiated an amendment to
Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code by SUbmitting a private application
for a zoning change, as provided for by Section 24-12.5 of the Code,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Applicant's
reque st for "artists I st udios wi th optional accessory dwelling unit"
as a permitted use in the S/C/I zone, at public hearings held during
their meetings of April 2 and April 16, and
WHEREAS, the Commission determined that artists' studios fit the
intention of the zone and should be made uses 'by right, but that
accessory dwelling units should remain conditional uses and be reviewed
for their appropriateness on a case-by-case basis, and
WHEREAS, during its review the Comm,ssion recognized that once a
Conditional Use Permit is issued for a residential unit, according to
Section 24-3.3 (c), the use is permitted to cont~nue to be occupied,
even if it is sold to a new owner, provided the space allotments and
nature of the use remain the same.
NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission
of Aspen, Colorado, that it does hereby recommend that City Council
adopt an amendment to Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code to add
"artists' studio" as a permitted use in the S/CII zone.
APPROVED. by the Commission at its regular meeting on May 7, 1985.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By ~,~J/::~,:c
ATTEST:
~~ulA l_llc~7ct
Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
.",*""
,~.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Colette penne, Planning Ofifce
Artists' Studios in sa Zone - Code Amendment
RE:
DATE:
April 16, 1985
========================================================================
At your meeting of April 2, you discussed the Applicants' request to
make artists' stuaios and accessory resiaences to those studios a
permitted use in the SCI zone. It was strongly expressed by the
Commission that making residences for artists a permitted use rather
than a conditional use as is currently the case for all other uses in
the zone would be selective and unfair. The language presently in the
Code for the Intention of the SCI zone reads as follows:
-TO allow for the use of land and the preservation of limited
commercial purposes and 1 imi ted industrial purposes, with customary
accessory ana institutional uses, which do not require or generate
high customer traffic volumes. In adaition, residences for those
employed in this district may be incl uded in the service or
commercial buildings or adjacent thereto as conditional uses."
The appropriateness of allowing a residence is, therefore, reviewed as
a conai tional use in each instance. If the residence is proximate to
sa uses which are noxious or hazaraous in nature, the review alerts
the Building Department ana the applicant to builaing code requirements
which assure safe fire separation, adequate ingress arid egress, etc.
The applicants are willing to amena their request for a Code amendment
to add "artists' studios" as a permitted use in the SCI zone and to not
alter the ability to request an accessory residential use only through
the conditional use process.
This application was the only privately-initiated zoning request
submitted under the terms of the semi-annual limitation for private
zoning actions of Section 24-12.5.
PLANNING OFF! CE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office recommends that you recommend to Council approval
of a Coae Amendment to add "artists' stuaio" as a permitted use in the
sa zone through amenament of Section 24-3.2.
,"~
~
~.
#
MBRORARDOH
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Colette Penne, Planning Office
'SCI Zone Code Amendment - Artists' Studios
FROM:
RE:,
DATE:
April 2, 1985
==========================================~=============================
SOIlING:
412 N. Mill (although proposed amendment will apply to
all SCI lands and buildings, it is being proposed by
the occupants of the listea address)
SCI
LOCA~IOIl:
APPL,ICAIl'f"S lUlQOBS~: To amend Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code to
add "artists's studios with optional accessory dwelling unit" asa
permitted use intheSCI zone and to change the intention statement
for the zone to also read:
'~o allow for employee residences in or adjacent to professional
~rtists' studios as a permitted use."
'l'his application was the only privately-initiated zoning request
submitted under the tems of the semi-annual limitation for private
zoning actions of Section 24-12.5.
PLAliIIlING OFFICE REVI_: The present Intention statement for the SCI
zone reads as follows:
"To allow for the use of land and the preservation of limited
commercial purposes and limi ted industrial purposes, with customary
accessory and institutional uses, which do not require or generate
high customer traffic volumes. In addition, residences for those
employed in this district may be included in the service or
commercial buildings or adjacent thereto as conditional uses."
Artists' studios basically fit this intention and Sarah Pletts was the
first occl.1pant in this structure to receive Conditional Use approval
for an artists and dance studio as well as an accessory dwelling
unit. Because of the problems associated wi th proximity to other SCI
uses which may have hazardous or noxious implications, the upgrading
of the property in terms of fir.e separation and ingress/egress require-
ments was not accompl ished by the Andrews. Since that time, other
artists have purchased condominium units and have located in the
building. Terry and Linda Rose have their Get Graphicl studio (permitted
as a printing and publishing use) and Christa Luckemeyer has Aspenique
which is a jewelry design and repair operation (shop-craft industry).
Michael Martin, who is an architect and designer, is a condominium
owner and Vicki Fuller (a painter) has a studio in another unit. All
the units in this building have been sold.
The property was on the market for over two (2) years and aid not
attract enough interest frOJll permitted SCI uses to allow the Andrews
to carry it. The concern expressea by the Planning Office and the
Planning ana Zoning Commis.sion throughout the Anarews/Pletts Conditional
Use reviews fOr the retention of SCI space for purely SCI uses due to
a short supply seem unfounded in light of this example.
Space in the SCI zone rents for less than in more intensive commercial
zones and the spaces tena to be suitea for use as studio area by
artists. AS referred to by Terry Rose in his attached letter of
February 15, 1985, they are often "large, open, industrial type spaces
with easy access." This particular structure ana the aajacent building
are especially suited to this proposal because of their proximity to
the Rio Grande property and the Aspen Art Museum.
.
,~
~
We do not feel that the Intention statement needs to be modified as
suggested. If the permitted uses incl ude "artists' studios with
optional accessory dwelling unit," the problem is remedied. Since
other accessory dwelling units are referred to in the Intention
statement as Conditional Uses, an aaaition should be made at the end of
the Intention statement which reads "except as expressly permitted."
Artists who choose to locate in the SCI zone must be aware that the
Building Code does require additional fire separation between residences
and hazardous or noxious SCI uses and this may be a problem. Depending
on the sequence of occupancy, costs may be incurred by purchasers or
tenants. The Planning Office doubts that the demand by artists for
SCI spaces is so great that a prol iferation of these uses will spread
throughout the zone. We do feel that the use is a compat,ible one in
the zone.
PLANNING OFFICE REC0DBRDA'.rIOR: The Planning Office recommenas that
you recommend to Counc 11 approval of a Code Amendment to incl ude
"artists' studios with optional accessory dwelling unit" as a permitted
use in the SCI zone ana an aadi tion to the Intention statement such
that the final sentence of that statement reads "in addition, residences
for those employed in this district may be incluaed in the service or
commercial buildings or adj acent thereto as conditional uses, except
as expressly permitted."
2
- -........
.
~
r--.
February 15. 1985
Alan Richmond
Planning Dept.
Ci ty of Aspen
Aspen. CD 81611
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to Section 2Q-12.5 please consider this an application
by private applicants for a change in zoning.
Statement of purpose:
A limited number of the existing buildings such as ours in the
S/C/I zone are ideal for for professional artists' studios. featuring
large. open, industrial type spaces with easy access.
In the case of the condominium units in our building at 412 N. Mill
Street. these units were on the market for two years and during that
time did not attract users as described in the S/C/1 zone.
The professional artist has traditionally chosen to live in or
adjacent to his or her studio as the process of creating art works
very often requires working all hours. With this in mind, the five
artist members of 412 N. Mill Street Condominium Association pur-
chased the condominium units in this building, adjacent to the
Rio Grande Property which in the future may be designated as a
center for the applied and performing arts in Aspen.
We believe that by amending the SICI1 zone to allow the professional
artist to live and work within the zone as a permitted use, without
limiting or changing in any way the existing uses in zone, the City
will be supporting a real need in Aspen which can only result in
adding vitality to and the enhancement of our community.
Condominium Association
'.
~
~
The proposed amendments to the slCII zone are underscored:
INTENTION
To allow for the use of land and the preservation of limited
commercial purposes and limited industrial purposes, with
customary accessory and institutional uses, which do not require
or generate high customer traffic volumes. To allow for employee
residences in or adjacent to professional artists' s~udios as a
permitted use. In addition, residences for others employed
in this district may be included in the service or commercial
buildings or adjacent thereto as conditional uses.
PERMITTED USES
Limited commercial and industrial uses including the following
and similar uses: vehicle sales; equip-rental storage and repair,
automobile washing facilities; electrical and plumbing service
shops; commercial baker; limited industrial uses including the
following and similar uses: builder's supply; industrial dry
cleaning plant and laundry; fabrication and repair of building
materials and components; lumberyard; manufacture and repair of
sporting goods; printing and publishing plants; warehousing and
storage; artists' studios with optional accessory dwelling unit;
and shop-craft industry; provided that no permitted uses create
an unusual traffic hazard, noise, dust fumes, odors, smoke,
vapor, vibration, glare, or industrial waste disposal problem;
and provided that no permitted uses sell daily or frequently
bought items to the general public.
CONDITIONAL USES
Full-service gas station; dance studio; martial arts studio;
dwelling units accessory to other permitted uses; catalogue sales
store; photography studio; satillite dish antennae.
6l'tI
iii: '.
QI N~
....'
~'I r~
I ,~
Er"'''" I Ii
:; ~ c ~ Q; IJO I ,~
o g ~.~. rtI ::l : g .... J'
c ~ l:l n :::J Q" ::l::S 1-31
aQ f:cottnS"-go
f!a :;ra I~J! JI,.
. ~ en IJO fD ~ _ ~ s;; ,1
:~~ ;~;~ 1;1 'at
oj:~g ~~~ in~ r;.i .~!tl'
..; ~, g.::I a (A,:g Q" (1)/ .",i
o _~~cnlJO:-:':'"
ii'1s: .,..E.""1::: )!
9 IJO to I"A s:o g r: J:7'
..:l,,,":;l~~-'''" ',"
Q" ~ ~ !';J ~ ::;:,':' ','
~ l go 2. : : ~~! <[
'0 C N ~ ..... ~ ClJI'~'
_~ ~.~rn g g' ~rc"
e;;-~ :; IJO .....Q\? $D III 'a'.,,".
5 ::I toe: ::! -< (;"! R C "I ,<
_. $0 - ,/1:1""'
~~~to 0.. "f S' a '<iii
n ~g'ggl' /:
ocn~g.!.!;Q_.=:ll:I..a:
g -g 0 S5.~,<:g,f!
9 (') IJO 0.. aq f: it Q"I to ~ 1',<'1',
tn' p;.:g ~ en ('0.;1 tr'_rA. ,.;,'
~.-6~C ..~;-g;'"
0,;: -< rtI :: g" >of I " ..,.'.
?<rt1 .+.....'0' tD'O!.
_. Q" to n'''' IJO '0' 2 rI
C'tI .... rtI--*",::l (D "' It
~ ::r-::l .,. en 0.. ,,-' .
o ~ .. ..., I 4
s.~ ~&" ~.g!g.H
~~" ...?"E''''~'
,0,,""0. ".,,,....
[~3":l".,- ,.OJ".
.... (t) $l) ::s ('0 0 -. - "1 I
~C"= Q.n = "f en M.'(D::r1:lj
0'= n rtI ~ ('0 c C en 0 ..,
~; g ~ rD :;-- S e.;if Et ; IJO
ii i ; ~ i " ~ r:: gg!
1: < CD C .~ l'D ::t :; .... en e.
m s.;ttr!I.'< I: cn..rtI..r.A::r-
;l'D~nQ..- fl)o
_..0.. 0 rt> ~ ('0 0"'::1 't:I .....
_poFE" a,OQgtt &.
fH'5'~ g ~ig r~,
f ~ s= g @ B":< :J (rJ ('f" .
~:....,t ~ g..... .. S"... i
; .... Co c: ~~ S' ~ !::!l;: :;,' 0"'1'
.::r...~ 1;0;.::1 ~ CoO
i.~~::~~:!g.a.~~[
. (") r ~ ~ S'/
iUNOZ . '"
o
LHT
'"
,
c
,
M
o
MO",
&3&
" g ':f
...:l.
~"'n
.., n. Ci
E!:-
,
8
I(
II
o:;~g.g;.c?
:2&~lllIftt(tl
C'D QI fto'" !._
..... {D 3.2.og
.~ne!.&O
~::r'g'C'c:J~~
::7' (i': E c :r ~
dQ'::TQ .a..:J ~ ""
::r-Q.~g'!o':;;'
o " (tl rD ;:I (tl
a=g,~:oc:
g.~ ~=::i:
=... S.;;Q,.;rol
(tl I'D ~ =:r':::: a.....,
"',Q.... g ~-I
" ll';I -... ..
Et::;.....GlI ~Q..::s.
II <ll ......... g".n Q"
H. 00 o.
~ogSS"g::!
n... ...._1 . . _
I
"
,
!
'J
~)L
'!-
"
1.
I
-.~!
~~;::==:;t::
'1 ....,'g CilOla n" 3
:J.a:e.GlI D1.....
n m ..... ... 1IJ "":if
C'D... (tl;:l C Q..
= .D Q.,. (,Q'
;'~S'Uf,:8
r;.~o'?~r;'z
~:!.g~':::a3
~~ ~ s: ~ ~ & ~
.... ill e.. .... a.
1IJ c ::f $lo>
::s ~ tIJ QllJIQ-
~Q"I>>8"I:....$O
3 'E!. ~ Q: .. go 5..
g" -... <:
C'D g: tD (tl~s'
~g:~,lIJe:og-
;;'..= . .s,e.. ~ (,Q
.... _ . -CD . I
c: .....:::: en ~ ::,"tf
r:g ~ ~ ~, ~ '= :t
en 0 3 < - 0..01
. ~ rIl ().'C ~ ::J"
tx1""';:lC'D 1IJ fD 0
.."..::lC+n'c:J~:?
rl) atG') 0--(\1
:;J S' .... 3 ... ~ co-
'c:Jn'g:.g'3~~:;
~..(bCllg,;;:~~...C'D:;
:0." So ft!.:.!''c:J ~
6'~:=:CR eo !.~
~ II) g .... g- (l) = 01
~..g. ~;S
""_.,,n;'";;~ =;:
~ -, ,..., (b, Q...
~
00
~
::;
~
Q;
~
3
;:
~
tx13 ~8't:1;..,>...
cte.= ~ g'gJ:
~a;~'g~;'~m~
n ~ tp ~ .... I'D rn
fD {D I-It B ::s tIJ ;; 0
co g to .....IJQ .... I'D ~
'" _. g [~ ::!..
=q--. c ....CI)
~ ~ =.~::S
I>>;~ca-~g~
Q" _. c I'A I>> !l' II) aq
'"':&:'t:lmn ::(1)
o'(D'g o.~
~ H : =l1""
~ 0 ~~
Co ~ 7t1l
_. ~
" ~
.. ...
~ -,
-."
ll'..
~
o'
?
.
e:~'g ~~ ~
~,S:~~&.:::
rD.l'I! as:oti.
::s" ~:s... 4t
1O"'1t.. :!
::s a Po. c ....
gcf6ce.3g
m '", to 0+ ~
. rD CD CJt ~IJQ
'g..~. ;-:
'<(')g.....
~~:fD~
[e.~::t~
,R.~~ C4 0"
~ .?
i:CDg~
[=~&.g-
~dI;O.~
m CJt >1_. CD
==:=::
It~
...
tit!:
"'~
. .
::s~
~
."
. "
g s-
. '"
, .
"
"
..
.
r.
>>
.
~,
n:.tl; f
ONlNOZ
~,
-.
130
asp
',.,
CITY
SPEN
ree t
611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11, 1985
TO: Colette Penne
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Pletz Rezoning
We have no comments on the substantive aspects of the rezoning
request. )However, you may be interested in knowing that the P&Z
has previously been concerned with maintaining the SCI with regard
to this property. For your information, I am attaching P&Z
minutes dated October 4 and October 18, 1983, and June 5, 1984,
and related correspondence in connection with the Andrews condi-
tional use review wherein P&Z'S concern was discussed.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions concerning this
material.
P.:IT/mc
Attachments
7E
,-..
\
, ' !
'i lJeI.~J, I~~ '
H'. b,vJ. ,,r.t./.: . tY ~
' A l.)iJ. C'li", {t#l-'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,Oft".~ e. r, ll11rO(tf. R. ~. It l. ell.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTonER 4th, 1983
'PUBLIC HEARING CONT' D - ANDREWS CONDI'l'IONAL USE APPROVAL
Harvey said they were aware of that, and also of the Planning office's COncern
about opening the flood-gates on residential use in the SCI zone.
Penne said she didn't know lif the C1p!?roval hinges on the exterior up-grading.
Parde,e said he could see a big difference in the application now 'chat they can',
look at the plans for the up-grading of the ext.erior.: The COllUnissioners then
examined the plans in detail with the architect, Tom Crews.
Tygre then said that she didn't think it was the consensus of the Commissioners
i that the upgrading of the exterior would have an affect on the conditional use.
" . I' '. .
She added that she felt there were two separate lSSU~S, and because of that, sh~
said she felt that the Commission can't accept the up-grading as a trade-off for
the granting of conditional use.
Hunt said he agreed with Tygre on that issue.
Harvey asked applicants if ,they had agreed to the conditional use permit at the
, last hearing? Applicants (Andrews) replied yes. Harvey then asked if the
i Commission had reviewed that and if they had any comments.
"-j
'. Pardee said that as he recalled, the commission had a split vote of 3 to 3 at
, the first hearing, and one member had said that taking the ugliest building,in
town and bringing it up to look like the properties acrosss the street (Clark's
. Market building) would be atremendous change.
Harvey agreed, but said that he didn't think the Commission could consider up-
grading as a reason to grant the conditional use apPrpval.
,
i Anderson mentioned that it was tabled the first time for documentation, which is
I' now in the packet. Harvey agreed, and said that it obviously did not resolve
ev~ryone's concern. He added that now the question is whether the commission
wants to consider this in light of the document, the restrictions on the resi-
dential use, or whether the Commission wants to look art the up-grading or if it I ~
i even relevant.
i Anderson then said that he thought the documentation was pretty adequate as far
as not creating a blanket policy on allowing residential use in the SCI zone. He
continued that the issue today is seeing what kind of upgrading is planned.
. .~ ...-...~.~.. ..-..--.--:-.-------.,.. ""
1
--2-
,.." i-"
'PUBLIC HEAHING CONT' D - ANDHmvS CONDI'l'IONAL USE APPROVAL
:
'l'ygre said that she didn't think that was exactly right. She said there seems to
be a great difference of opinion on this issue, as far as whether the conditional
'use is acceptable under any conditions, some conditions, or with the bonus of
them remodeling the front of the building. She concluded that she didn't think
it was that clear-cut, that there is a wide difference of opinion.
,Harvey asked Pardee if he felt that any motion should tie external improvements
: to the approval.
'Pardee said that it should be one of the conditions in Esary's document.
,:Harvey asked Esary if the Board is granting or considering granting a conditional
iuse and asking for whatever this building might need in order to grant it?
!Esary replied if Harvey meant is it coercion, and if so, the answer is no. The
Commissioners had struggled with this approval request over 3 meetings, trying to
: help the applicant and still balance the planning aspect, he added, and to try
:to prevent more encroachments into the SCI zone as the Planning office wishes.
Esary added that he had been asked at the time he was helping to draft the permit
for the Andrews if the improvements to the exterior were acceptable, or if he felt
'they were coercion, and Esary stated then that he did not believe it was. He con-
tinued that because the applicants tried to prove their accessory use first by
saying they needed to live there because of the nature of their business, and
isecondly because they own the building and it has been vacant for a year, and they
,have a negative cash flow, and the reason it all works is if they could start a
'business that is a permitted use, live there as,an accessory use, and use the
positive flow generated to improve the building to attract more SCI,tenants.
Based on that analysis, Esary concluded, there is a reasonable tie between the
grant of the conditional use and the exterior upgradinq.
I 1
'Harvey stated that it seemed to him the essence of the request is whether this
,business which is a permitted SCI business requires an accessory residence in
'order to function. He then ~sked the architect to show and discuss the drawings
,of the proposed improvements. The architect is 'Tom Crews, employed by Mr. and
Mrs. Andrews. '
Harvey commented that in vie~ of the proposed improvements, the P & Z must do one
of t,m things: either make the completion of these improvements a condition of
approval, or, grant conditional use approval and conditional use permit and with
a specific time period for these to be completed, and if not completed within the
time period, then the conditional use approval and permit will no longer be valid.
Harvey then opened the publiq hearing for comments.
Paul Sheldon of the P & Z commission asked to make a comment as a member of the
public. He paid that at the last hearing on this request his concern was not
with the building itself but with the issue of residential use in the SCI zone
and he felt the applicants were caught in an unfortunate bind, wherein there is a
,zone that does not allow residential use, and the probl1em is not with this appli-
cation but with the designation of the SCI zone. He continued that if the P & Z'
approves this application they would put themselves in a compromising position
with regards to the next application, and he just wanted to express those concerns
Harvey asked for any other comments from the public, and having none, closed the
public hearing. Harvey continued that the Commission had tabled this issue the
,first time because of their concern for setting a precedent, and to see if
":specific language could be written into the permit' avoid setting that precedent.
':He said that now the issue of exterior remodeling is presented with nothing more
,than a drawing to go on.
:Esary stated that he thought renderings,
'sufficient. Andrews' said they did have
,could have these improvements completed,
budget, and date of completion would be
a budget. Harvey asked Andrews when they
and Andrews said in I year.
I
,Anderson stated that he is satisfied with the conditions presented by the City
Attorney, and what was presented today. He said he believed it in no way tied ths
P & Z into speculative changes in the SCI residential uses. He added that the
'language of the permit is very limiting, and that he would be in favor of granting
,approval for I year.
jFallin stated that she votel no on this issue in the beginning and will continue
,to vote no.
"1
( ,
"
I')
.- '-"'~'-'."--"""~'-.'-:-.'""'_--"-""'--'" -r':""
)
)
.-.,
.-.,
I
!
..
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'OIIM ~O C." "f)'t.lI:r~ fl. t. t \. to.
i
!REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 4, 1983
"PUBLIC HEARING CONT'D - ANDREWS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL
,Pardee stated that he would be in favor of granting approval.
Tygre said that she agreed with Fallin. She said she felt strongly about allowinc
residential use in SCI zone, and that she felt the need for this business is the
real criteria.
,White stated that he thought the SCI zone in that section was wrong, but because
,he felt it was the wrong zone did not mean that this was the right way to go about
'changing it, and would have to vote against approval.
Hunt said that he would vote in favor of approval. He felt that the uniqueness oj
the operation and the hours, plus the limited scope of the dwelling unit, were
sufficient reasons to approve. He added that the applicants said that they would
complete these improvemtns in 1 year, but as far as conditional use review, he
would favor making it 2 years.
Harvey said that the only grounds that he could see for considering an accessory
dwelling unit is that the hoVrs of the business, and the nature o,f the business
iis such that it requires someone to be on hand around the clock. In the condi-
:tional use permit drafted by the City Attorney, it states that"the permitted use
:shall be a bona fide, for profit, equipment rental storage and repair business
with customary and regular business hours". He continued that customary and
[regular business hours to him were 9 to 5, 8 to 6, or whatever. He said that he
,wasn't sure that this type of business required strange and unusual hours.
I
i
{
i
i
,
i
,
,
'j
! !
"
i
i
"
!
i "
,
i
-1 \
"
.~
'I
I ,
i
1
I
!
,
.!
r-"
k
.w.,..,,~
)
,-,
,~
(J
'_.
..
!
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,_..C.'.llllt,CKr.I.I.....t.c:"
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18, 1983
ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS
Hunt said that he thought both Andrews and Zebra Productions conditional use
permits would have the same requirements.
Harvey said the Commission should review the Andrews' case first, then, and Zebr,
after that. He continued that it was coming back to the Commission due to the
onerous condition of the 3-hour fire wall.
,
Luke Ferguson, attorney representing the Andrews, said that he appreciated the
time the P & Z had devoted to this case, and that there were 4 reasons for comins
back to the P & Z at this time. He said that the first reason goes to something
Hunt raised at the outset, which was 3 hour fire resistant walls and the first
condition imposed on this project. He said that this 3 hour fire wall condition
was within the Commission's power, in order to preserv6 the availability of all
permitted uses under the SCI zone. However, he said, he had found a way in this
instance to accomodate the City's interests, and hopefully to go with something
Commissioner White had mentioned several hearings ago, which was a question of
: rezoning this particular property. The second reason, he continued, is to clarif
for Bob Andrews a 3 hour fire resistant wall and a 1 hour fire resistant wall,
and there is a significant difference not only in terms of cost but in terms of
I:construction that must take place that would affect the tenancies of existing
'tenants and the amount of space they have in the lower floors. Thirdly, he said,
'he didn't know if the Commissioners were aware that Sarah Pletts was purchasing
: her unit, and consequently they think that all owners within the same building
should have the 'same conditions imposed .on tl)em. The fourth reason was to try to
step back from the rushed nature of this project and try to put into prospective
in light of the city's interest which fluctuates from year to year, and also to
address the Andrews' desires. He said they have come up with a proposal that
hopefully serves the interests of everyone, protecting the City's interests but
'also to impose some long range considerations for that whole area. The first par
of the Andrews proposal is to delay the imposition of the 3-hour fire wall con-'
:dition until June 1, or until the date that a rezoning application can be filed
ion behalf of the McFarland &' Andrews. He digressed, saying that a review of the
!Building Code indicates that only one use would be excluded by this delay of the
:3 hour fire wall condition, and this one use is the only one permitted in the SCI
!zone, namely wood-working establishment. He added that the only other potential,
:use in the SCI zone would be a dry cleaning plant using flammable liquids, and he
! added that they didn'.t feel that they would be approached during the next 9montL:
1 for a dry cleaning operation. The result of this kind of delay he felt would hiv,
,a minor impact affecting permitted uses in the SCI zone. All other permitted SCI
'uses may take place in the bui~aing as it is currently constructed now. During
this period of time they would evaluate the property and consider its best and
highest use in light of several factors, one the zoning in the area. They are
anticipating a request to rezone teh property in February. This would permit the
,uses in the building, and would also permit uses that in the long range would be
._, more compatible, i.e. i restaurants or other appropriate uses. The result, he
'., said, would be that they would have opportunity to step back and analyze, and
: also consult to determine what would be the best use of the property. Lastly, he
said, the biggest problem is, what happens if they get down to the line, and don"
,get rezoned, and they are living in the building. What power does the city have
to impose the fulfillment of the condition of the 3 hour fire wall construction?
Andrew's have come up with 3 devices that they think would give the city the key
iand would, impose upon the Andrews the requirement to build this 3 hour fire wall
iin the event the zoning is not changed. The first would be for the Andrews to
'provide a performance bond at their own cost or other security, that would assure
that there is financing to construct the wa-ls, including Sarah Plett's unit.
:He added that they do have an estimate on what the construction would cost for
ijsut the Andrews unit, and that figure would be $18,450.00. To do all the units,
;the cost would be approximately $40,000. The second means is that they would re-
quest that the City issue a ,temporary CO, which would be temporary until such tim
as the rezoning application is favorably approved, and in event that the building
.as constructed complied with all of the requirements of the new zone, then the
temporaJ:y CO would become permanent. In the event the rezoning was not a-proved.
then the temporary CO would expire. The result would be that the City could sue
with penalties.
." '. . 0"._"- ...._,_...__.._",.~_...~,__...~_..
r'
,
,
!
j' CONDI'l'IONS - CONT' D
r-"I
The third condition, he cont~nued, would,be to provide the City with the.names 0:
the holders of the Deeds of Trust that secure the financing for the property, so
that the City could notify those holders in such instance as they did not receiv\
the rezoning and did not build the fire resistant walls, and that would automati.
callY declare default and declare all sums due. The reason they have proposed
,these 3 conditions is that he didn't want to have to come back in July and explaj
iwhy his clients, the Andrews, didn't want to do it. He concluded that he felt it
: would protect the City's uses, in that the SCI zone us1es are protected except for
'1 use for 9 months, and after that they would all be protected whether or not th,
!zoning is changed. Secondly, it protects Sarah Pletts and existing tenants, and
ithird, it gives the Andrews the time to do appropriate long range planning for
!that property, rather than piece-meal. He added that he would provide the neces-
isary docuemnts to the City Attorney's office for their review.
ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION
~\
,
'I' Harvey asked Ferguson if they changed the zoning and the P & Z has conditioned th
I ,residences on these uses, (for Sarah and the Andrews), would there be a problem
jwith creating a non-conforming usage under zoning change for these' 2 businesses.
1
!FergUSOn replied that that was why ~hey needed time to look at before they applie
[for the rezoning. He added that since Sarah would be an owner, she would be in-
Jvolved in all these plans.
.1
iHarvey said that the reason they had treated pletts and the Andrews differently
:was that pletts would have ~o put in a 3 hour fire wall if and when a tenant came
iinto a space next to her that required it. Because the'Andrews own the building,
(they would be the,ones coming to Pletts and saying they are putting in this tenan
;and she has to put the wall in. In the Andrews case, they own the rest of the
:building, and if someone came to them and wanted to put in a drycleaning plant,
they can say no because they don't want to put in the fire wall. That was the
reason the P & Z had said the Andrews had to do it.
,:Ferguson said they appreciated the P & Z's opinion, but that they felt if the 3
ihour fire wall has to be built, it should all be built, at once, and that since
jPletts would be an owner, they couldn't really make a distinction between the
[conditions imposed on,Pletts and those imposed on the Andrews, and in the event
:you impose the same conditions on Pletts as on the Andrews, Pletts isn't going to
want to buy. He added that what they are trying to do is just to see if they can
get a delay on this condition, with assurances and guarantees that they will com-
ply in the event the rezoning is not successful.
; Harvey said, that what he is saying is that pletts doesn't have the same rights of
) ownership or status th,at the Andrews have. "
.;
'Pardee said that he would be infavor of extending the time they have to install
'the 3 hour wall, and that the guarantees are substantial, but he felt that 'Harvey
,
,had brought up a very important problem. He said that he would be in favor to
'extend it, but when it comes back to P & Z for rezoning and they are asked to make
',an exception for a residence, he would be inclined not to do it. If they choose:
to sell it now as a residence and then rezone, he didn't think they could expect
the P & Z to allow it. I
Harvey said what are
,ment until June '84,
:spaces...
I
Andrews consideration if the P & Z was to extend the require-
if the Andrews go out and sell the remaining condominium
I
';Ferguson said that they would put those conditions as a matter of record, and
:any person that wanted to look at them would be advised of what they are attemp-
,; ting to do. He added that they were trying to accomodate everyone I s interests,
:and the changing nature of the master plan for the Rio 'Grande property. Theyare
;simply asking for the time to analyze the situation, and may impose some long
,range planning.
Harvey'said that if he were in their position he might look at rezoning in order
,to avoid having to put in a 3 hour wall, or rezoning, which would exclude dan-
:gerous businesses so he wouldn't have to spend the money. '
Ferguson replied that the problem that the P & Z faces is that the SCI zone was
established for a number of u'ses, for basic purposes to create a core in that
,area.for specific uses that are intended to this City.
Harvey said that the dilemna is
,provision for residences, the1p
they don't want to restrict the
I
that' the Andrews have empty space, there is a
& Z wants to allow that, but as a result of that
potential uses for SCI.
(j
'....
()
4.-__.,...:."
I
I"""
.-,
( .:
( "
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
I
f
I
I
I-
i
fll>"".t e,'.Hl'lfCIU':LI....L.to.
EGULAR MEETING
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18, 1983
I
I-
I
NDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS - CONT'D
, ,
unt added that it was not only! permitted uses, but conditional uses as well.
arvey said that in the memo from the Andrews is that they would like to have som~
ime period in which to sell some spaces and improve the exterior.
erguson said that he would be a fool to come before the P & Z and suggest that t'~,
hey just waive this condition, iand he does not want to do that. He added that I"
hat is why they carne with, this 'proposal, they think its a workable proposal, and i
hey don't want to put the cityiin a position of creating precedents that it would,
ave to live with either. On the other hand, if they can analyze the rezoning [
otential, it might make the spa,ces more attractive to the prospective purchasers'l'
nd'they would have to file someting for rezoning before February anyway. '
.. - .
a1rvey then said that Ferguson said they would do the two units togetJ;ler, does r
he purchase contract call for P,letts to bear the cost on her unit? L
erguson replied that he didn't ,know. He said the Andrews would get a perforrnancd
and, because they didn't want to lose Pletts as a purchaser. He said that if -L
letts knew she was going to havle to put in a $20,000 fire wall, Andrews would not
ave a purchaser. " " I,'" '
arvey then asked Gary Esary if;the Andrews were to go out and sell the condo-.,~,
iniumized units around their unit and restrict in the purchase contract that
hey would nev,er use those space!! for dangerous, hazardous, flammable uses, that
auld get them out of the requirement. In other words, he said, could they :
avenant privately between the p~rchaser and the seller the uses to which the I.
nits could be put, because the f\ndrews control the condominium association they. -I'
3-n write in certain elements in:, a private document outside of the City's zoning. i'
3ary replied that the market takes care of it. He said that the problem with r
1e condition on Zebra was that if at some time in the future a dangerous business
:lme in, pletts would have to construct the fire wall. The reason the P & Z had -,
:lid the Andrews had to do it no~, and Sarah later was because the Andrews had
)ntrol. If Andrews Were to suddenly to get people lining up to buy the condo-
cnium units who had lawful permitted uses and none involved the 3 hour fire wall,
!paration, it would be great. Uowever, if a person requiring the ,3 hour fire ,I
III were to come in and want toirent the bottom space, and would pay high rent,
ldrews would be anxious to rentito him. He added that he did not consider it to
~ a ser~ous prOblem, ana the co~dition that Ferguson suggested is that either
ley get rezoning by June '84 ,or' they have to put in the fire wall. He concluded
Lat Andrews couldn't eliminate that condition simply by selling the units to
lople that did not require the ~ hour fire wall.
.rvey then asked Esary
the Andrews, ie, the
eds of Trust.
if he was comfortable with the 3 conditions put forward
performance bond, temporary CO, and names of holders of
!
! ~
I'
,
Attorney,,,- t
turned over" f
f
the fire f
floor, or,
I,
!
t
I
I'
~, . I.
I
ary_replied that he felt it was! pretty good security.
rdee said that the performance bond should be reviewed by the City
d thOse funds should be, if not! voluntarily done by the applicant,
the City and the City can proce,ed with the construction.
ary said that one of the things! that would have to be determined when
11 is put in, does it mean separating the first floor from the second
e two units from each other, or!what. '
Lvey said that the Building ,Department would enforce those regulations.
1ry then said the P & Z should also consider that if the Andrews can't get any
re people with permitted uses in the SCI zone, but do get people with condi-
)nal uses, the P & Z will see them and since the Andrews and Pletts got their
1ditional uses, the Board should consj:dcr how' far they will go on that line.
~
,"""
..
I
ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS - CONT'D
Harvey said the uses are ,permitted, and the residences are conditional.
Esary said th~t the P & Z' commission has very broad discretion on deciding on
conditional uses in a zone, if the commission's focus is on the compatible COI
ditional uses.
Harvey asked Esary if he [felt comfo;r-table with what was going on the record, <
with the requirement that. the fire wall must be pul: in if and when the use COD
I up.
Esary said it could be drafted that way'.
,
. Harvey said he was mostly! concerned with the difference in control of owners,
Iii
\
\'\.
\
,
,
, .
" . ~
.(,..
.' ~".."..', .<' ,,'''',:"' '.
'.
.
.- .'
f. .;
.,'
. \:
...., .'
(1
(-')
,,~ ."
__1
-"\ ,~
t""\
M,.. /~
505 SANSOME, STREET
SAN FRANCISCO 94111
March 5, 1984
Paul Taddune, Esq.
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Conditional Use Permit for Robert W. and Jane G. Andrews (the
"Andrews") /it 412 N. Mill Street
--~~...
Dear Mr. Taddune:
Pursuant to your ,suggestion during our telephone discussion of January 17,
1984, I hereby outline for you the points that I believe require clarification in the draft
Conditional 'Use Permit, copy enclosed (the "Draft"), which was presented to the
Andrews by the City of Aspen (the "City"), specifically, by Mr. Esary as Assistant
, I
City Attorney:' ,
1. The first sentence of numbered paragraph 2 of the Draft states:
"According to the Uniform 13uilding Code a three-hour firewall must separate any
residential occupancy in the' SICll zone_ from certain uses that are permitted in the
zone." I believe this staternent refers to Tables No. 5-A and 5-B of the Uniform
Building Code, 1979 Edition, ~hich provides, in part, that a Group R-3 Occupancy (i.e.,
dwellings and lodging houses which comprise the Andrews and the Pletts-Garwood
occupancies) may be mixed with a Group H-3 or H-4 Occupancy (including dry
cleaning plants using-flamflJ~bleliquids, paint shops, woodworking establishments and
repair garages) only if there is a three-hour fire-resistive separation. Turning then to
the SICll entry in the chart Set forth in Section 24-3.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code
(see pp. 1447-1448) and comparing it to Tables 5-A and5-B, it appears to me that the
following SICII uses would be Group H-3 or H-4 Occupancies: (1) an industrial dry
cleaning plant and laundry;, (2) a use involving "fabrication and repair of building
materials and components" (~.g., woodworking); and (3) a repair garage where welding
is done or other open flame or highly-flammable liquids are used (although such a use
does not appear to be a perroitted use under Section 24-3.2). As such, according to
Table 5-B a three-hour firE\-resistive separation would be required when any such
SICll use is mixed with a Group R-3 Occupancy.
However, where ai Group R-3 Occupancy is mixed with a Group B-1 or B-2
Occupancy (e.g., storage garages where no repair work is done except exchange of
parts and maintenance requi~ing no open flame, welding, or the use of highly-flam-
mable liquids, wholesale and retail stores, office buildings or printing plants),
according to Table 5-B only ,a one-hour fire-resistive separation or no fire-resistive
separation at all is required.
-1-
[ 606:84:52:4]
.~
.-,
Paul Taddune, Esq.
March 5, 1984
Page 2
Presently, 'app~loximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the 412 N. Mill
Street building is owned by Sarah Pletts and Janet Garwood, who intend to reside in
one portion and operate a permitted S/C!I use (shop-craft) in the other portion.
Shop-craft industry appears to fall under the Group B-2 Occupancy in Table 5-A.
Similarly, the Andrews propose to reside in and operate their rental equipment
business (the latter also being, I believe, a Group B-2 Occupancy) in fifteen percent
(15%) of the building. Additionally, approximately twenty percent (20%) of the 412
N. Mill Street building is occupied by Creative Printers and ten percent (10%) is
occupied by Aspenique Jewelry, both of which also appear to be Group B-2 Occupan-
cies (retaiVshop-craft). All of these Group B-2 Occupancies are permitted S/C/I uses
under Section 24-3.2, which according to Table 5-B, require no fire-resistive separa-
tion from a Group R-3 Occ~pancy. -
Approximately five percent (5%) of the building is used by Mr. George Sells
for restaurant equipment storage, which appears to be a Group B-1 Occupancy,
requiring a one-hour fire-resistive separation from a Group R-3 Occupancy. Such a
one-hour separation presenitly already exists throughout the entire building. The
remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the building is unoccupied and is presently
listed for sale. Therefore,' seventy-five percent (75%) of the building is presently
occupied by permitted S/C/I uses requiring either a one-hour fire-resistive separation
or no separation at all, and the building is more than in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code as one-hour s~paration exists throughout the building.
I find nothing in leither the Uniform Building Code or any Chapter of the
Aspen' Municipal Code (these two documents hereafter collectively referred to as the
"Codes"J,requiring that a three-hour fire-resistive separation must be-constructed in
a building seventy-five percent (75%) occupied by permitted S/C/I uses that are mixed
occupancies requiring only a', one-hour separation or no separation at all as discussed
above, when the remaining t~enty-fjve percent (25%) of the building is unoccupied but
no Group H Occupancy is- anticipated 2!: desired. Therefore, I request that the City
refer me to the code sections requiring, ,as stat,ed in the second sentence of numbered
paragraph 4 of the Draft, tha~ "as a precondition of this residential occupancy permit",
the City "is requiring the construction of a three-hour firewall separation between all
residential occupancies and the remainder of the building in order to preserve the
future ossibilit of lacin !;uch a certain ermitted use on the remises thou h the
use requiring the firewall is: not currently present." Emphasis added.] I further
request that the City explain why it is apparently requiring three-hour fire-resistive
separation between "all residential occupancies and the remainder of the building"
when the codes only require ope':'hour or no fire-resistive separation given the present
occupants, as discussed above,
Finally, I request that the City refer me to the code sections giving it the
right to require the owner'of an S/C/I building, which owner has already sold or leased
seventy-five percent (75%) ofl said bUilding to permitted S/C/I uses, to sell or lease the
remaining twenty-five percent (25%) specifically to "a certain permitted [S/CfI] use"
requiring the three-hour fire-resistive separation. [Emphasis added.]
..
-2-
[ 606:84:52:4]
,-,
~
Paul Taddune, Esq.
March 5, 1984
Page 3
If the City purports to have such a right, does this mean that the City can
then specify, in its discretion, whether only portions of an SIC/! building must have the
three-hour fire-resistive separation, and specify which portions, or whether an entire
S/C!1 building must have such fire-resistive separation? Surely the City cannot
purport to take such an arbitrary position. And, further, if the basis for the City's
position is to protect the future possibility of such "certain permitted uses" coming in
to an S!C/I building, then, taken to its logical conclusion, I submit that in that case all
S/C/I buildings in Aspen would have to have three-hour fire-resistive separations
throughout each entire building, whether or not they are ~ occupied by any "certain _
permitted use", in order, to preserve_ "the future possibility" that they might-be so
occupied. Only this reasoning can explain why the City 1$' requiring the Andrews to
build three-hour separations between "all residential occupancies and the remainder of
the building". Again, I request that the City refer me to the code sections or any
other authority to support such a purported right.
2. The Draft in numbered' paragraph 5 speaks of a "firewall [which]
shall conform with requirements set forth in current Uniform Building Code and
[which] shall at least comply with the description stated in the proposal received
from Hansen-Haberman Construction, Inc. dated [0] ctober 28,1983, in the amount of
$11,360.00. . .." [Emphasis added.] It is quite unclear to me from my reading of the
Draft or the codes, exactly what type of "firewall" is referred to in this paragraph. I
seem not to be alone in this confusion. As stated in the minutes of the October 18,
1983 regular meeting of the Planning &. Zoning Commission ("the October 18
'Minutes"): "Esary said that one of the thIngs that would have to be determined when
the fire wall is put in, does it mean separating the first floor from the second floor, or
the two units from each other, 01'- what." [Emphasis added.] However, from the
wording in the Draft as well as the description and the above cost estimate in the
Hansen-Haberman proposal, it is apparent that only three-hour fire walls -- not
ceilings -- are contemplated, but it is completely unclear where in the building such
fire walls were to be constructed and the extent of such construction. '
, From the foregoing, it seems obvious to me that at the time the City
presented the Draft to the Andrews, neither party really understood, and certainly did
not mutually agree upon, exactly what the "firewall" requirement was. As evidenced
by the October 18 Minutes and the cost estimate in the Draft, at no time was a
three-hour fire-resistive separation (i.e., including ceilings) ever contemplated.
Therefore, I submit that the Draft as now worded contains a material mistake of fact
upon which both parties relied, resulting in no meeting of the minds of either party.
The Draft therefore must be revised to reflect the parties' true agreement, if any
agreement has in fact been reached.
3. In the October 4, 1983 minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning
&. Zoning Commission ("the October 4 Minutes"), there seems to be major concern on
the part of the Commission regarding "setting a precedent", to wit, "opening the
-3-
[ 606:84:52:4]
, ,,-..
,-",
Paul Taddune, Esq.
March 5, 1984
Page 4
flood-gates on residential use in the S/C/I zone." As J pointed out to you during our
telephone discussion, the Pletts-Garwood/ Andrews residential uses are not the first
such uses in an S/C/I zone. Rather, the precedent was set in 1980 at 530 East Bleeker
Street (the "Bleeker Building") which pr,esently comprises approximately fifty percent
(50%) residential and fifty percent (50%) purported S/C/I uses. Except for
Mr. Pustolka, the owner who owns the adjacent Welding Co., none of the Bleeker
Building residents operates as accessory uses any of the businesses presently located
there. On the other hand, Ms. Pletts, Mrs. Garwood and the Andrews all intend to
operate permitted S/C/I uses and reside in a dwelling unit acce~sory to such permitted
uses, as Section 24-3.2 specifically allows. In fact, Ms. Pletts and Mrs. Garwood were
awarded their conditional use permits for their proposed combination
residential/permitted S/C/I uses in November, 1983. J submit, therefore, that
awarding the Andrews a conditional use permit for their proposed combination
residential/permitted S/C/I use would not set a precedent at all, but rather would
follow a precedent already set by the Commission in awarding such permits to the
Bleeker Building (assuming the residents in fact have their required conditional use
permits for accessory uses), Ms. Pletts and Mrs. Garwood.
4. In light of the foregoing discussion, 1 submit that ~ to award the
Andrews a conditional use permit on the same terms set by the Planning and Zoning
Commission either in the Bleeker Building situation or the Pletts-Garwood situation
would mean both that: (j) the Planning and Zoning Commission does not follow its own
precedents, therefore rendering them meaningless; and (iiJ that the Planning and
Zoning Commission's action with regard to the Andrews is arbitrary and capricious,
and therefoj"e discriminatory. As you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission
is required by the Colorado Constitution evenhandedly to apply the laws of the State
of Colorado and the ordinances of the City of Aspen to the Aspen residents coming
within its jurisdiction; it therefore should be bound to follow its own precedents so as
not to discriminate among similarly situated Aspen residents.
A reading of the Pletts-Garwood conditional use permit discloses in
numbered paragraph 4 thereof that" [pJ rioI' to any future occupancy of Building Band
any S/C/I use requiring it," a three-hour "fire separation wall" will be constructed.
[Emphasis added.J In other words, as the October 18, 1983 Minutes explain,
fl. . . Pletts would have to put in a three-hour fire wall if and when a tenant came into
a space next to her that required it." [Emphasis added.]
In the Bleeker Building situation, no three-hour fire separation walls exist
at all. My understanding from a former employee of Intermountain Lumber is that
there were two residential uses (j.e., non-conforming uses), on the second floor of the
Bleeker Building up until the second floor was leased to Intermountain Lumber in 1975,
at which time the residential uses were abandoned and the space was used by the
lessee as office space. Section- 24-13.4 of the Municipal Code provides in subsection
(e) that "[wJ hen a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in
combination, is discontinued or abandoned for a period of more than one year, the
structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used
-4-
[ 606:84:52:4J
1""',
~'
,
Paul Taddune, Esq.
March 5, 1984
Page 5
except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. . . "
Therefore, since the non-conforming residential use was abandoned for more than one
year, anyone attempting to reinstate such a use must comply with the regulations
governing district 11, the S/C/I zone. As I read Section 24-3.2, the only way a
residential use can legally occur in an S/C/I zone is if it is an accessory use to a
permitted S/C/I use. As pointed out earlier, with the exception of Mr. Pustolka, the
other residential uses in the Bleeker Building, which uses were reinstated pursuant to a
building permit issued to Paul Hanway of Colorado Construction Co. on December 1,
1980, are not accessory uses to the permitted S/C/l uses in the building. Moreover,
- the pefinitted S/C/l uses presently in the Bleeker Building comprise in part a
woodworking shop and The Welding Company, both Group H Occupancies according to
Table 5-A of the Building Code, which if mixed with a Group R-3 Occupancy, require
a three-hour fire-resistive separation (see Table 5-B). 'My understanding is that no
such three-hour separation presently exists in the Bleeker Building, as required by the
Oniform Building Code. .
1 conclude that the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, if
they intend to follow their own precedents in order not to discriminate against the
Andrews, and if they intend to uphold their oath of OHfce*l, either must ignore the
three-hour fire-resistive separation question altogether, ii in the Bleeker Building
case, or, as in the Pletts-Garwood case, must require a three-hour fire-resistive
separation if and when a permitted S/C/I use requiring one comes in to the 412 N. Mill
Street building, and at no other time.
5. There is substantial question in my mind as to whether the Planning
and Zoning Commission can require as a condition to the grant of the Andrews'
conditional use permit, any improvements to the exterior of the building, particularly
when such conditions are based on aesthetic judgment rather than Building Code
requirements. My doubts apparently are shared by Mr. Harvey and Ms. Penne (see the
October 4, 1983 Minutes, wherein Ms. Penne states that "she didn't know if the
approval hinges on, the exterior up-grading", and Mr. Harvey states that ''he didn't
think the Commission should consider upgrading as a reason to grant the conditional
use approval.") I would agree with Mr. Harvey's innuendo, as stated in those minutes,
that such a condition smacks of coercion, and I therefore request that the City refer
me to the code sections permitting it to condition the grant of conditional use permits
upon the fulfillment of the City's criteria for aesthetic beauty. As I read Section
2,4-3.3(b) of the Municipal COde, the Planning and Zoning Commission's determination
*1 Refer to Section 3.9 of the Municipal Code, requiring every city officer to take an
oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution
of the State of Colorado, -the Aspen City Charter and the Aspen City ordinances.
-5-
[ 606:84:52:4]
..-:....
/"",
Paul Taddune, Esq.
March 5, 1984
p'age 6
,-.,
of whether or not to grant a conditional use permit has everything to do with zoning
requirements and nothing to do with aesthetics.
Having set forth the major areas of concern, I believe the most reasonable
approach to resolving the current dilemma between the Andrews and the City is for
the City to grant the Andrews a conditional use permit that is identical in all material
respects to the Pletts-Garwood permit. That way, I believe there would be a meeting
of the minds by both parties, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be upholding its
precedent, there would be no discriminlltJon against the Andrews regarding the
three-hour fire-resistive separation or any exterior Improvement requirement, the
potential for Group H Occupancies in the building would not be destroyed, as the
three-hour separation would be built if and when such a use comes into the building,
and the Codes would all be complied with.
matter.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a reasonable outcome of this
CAB:cfm
Enclosures
cc: RWA
[ 606:84:52:4]
Very truly yours,
t~6uL-
Catherine A. Bach
-6-
,-
-',~
,
'.
,
.t:'~'
CITY (JF;:ii:ASPEN
~~' ,t\f<l,"'''i~;;'>&i\.'\i,'i;;", '
"~";"t\:,.:i''''~;',}''f.,''\Y;,'nr;'i}"::'''1;';''~',,;,t',.;(
130 s'(j'iit n''''liTenast re e t
, ,~"'.f',,;g, "',;'''' ;",,,
~:);~~i'~!"i~~"jt~,"~)7:':~~J.-:'>"
asp ~",n,~,';",'",;,.c.,.~O"".,',',lq"r ...a,:, :'~9%~~ .1611
.!\l:;j!ff,W",,~ 1'::1"-1;( "fh~",.."" ,;;.,.,',~
':3'03'~'92 5';;2020
-'~t~f:;;;>~;~~::~t{:,~:!~0L,i;',,. ~<i
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 31, 1984
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Director
Jim wilson
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Andrews Conditional Use
In March my office received a letter from Ms. Catherine Bach, a
San Francisco attorney, contending that the Andrews were being
treated unfairly with regard to the conditions imposed in the
granting of their conditional use 'permit application. In particu-
lar, the letter asserts that there was a material mistake of fact
with regard to the Andrews' agreement to install the fire wall,
and according to Bob Andrews, the cost of installation has made
the residential use prohibltive. A copy of this letter is
attached. My discussions with City staff suggest that there was
no mistake on their part that the Planning and Zoning Commission
required the installation of a three-hour ~ire wall to assur~ that
the residential us~ approval would not restrict or limit potential
S/C/I uses.
Because I1s. Bach alleged a ~aterial_mistake of fact" my office
-recommended that this matter be placed before the Planning and
Zoning Commission for clarification.
In the meantime, I have learned that the Andrews building is or
will be the subject of a foreclosure proceeding and that the'
Andrews are no longer interested in using their condominium for
residential purposes. Therefore, I assume that the Andrews will
announce this at the June 5 meeting and, since the residential use
permit is no longer operative, they will be entitled to a reim-
bursement of their park dedication fee. Unfortunately, this
result still leaves the Sarah P1etts question open, inasmuch as it
is my recollection that the Planning and Zoning Commission
required a three-hour fire wall with regard to her residential use
as well.
In summary, the Andrews' application'is being referred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for purposes of clarifying all
prior proceedings. Further, I am led to believe that Mr. and Mrs.
Andrews are no longer interested in the residential use and their
intent in this regard will become a matter of public record at the
June 5 meeting. If, however, they are still interested in pursu-
ing the conditional use permit, we will then request the Planning
and Zoning Commision to clarify its intent with regard to the
three-hour fire wall requirement.
n "Tm J__
1
{-'.,
'--'
~-,
( ;'1
. "J
--
, -jr-,
.-,,~.
\' .
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meetil1CT
Planning and ZoninG Commission
June 5. 1984
Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:IH p.m. ~lith
commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, l'7e1ton Anderson, Lee
Pardee, and Roger Hunt present. '
COM!HSSIONERS' C0!1HENTS
Pardee asked what action Council has taken on the Top of Hill
and 7 (Hi South Galena. Alan Richman, planning office, replied
that Council has met h:ice but there h?s been few results.
fiunt has been contacted by two citizens who are concerned about
a proposed or::Hnance to aisallow dl:plexing somewhere in the
city. This has upset someone's sale of a duplex size lot.
Where is this in the system? How soon can this get through
the system? Richman answered it, will be in front of the Commission
July 3rd. Harvey askea if this was put fonlard to Council by
a west end group. Richman ans~lered yes. Harvey asked, what
was Council's action. Richman understood that Council discussed
sponsoring it and decided to send it to the Commission. Paul
Taddune, city attorney" stated that it is the feeling of the
majority of the Council that the \~est end should be single family
rather than duplex configuration. The Council is responding
to a group of citizens who feel strongly about maintaining the
single family configuration. Harvey noted Turley received permission
to do a lot split on Lake Avenue, for single family units.
Taddune noted that the Turley lot split is what precipitated
this citizen <.ction. There was also a t,hreat to start an initiative
if the Council did not respond. There is a -general resi st-ance
to large duplexes in the west end. Hunt said this is upsetting
a substantial portion of the community. Richman commented that
he is receiving calls every day. Dunaway said he is hesitant
to say it is the consensus of the Council. Richman said Council
does. not even know the issue. Taddune said the Council voted
three to b;o to send it to the Corrimissio:1. Dunaway reported
this action is not sponsored by the West End Association, but
by some private citizens in the west end.
OLD BUSINESS
ANDRmQS CONDITIONAL USE FOLLry.1-UP
7.,j7c",?.1'.ilgCLune_~aid the memo dated I-lay 31 is self-e~:planatory. It
attempts ~n as brief of a format as possible to report the frus-
tration encountered by all involved over the Andrews residential
conditional use permit. Mrs. Andrews is present to offer her
{ \ version of the problem. Essentially, the l,ndre\~s are no longer
\...i
1
--------.--.-----.....-.--
o
1
. ("'>
.\.-\
'RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zonina Commission
June 5. 1984
interested in a residential use of the condominium. The reason
is that the cost of the three-hour fire wall makes the residential
use economically prohibitive. There are other considerations
addressed briefly in his memo that are addressed in the letter
form Kathryn Bach, Bob Andrews' daughter. Prior to the conversation
with Bob Andrel'ls, the Andrews sought clarification and I~er'e
interested in the residential use permit. The Andrel~s are no
longer interested in the residenti~l use.
r\v;--"",,,:,!!rs. Ang,Ullis, applic.3...nt, w,ished to ~ on-L~cord_1b.ftt_.iJ;.Ls not
that the Andrews are not interestea in--12roceeding. There ha\: e
been-Uenfendous economicsetbaCKs-Se-cails'eoFThe'fiie I~all: (Jasmil,e
'i'ygre-artTves in the chambers-:T-'Hs ~..Bach."did the legal research.
She reported that Bach concluded there was not a meeting of
the minds because a three-hour fire wall (which Hunt imposed
upon the Andre~ls and the CommisSion agreed on last fall) is
very different from the three-hour fire separation. Jim wilson
did not speak at that meeting. Everything, ceilings and floors,
needs to be encased with the fire separ.ation.
0:
. .
t\\\\;)ri'1. .
()
There was originally a $12,000 estimate for a fire wall. The
Andrews agreed to that. Later Chic Collins and Jim Wilson estimatp.d
the increase to be between $40,000 and $80,000 for a separation
which ~lOuld meet the municipal code. The Andrews are def ea te d.
The Andrel'ls give up. They are walking away. They are not attempting
to live there anymore.
.~..Y want to qQ. on recprd that .th~J;:_e ha!L.b.ee.!l...,9i.$G.Jimi.I}5.t,i.9.n
~ainsme!ll_._ She cited 530 Bieel~er Street. The.re are four apartments
w ~ TI one over a I~elding shop, one .over a woodl~orking shop, and
one over a paint shop. None of the apartments have a three-
hour fire separation as required- by the municipal code. She
cited Section 1447-1448, and Tables 5-A and 5-B. Her site is
zoned R-3 occupancy as a lodge and dwelling mixed with Table
5-B, a three-hour fire resistance separation which means ceilings,
floors, I~a11s. The four apartments on Bleeker are zoned SCI.
~! 0 ll~e.r.S-Qll.....is-U..ea te ~t, ()J1.~_w ~.YL._i:l:.nA__Q.ll EJ..CiD..o the.r f.. the rei s
1 sc r iJ!li na t~ ()n,..
Harvey asked for clarification between fire wall and fire separa-
tion. Taddune understood that a resioential use would occupy
part of the building. In order to t,ke full advantage of SCI
uses a three-hour fire wall separation has to be installed to
protect the residential uses from the high, end of the spectrum
commercial uses, _for example, welding. The problem here is
2
/"""
"1,-,
c
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regul ar ~Ieetinq
Planninq and zoning Commission
June 5. 198.1 '
,"
. t.. ') u:.t "v.,?
that if a residential use is allowed accessory to the commercial
use, the SCI use would be aiminished unless the Andrews encased
the commercial use. Encasing would be done so that welding
or the high end of the spectrum commercial uses would not jeopardize
anyone living adjacent to that other space.
He recalled from reading the minutes of the Commission, that
the Commission was concerned about limi ting SCI uses. The Corrunission
did not want the resid~ntial component to restrict the commercial
component. This created prOblems for the Andrews and for tbe
people who wanted to occupy the commercial space.
~fiere have been some references made to other areas of the city.
He informed the Commission ana the Dublic that these cases are
q~i_ng .,.,!nv E?_~!: i g,aJ:.~~-I2__~~,fi-:-n==,j:J:i~jiii:ns,~Le,J,nSQ!llP1 i a,n Ce,.Al 's 0
the Commission ana the applicant should be advised that conditional
u~e applicat~ons are discretionary, they are based on the facts
of the particular situation. Therefore, the situation that
exists in one part of the city does not necessarily mean that
same situation ought to exist "lith respect to the application
in front of the Commission. The Commission does has discretion
in conditional use situations.
, ...-.
~ry ,
o
It,"", Hunt added that the, building use site is a pre-existing condition.
HOlv does the building relate to the code of its time? That is
" what it will be judged on, not that it happens to comply "lith
<\X /ui ~he present regulations "Ihich will be determined by the building
0\V, department if in fact they are investigating this. 13il1 Druedipg,
){\~~, uildin de artment, said the building de artment is invest;igatL:lg,
-' Bleeker and no.ted t ere is a pro em" ,
\ F'u.. " " , ,Taddune sympathized with, the layman's vielvpoint about the unequal
treatment and with'the argument that something is being done
in ancther part of the city, therefore, why cannot someone else
do it. The staff's response is that may be improper. ~wo wrongs
~re not going to be allowed. It is a difficult situation.
~ "';~:>vJ,h.e-,- All dr ews pu_;-_ch~sed-'~JLd__C.Ql)JiQ.ljlj,-!:li.~!l!.i.:ze,':1,,!:I1,~,_pJ:()per ty with
~h~, idea, of u.singit differentlY,l:tLaJLj~a,JIO\v~Sl. ,
~,MFS. Andrews added that the property is empty now. Across the
street lower rents are offered. Her building has an old fashion
furnace system, the cost of utilities is high. The building
is unoccupied. Sales have fallen through also because of the
SCI zoning. If she could have applied for neighborhood-commercial
and SCI combined she could have sold or leased the space. She
o
3
,-."
,.-"
o
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reqular Heetinq
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5. 1984
does not have the money to apply for rezoning.
\>.',,2 ,.;.,: !?rueding. said there is a residential unit there which is supposedly
accessory to a business. There has never been an operating
business there yet.
~-)~:~,Taddune commented this proceeding is only setting the record
straight that certain conditions were imposed and those conditions
could not be met. The Andre~ls may be interested in meeting
those conditicns but they do not have the economic wherewithal
to persist in residential use of the space. There is the residual
,problem of the Sarah Pletts condominium, but this is not the
subject of the update.
AJ.r;\":IIJ:S MrJ.J J\,.,,'lre~ asked for the park dedication fee back. Taddune
said the Andrews are entitled to a reimbursement of the park
dedication fee since they are not pur[;uing the residential use.
''tj./{l/F:Y. Ha!;'y~ asked for an explanation of the discrepancy in estimates,
~ $12,000 to $413,000-$80,000. Drueding said he was part of the
~ meetings and privy to a number of meetings with Gary Esary.
There is a difference between a three-hour fire wall and a three-
hour fire separation. A three-hour fire wall simply means a
wall. A three-hour fire separation means encasing the entire
space. A three-hour fire separation is much more expensive
than a three-hour fire wall. Jim IHlson \1aS aware the entire
time that a three-hour fire separation was required. It was
never clear to the Commission what was required. Th~re \ias
a lack of communication. - -
tror.rr.; Hunt said the root' of the problem is there were nontechnical
- people using technical terms. When he used the term fire wall
he envisioned the units being separable by a vertical wall from
the rest of commercial activity. That is, a three-hour fire wall.
Is there something different in the design bet\1een a Hall and
a separation. Drueding clarified that a three-hour fire separation
includes floor, ceiling and walls. Mrs. Andrews said the Andrews
and Pletts units are located on the top floor, the commercial
space was below which means encasing the ceilings.
~,,'~~>,\;Anderson revi'3wed the letter from Bach and the Uniform Building
~Code. He tried to relate each item in the permitted uses, Section
24-3.2. The liB" occupancy is gas and service stations, whol esal e
and retail stores, office buildings, factories and workshops
using materials !1.Q1. highly flammable or combustible... The
~
4
'-~
"-\,~
{~'\
, ,
-'oj
. RECORD OF PROCEED..ImiS
Re<]ular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 5. 1984
"H" occupancy requires a three-hour fire wall. The "B" occupancy
requires a one-hour fire \val1 or no separation at all. The
permitted use section reads "provided no permittea use creates
unusual tr'affic hazard, dust, noise, fumes, odor, smoke, vapor,
vibration, glare, or industrial waste disposal problems." It
should have been interpreted in the first place that it was
a separation not a wall. The only real occupancy allowed in
this zone district is liB". -, '
ictJv,1,1'cv''' Nrs. Andre~IS said when Jim Rose tried to buy the space it was
discovered that an auto mechanic shop (with welding) \vas not
an allowed use in the zone. Taddune remarked the mechanic needed
the use of welding in order to repair cars; the mechanic w~s
not allowed to weld in this particular space because the building
code required a three-hour fire separation as opposed to a thre~-
houi fire wall. Any SCI use that involves a welding operation
,or hazardous or flammable material requires a separation.
!r;;):?(('idV Anderson argued that hazardous or f1ammilble materials are allO\ved
~, in the seI zone, including welding shops, according to the chart.
'" . Druedin.!LcoI;1!"!lel1!:~(L.~l1at "J)m. l^lilson, thec:l1ief building off icia2.,
iJatrOlled the area there and. determinecl there were three uses
he-:ConsTq,~.t ~a-'not~pe'y':;TsiLqQl~J1se,p.'.J1L, tl1.9.t. ,.,.~tli1.db I1g. Anderson
said there is---no-reference to \,elding as a conditional use.
r , Dr ued.!.n.3._~.':~.91'1.~},?ond~termined, t.hree def ~nite uses that. \>/,?uld
; ^; 1/,;../f15ehEzarqQtls..:l.ses.~n!:h9~_~~_E:a. that.\>/_E!fe,p.etm~tF.ed by, thelllun~c.~.pal
,:.l-"".:.?~l' .f.ode. How unusual no~se or dust dei~ned ~s a Judgement call
,'- thaT; is hard to enforce. !li).son """1'; quite cOllf.iQl'!l).t .tl1<3,t"D,e
, 'y '0~~~}:t~~~eQ~~l~~~~etr~~;~~~.i~~gf~~tl~:-f~a~~.~~~rew(~~:::~~QO~s~)
T,.,.o i)u~ !i:l.ddtl.!1~ said they are ,also heal th and safety concerns. The
clarification needed from the Commission was whether or not
the Commission was fundamentally concerned about diminishing
the SCI uses. If the Commission is concerned about diminishing
uses, then the accessory residential use should not be permitted
unless there is a three-hour fire separation as opposed to a
three-hour fire ~lall. If the Commission is not concerned about
diminishing the SCI uses then the problem goes away.
);te,;zvl<{;
Drueding explained the Andre\vs are on the second floor. Do~mstai rs
is a commercial space not o~med by the Andre\>/s. The Andrews'
unit is a separate residence. A box could be built around the
unit.
~,
! "I
\., -
5
,-'
-,
c)
'RECORD OF PROCEEDIllGS
Regular Meeting
Plannina and Zoning Commission
June 5. 1984
'? i76..IIV~ _
--
l'enne_ explained the Andrews were going to operate an equipment
rental business out of thei r uni t. The commercial space was
going to be part of the residential space. Mrs. Andrews said
that was the original idea, but the design changea, the business
would be in the contiguous space dOlmstairs. But this does not
include the front space where the _shop used to be which was
up for sale or lease. The Commission was concerned that in
the fut.uJ:e some use might come in requiring a fire wall. Hunt
said that is adjacent space he conceived as one co~~ercial-resi-
dential unit. One commercial-residential unit requires a three-
hour fire wall separating it from the rest of the activities
that could be SCI. Drueding said if _the Andrews occupied the
space upstairs and downstairs then they could, but this is net
the situation.
IA~/Y'!Pi>, Pardee spoke. The issue is does the
--, the continued use and availability of
The SCI uses need to be protected.
be diminished by residential accessory
() ItuUl
Commission want to insure
SCI uses in the SCI ~one.
The SCI uses should not
uses.
jl()ger Hunt moved to determine ~lhether the Commission wants 'to
maintain the integrity of the SCI zone by requiring three-hour
fire separation in compliance with code; s~conded by Lee Pardee.
-.-......--...
Discussion. Anderson said the Commission needs to vote for
this but the code has not been interpreted correctly. Harvey
. discouraged code interpretation. Taddune said staff spent much
time trying to make this- wor-k. .Different scenarios were tried.
It could not be \~orked out. He had to defer to the building
department to make in the field type determinations as to what
was hazardous and what was not. Every possible alternative
was explored.
Harvey interpreted the motion as a vote supporting maintaining
SCI at the inconvenience of residential use. All in favor:
motion carried.
Harvey commented accessory residential use can in certain circum-
stances be of great benefit. There is a lot of SCI space in
this town that is sitting empty. Taddune answered that certain
configurations can accomplish that. This is a situation which
does not work.
o
Hunt reported for white that there is a definite need for places
for artists to have a place of residence I-lith a shop or studio. What
6
-----_._._-~-_._--,....,.-
.."'--,_.. ,._._.._----------~-_....~-_._._,...;._._. ,"-
"
I,..........
: J
,".'
,-....~
",..~j
(".,,)
,~J
. ,
-,
''-'
. ._-",
''-'
'RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
. Regular fleeting
Plannino and Zoning Cpmmission
June 5. 1984
area does this type of zoning belong? .Taddune said the home
occupation zone accommodates that.
Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen TimSL~, asked if the residential
and commercial space was on the same floor would the three-hour
fire wall be adequate. Drueding replied if there was a one
story building then three-hour fire \~alls would be adequate.
But with a second story, fire can burn vertically, therefore
the unit would have to be encased with a fire separation. Dunaway
asked if there \~as a SCI use on the second floor \Vould the separation
still be required. Drueding .explained the fire separation :,s
required bet\Veen the business and residential unit. The building
.in the past has never been used for residential use. ASCI
use does not require a separation. The code is trying to protect
the ,safety of the residential use.' Anderson noted that between
a less hazardous SCI use and a more hazardous SCI use a separation
is required also. What has happened here is that 90% of the
SCI uses have been eliminated by mandating the worse, possible
scenario. ~lrs. Andre\~s would have sigr,ed a condition.a.r .'If and
when the space \~as sold to a use requiring a fire separation
to build the separation. ,But could the Andrews be allo~led tne
condi tional use prior to that? But the Andre\'ls \Vere told they
had to pre-construct the fire separation before they would be
a110\Ved their conditional use. The Andre\Vs could not agree
to that. Harvey said the concern was that the Commission \'laS
not protecting the potential for a wide number of seI uses.
Taddune said there is no need for a motion on the park dedication
fee, the refund will be handled administratively.
OLD BUSINESS
ASPEN l-fOUNTAIN LODGE El>1PLOYEE ROUSING RESOLUTION
Hunt addressed Section 1. Identify the year of the dollars ($250
and $2130, respectively) in paragraph three and five. Sunny
Vann, planning office, saia this is only a conceptual approval.
A PUD agreement will be detai:I.ed. A deed restriction which \Vill
have to pass by the housing authori ty and the ci ty attorney
will be detailed also. Harvey said it is easy to get fixed
at $250. The inflation factor has to be dealt with. May be
the $250 should be adjusted in accordance with the housing guide-
lines.
Vann said the condi tion represents an ini tial start. The guidel ines
will need to be discussed. The conditions of the housing authority
applicable have to be discussed. It is inappropriate at conceptual
7
-.
,,-.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
Building Enforcement Officer
FROM:
Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
Pletz Rezoning
DATE:
February 20, 1985
======================================================================
Attached for your review is an application submitted by 412 N. Mill
Condominium Association, requesting a change in zoning. The appli-
cant is requesting that the S/C/I zone district be changed to in-
clude as a permitted use, artists' studios with optional accessory
dwelling ,unit. They also propose that the "INTENTION" be. amended
"to allow for employee residences in or adjacent to professional
artists' studios as a permitted use."
Please review this application and return your referral comments to
the Planning Office no later than March 19, 1985, in order for this
Office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before
P&Z on April 2nd, at a public hearing.
Thank you.
:-.
;....\
,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Private S/C/IZone Code Amendment: Artists' Studios
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 2, 1985, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in City council Chambers, 130
S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by
412 N. Mill Street Condominium Association, r.equesting an amendment
to Section 24-3.2, Zoning, of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado. Specifically, the applicant proposes to amend the
Intetion and Uses provisions of Section 24-3.2 with respect to the
S/C/I zone to include ar~ists' studios with optional accessory
dwelling units as permitted uses.
For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman, Aspen Plann~ng
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on February 28, 1985.
City of Aspen Account.
I
I
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
i
"
,
I
~ DISPOSITION:
. /' Reviewed by:
~, ' Z
e' , ,~. . &~ . . .Q.V\A.tAV\e' "
~.V71-J oJ) oL Q Cod <<- _ ~~(c_Q.)/1A ''''\QY'J-- -In
~:4 II -,. ~ I s-h d' I' ..:..u- I
n.. 0.. r--Tl ~ ).. . In o....s 0.. ~ rYY\ I II e q
~'9- ~v> ~ ~c..:c ~~ ~~ r7l~JO)"
~~. r.\ 1~Q.v\+ ()~ ~ ,..24- 3.2. Q
.
,
AspL . P&Z
, ~hJe.d
.~,
Ci ty CouncL.. ,
c?y co~
Reviewed By:' Aspen P&Z
\S\ ~ _ -Sl.\.~-"
'2-~~- ~~~2-1
(Pv..",-d iJL"~ o~'-"-"~ S~" ~ o~ ('i.~r
..)\......."",,- ~ "- A.~~,~") '\ <:>~v Q.'-<;) '-' ..."U\...
O~\.vo~,~ A.CA.-,,-<,.~o""1 LL-l(,:"" v<-.....*I\ At
~_' ~ <./~ ~"'- ~ :> cl::- :2.0 ~
\.